Thursday, August 07, 2008

To do what ought not to be done ...

The state editor for Blog Net News Oklahoma recently opined:
First of all, there is no such thing as "Judeo-Christian values." That's a phrase made up by certain Christians who want to feel better about thrusting their supposed moral superiority on the world. They throw "Judeo" into their "values" so as not to seem exclusivist. The truth is that the phrase "Judeo-Christian Values" is code for homophobia and religious discrimination.
He then continues to spew truly hateful speech about citizens who hold traditional Christian values for several more paragraphs. The rhetoric is so inflammatory that were the situations reversed and a Christian public official uttered it, they might be demoted from their position or hounded from public office.

But, it is the sheer ignorance of this statement that astounds me most. To say that there is no such thing as Judaeo Christian values is to display such profound ignorance of history, western culture and the law that only a quasi-Marxist, post modern university could have produced it. This level of ignorance cannot be produced by simply a lack of learning but must instead be instilled by such rebellion against the very nature of fact and reason that it blinds the hearer to the reality surrounding them.

At the time of the American Revolution, the English Common Law was already the law of the land. It was the law of the courts of the Colonies and most of the states have adopted it in one form or another as has Oklahoma in 12 O.S. 2002 as explained by the Oklahoma Supreme Court here: "The common law supplements our statutes. It remains in full force unless it is clearly and expressly modified or abrogated by our constitution or by statute."2 Silver v. Slusher 1988 OK 53. This of course begs the question, what was/is the English Common Law? At the time of the revolution and for a hundred years thereafter, the most authoritative text on the English Common Law was Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England which states:
MAN, confidered as a creature, muft neceffarily be fubject to the laws of his creator, for he is entirely a dependent being. A being, independent of any other, has no rule to purfue, but fuch as he prefcribes to himfelf; but a ftate of dependance will inevitably oblige the inferior to take the will of him, on whom he depends, as the rule of his conduct: not indeed in every particular, but in all thofe points wherein his dependance confifts. This principle therefore has more or lefs extent and effect, in proportion as the fuperiority of the one and the dependance of the other is greater or lefs, abfolute or limited. And confequently as man depends abfolutely upon his maker for every thing, it is neceffary that he fhould in all points conform to his maker's will. This will of his maker is called the law of nature...
THIS law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himfelf, is of courfe fuperior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and fuch of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.
This natural law has been with us in codified form since at least the time of Moses. Justinian recognized it, " The laws of nature, which all nations observe alike, being established by a divine providence, remain ever fixed and immutable."

From Roman times through the Middle Ages and beyond, the natural law remained as civilizations rose and crumbled. "This true law is diffused among all men, is immutable and eternal. To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege" (Cicero). This "divine and natural" law and is expressed in the Ten Commandments. The law is "natural" because reason (which decrees it) belongs to human nature. "These rules are written in the book of that light which we call truth and are imprinted on the heart of man as a seal upon wax" (St. Augustine). "Natural law is the light of understanding placed in us by God through which we know what we must do and what we must avoid" (St. Augustine).

A thinking lawyer cannot read the books of the Mosaic law (the Torah) without smiling as he finds the elements of modern statutory law, everything from homicide to trespass and a lot in between. I used to preach a sermon where I compared passages from Leviticus and Deuteronomy to citations from the Oklahoma Statutes and let the congregation make up their own mind where the latter came from.

