Many thanks to Rod Dreher for taking the time to interact with some of my arguments on the Kim Davis case. Our theological differences notwithstanding, I have appreciated having his voice as part of our public debates, especially now that the welter of voices is trying to drown out the few remaining sane ones like Dreher’s. I appreciated his questions, in other words.
Rod poses a number of questions/scenarios concerning the Kim Davis knock-offs. These what-ifs basically seek to apply the golden rule to what Davis is doing. What if it were our ox that some secular county clerk in question was goring? How would we like that? Well, of course, we wouldn’t like it at all.
But that, though a nice statement of the problem, does not answer the problem. We need a solution to the impasse created by political polytheism, which is what under-girds our incoherent system of pluralism and diversity. Schizophrenia doesn’t work for cultures any more than it does for individuals.
So all these questions can be answered, I believe, by emphasizing something that all politically-engaged Christians should get tattooed on their frontal lobes — facing in, so that they can see it all the time.
Political process is not neutral. Administrative process is not neutral. Procedures are not neutral. Constitutional law is not neutral. Nothing is neutral. Everything we do corporately in the body politic is an expression of our foundational faith. That faith will either be the true faith — what I have been calling mere Christendom — or it will be an attempt to build a great skyscraper civilization on the foundation of our watered-down secular concrete.
The “rule of law” is not some “pure neutrality,” an ethereal gas that enables a bunch of members of different faiths and religions to bond together in the same society. The rule of law is actually a codified expression of certain aspects of our Christian inheritance. It is part of our legacy and heritage for a reason. It came from somewhere. It grew and developed in some countries and not in others for profound religious reasons. The rule of law has no evident authority apart from the authority of a transcendent God.
Once the Christian faith has been successfully banished from public life, and Rod Dreher and I are both gathering raspberries in Montana to help keep our small communities alive — his Benedict Option, and my Beza option — the rule of law will be as gone as two years before yesterday. When the tree falls, so do the branches.
This is why the questions Dreher poses don’t really matter. If we want rule of law and even-handedness in our county courthouses, we need Christ there. We cannot postulate a situation where Christ is banished, but we believers can still somehow come to the county seat with an expectation of finding any justice there.
Van Til used to talk about epistemological self-consciousness — where the foundational religious assumptions and the ethical agenda line up. Over the last several decades, I have seen much more of it from the pagans than from the Christians. They know what they are doing. They know what they are tearing down. They know why we are thoroughly confused, and they are running quite an exquisite and elegant game of lies to keep it that way.
That lie is this — that salvation is something you can have without a Savior. You can be lying on the bottom of the pool for an hour, and then suddenly you are wrapped in a towel, sitting in the sun, and no lifeguard that you need to thank. Thanking the lifeguard might land you in court. Some people don’t believe in lifeguards, and it hurts them that you do.
Traditional believers have mysteriously come to believe that is somehow possible for America to saved without her humbling herself and calling upon the Lord. And when I say Lord, I am not referring to some generic sky god, but rather to the Lord Jesus, the one who was born of a virgin and who rose from the dead.
He rose from the dead so that Americans might learn that you can’t have it both ways. You can’t climb a mountain and climb into a hole at the same time, even if you call it principled pluralism. “I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live” (Deut. 30:19).
“The rule of law has no evident authority apart from the authority of a transcendent God.” Indeed.
I second the motion. And Jack, good to see you in here. Long time no see
When bus driver James Blake was asked to explain why he tried to force Rosa Parks to the back of the bus, he said:
“I wasn’t trying to do anything to that Parks woman except do my job. She
was in violation of the city codes, so what was I supposed to do? That
damn bus was full and she wouldn’t move back. I had my orders.”
source: http://www.theguardian.com/news/2002/mar/27/guardianobituaries
Kim Davis is the Rosa Parks of religious freedom.
Rosa Parks was a Communist, so that’s hardly a complimentary comparison.
The comparison with Rosa Parks is surely made on the basis that she, too, was acting on her belief that she wasn’t inferior to other human beings. That’s something Christians can identify with, since we also believe in the equality of all human beings. We might have a different basis for believing it (the Image of God) than Rosa Parks did (whatever vague notion Communism bases its idea of human equality on), but she stood for what she believed in, as Kim Davis is doing. Indeed, the next time you have an opportunity to speak with a Communist/atheist, a comparison… Read more »
The belief that all human beings are equal is Satanic and a cause of much of our present troubles.
Reword it to “the civil authority may not show partiality between persons” and it’s not only not Satanic, it’s an idea that originated in scripture, and it is the same point as Grant is making.
Alright… I’ll bite. In what possible world could you live in where the idea that all men (and women) BY VIRTUE OF THEIR COMMON CREATION IN THE IMAGE OF GOD aren’t equal before God?