In the end, this profound, blinding ignorance and the hate that must surely follow it springs from the ultimate rebellion of man against not only his Maker but also against the very nature He created even to the nature of their own being. Unable to avoid the physical attributes of the natural law, they rail instead against its moral component, seeking to justify unnatural moral depravity by equally unnatural human law as is described by Scalia in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas:
The Texas statute undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are “immoral and unacceptable,” Bowers, supra, at 196–the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity. Bowers held that this was a legitimate state interest. The Court today reaches the opposite conclusion. The Texas statute, it says, “furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual,” ante, at 18 (emphasis addded). The Court embraces instead Justice Stevens’ declaration in his Bowers dissent, that “the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice,” ante, at 17. This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. If, as the Court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the above-mentioned laws can survive rational-basis review.
And that is the goal of people such as this. Not to live quietly. Not to privately practice their "lifestyle choices" behind closed doors, but rather to overthrow by force of law the moral sentiments of the majority and then punish and ruin anyone who dares disagree with them. This is not freedom for a minority but rather oppression of the majority and there is a word for that, tyranny.

* * * * *

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. Romans 1:18-31.

9 Comments:

Blogger Sinister said...

I had hoped that my post would elicit a more civilized response from its readers, but clearly you're much more interested in calling me a depraved, ignorant pervert than in having an actual, rational discussion.

So be it. You can mask your hatred and homophobia in whatever religious texts give you the most comfort, but you're stll a bigoted, ignorant, and sad excuse for a human being.

All that the gay community wants is the right to be left alone to live our lives in peace. That's all we want. We don't want to force you to have sex with us. We don't want to come over to your house and have sex on the floor and force you to watch us do it. We don't even want to call you and tell you we're having sex. So why is it your business whether, when, and how we have sex in the privacy of our own lives?

Moreover, how is it your business whether we have the right to get married? Despite your bloviating about religiously based common law, we are a nation based on religious freedom and the rights of the individual. Therefore, it should, again, be none of your business whether I want to marry my life partner.

The bottom line is this.

All we want, all we've EVER wanted, is for people like you, sanctimonious, self-righteous, ignorant, fearful, homophobic theocrats, to leave us the hell alone and let us live our lives in peace.

Kisses,

Sinister

Why can't you accept that?

10:05 AM  
Blogger Sinister said...

By the way, you've been moved to the Conservative bin. Enjoy.

10:21 AM  
Blogger Bill Kumpe said...

Sinister said: Why can't you accept that?
---------------------

"The Scripture teaching (concerning homosexuality) that is being denied is an element of the Gospel itself, that is God's message about how we sinners can be saved. If you refuse to repent, at some point where the Gospel requires you to repent, well, you are not walking according to the Gospel, and what Paul says is that your soul is in danger."

"Now I don't want to believe that, but I dare not disbelieve it -- it's apostolic teaching, it's the Word of God."

J.I. Packer

10:22 AM  
Blogger Sinister said...

How about Jews, then? Am I doomed to burn in Hell because I believe in God differently than you do?

10:34 AM  
Blogger Sinister said...

Ok, I'm going to calm down now and try to discuss this with you rationally.

The real difference here, the real disconnect that the two of us have, is that you keep talking in religious terms, and I'm talking about civil law.

Despite its religious origins, and quite frankly, any legal theory that originated before the Enlightenment is religiously based, current American jurisprudence is based not on Biblical law, but on secular, civil statutes.

The gay community isn't demanding that churches and private organizations be forced to perform same-sex marriages. Churches have the right to perform or not to perform whatever ceremonies they see fit.

What we're asking for is that the government grant us exactly the same rights that heterosexual couples take for granted - the right to a civil marriage contract and the benefits and responsibilities that come with it.

I want to be able to visit my partner in the hospital without having to jump through a lot of legal hoops. I want to be able to inherit from my partner. I want to be able to file my taxes jointly. I want to own a house in joint tenancy. I want to be able to cover my partner with my health care if I have to.

These are very simple legal things that straight couples take for granted. They have nothing to do with religion, or with forcing anything down anyone's throat.

If anything, it's your morality that's being forced down my throat. You're demanding not only that I give up part of who I am, a part that, incidentally, I can't change, but that I also convert to your religion and your way of looking at the world.

All I want is for you to let me live my life in peace and have the same legal rights that you enjoy.

To my mind, it's you who are forcing your morals down my throat.

Can you not, by any stretch of the imagination, see that?

10:42 AM  
Blogger Bill Kumpe said...

Sinister said: "How about Jews .."

-----------

Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth the life. No man comes to the Father but by me." John 14:6.

Now, either Jesus was a liar or He was mistaken. If either is true, He is not the Son of God. And that is the real basis for this argument. If it were up to me nobody except serial killers, Adolph Hitler and Pol Pot would go to hell. But, it's not my decision. I can't change it. Doesn't mean I hate you and doesn't mean I want it to happen. I would be happy to tell you how to accept Jesus Christ as your Savior and Lord.

11:01 AM  
Blogger Bill Kumpe said...

Sinister said: Civil Law vs. Religious Law ...

----------------------
After discussing the history of antisodomy laws, ante, at 7—10, the Court proclaims that, “it should be noted that there is no longstanding history in this country of laws directed at homosexual conduct as a distinct matter,” ante, at 7. This observation in no way casts into doubt the “definitive [historical] conclusion,” id., on which Bowers relied: that our Nation has a longstanding history of laws prohibiting sodomy in general–regardless of whether it was performed by same-sex or opposite-sex couples:

“It is obvious to us that neither of these formulations would extend a fundamental right to homosexuals to engage in acts of consensual sodomy. Proscriptions against that conduct have ancient roots. Sodomy was a criminal offense at common law and was forbidden by the laws of the original 13 States when they ratified the Bill of Rights. In 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, all but 5 of the 37 States in the Union had criminal sodomy laws. In fact, until 1961, all 50 States outlawed sodomy, and today, 24 States and the District of Columbia continue to provide criminal penalties for sodomy performed in private and between consenting adults. Against this background, to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ or ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty’ is, at best, facetious.” 478 U.S., at 192—194 (citations and footnotes omitted; emphasis added).

Scalia dissenting in Lawrence v. Texas.

The American system of government is supposed to allow the people to govern themselves. An overwhelming majority of Oklahomans oppose so called gay marriage as evidenced by the passage of both a State DOMA and State Marriage Amendment. This is not a question of rights and benefits. Any smart lawyer can get around the problems you describe and there is no shortage of smart lawyers willing to help out gays these days. The real problem is one of public acceptance. The gay agenda asks the public to accept and condone actions and lifestyles antithetical to the majority faith of the population.

11:12 AM  
Blogger F. G. Onions for the right said...

What a fascinating discussion as oil and water do not mix.

The young world changer and the man of laws put their cards on the table.

Informative! This would never happen in the olde media.

10:21 PM  
Blogger Bill Kumpe said...

Sinister said: The Bible is contradictory and should be interpreted as a “living document”

-------------------------------------------


These arguments are so typical that I rarely bother to answer them any more. The Bible is the best verified historical document known to mankind. There are perhaps four or five manuscripts of most historical documents like the Odyssey. There are literally hundreds of manuscripts of the scriptures which have been compared to produce the modern translations. There is little serious, scholarly doubt that we have reliable, historically accurate texts. Further, the record of history confirms the prophecies made in the Bible. A serious historical study of the prophetic books as compared to later historic books proves divine authorship beyond any REASONABLE doubt.

Sinister, here is the challenge. You are obviously a skeptic. Tell God that if the Bible is true as written and Jesus is the Son of God, you agree to believe both propositions. But, also tell Him that you have to see incontrovertible proof. Then begin your study. Look at sources from all sides and pay particular attention to archaelogical work that was done before revisionist history (aka lying) was allowable in academia. Or, if you insist, take it upon yourself to write a book completely discrediting some portion of the Bible such as the fulfillment of a major prophecy such as the Destruction of Jerusalem or the historicity of Jesus.

Hint: there are two folks who have already done this and you might start with their work. One is Gen. Lew Wallace the author of Ben Hur. The other is more modern, Josh McDowell, the author of the Evidence That Demands a Verdict series.

6:15 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home