The parable of the talents is the obvious illustration of how we are not “equal before God”. “Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required.” Everyone has a responsibility to obey God and give thanks to him, and everyone is a sinner in need of redemption by Jesus, but this doesn’t rest on an abstract idea of “equality”.
I smell a eugenicist.
You’re probably missing the point of the parable, but I’m not going to delve into that. My question is, even if it does demonstrate a type of inequality what does it have to do with where anyone sits on the bus?
State approval of sodomy is public wickedness, bus seating arrangements are not.
I think we’re talking ontological equality, not egalitarian equality. Important distinction, because Doug would be the last one you could possibly call egalitarian.
Sure. I don’t really object to an understanding of Christianity that refers to a metaphysical equality among believers. But I don’t find it productive to talk about because of the incorrect inferences people are encouraged to draw from that these days.
Surely the answer to that is to show the correct inferences. We should not stop proclaiming truth because people might apply it in the wrong way.
Sure. And we can do that without using the word “equality” at all. We don’t lose anything by letting progressives have that word; Christian society and thought got along just fine without it for centuries.
They ARE created equal, in that they are all image bearers. That is true equality
That might be a valid use of the term, but it’s not the one anybody actually uses in arguments. Specifically, that’s not the progressive/communist meaning of “equality”.
So, you don’t believe that all human beings are made in the Image of God? God created Adam and Eve in His Image, and we are all descended from them. That was the meaning of my statement.
So, you don’t believe that all human beings are made in the Image of God? God created Adam and Eve in His Image, and we are all descended from them. How is it Satanic to believe that? Its completely Biblical. If you disagree, then you’ll have to substantiate it Biblically.
I have said nothing to suggest that. I have two children; I love them both, but they’re different people, not “equal” in any sense. Does that mean I love one of them less? Certainly not.
In what sense do we “believe in the equality of all human beings?”
We believe that all human beings are created in the Image of God. All people are equal in the immeasurable dignity and worth of that Image. And also, all people are equally responsible for their sins.
Thank you for clarifying. I wholeheartedly agree.
Well, we could go on with a list of differences: Rosa Parks was black. She lived in Alabama. She was this and that. The purpose of my comparison wasn’t to compare every single detail of Rosa’s life to Kim’s. The point was that she stood up to a bully on a bus who, according to his own words, was merely doing his job enforcing laws.
At least she wasn’t a pedophile whom Wilson encouraged into marriage.
Teresa, BINGO!
I think that everybody knows that this isn’t about religious freedom. If it is, then please tell me you would take the same stand for her if she were a staunch Catholic refusing to process divorces in her office, or a conservative Muslim police chief ordering officers not to interfere with men who are beating their wives.
I think that her supporters just happen to agree with her on homosexuality.
Duly passed laws require divorces to be granted and assault to be investigated.
Then how about a county clerk who refuses to issue marriage licenses to interfaith couples, on the grounds that the marriages are sinful and illegitimate?
Duly passed laws require marriage licenses to be granted to applicants without regard to religion.
I was trying to avoid the interracial marriage analogy, but… here we go:
What if it were 1967, and she were refusing to issue marriage licenses to interracial couples? Kentucky had duly-passed anti-miscegenation laws that the Supreme Court struck down.
Slaps forehead, “Why didn’t anybody think of that comparison?”
Before I answer that, what do YOU think she should have done in that situation? No, on second thought, I still want to hear your answer, but here’s mine: a minor state official can’t just create institutions that the law doesn’t provide for, so no, of course she couldn’t just unilaterally create a license for a marriage that the state wouldn’t recognize. A license that the relevant authority doesn’t recognize isn’t even a thing. She should have told the inter-racial couples to find a preacher to marry them, she wouldn’t tell anybody they were breaking the law, and she’d come… Read more »
Wait, you’re talking about after the law was struck down?
Well, of course she should issue the marriage licenses. A law existed that provided for marriage licenses for men and women, and the law that had barred men and women of different sexes from marrying had been struck down.
No law exists in Kentucky providing for the marriage of people of the same sex. It would be like issuing licenses for people to buy sofas. Such licenses don’t exist in Kentucky, so she can’t issue a license for it.
She should have issued marriage licenses, because her state law was ruled to be unconstitutional. The SCOTUS ruled that “the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.” What is the Supreme Court for, if it doesn’t have supremacy?
The difference is, that in Kentucky, there at that time existed a law that provided for the issuance of marriage licenses to men and women. The law that specifically disallowed men and women of different races was struck down. The law that allowed a man and a woman to marry was already in place. It is the exact same law that was in place before the anti-miscegenation laws were enacted. No law has ever existed in Kentucky that provides for the issuance of marriage licenses to any two people who may or may not be a man and a woman.… Read more »
What y’all should be pushing for (from your own perspective) is for Kentucky to enact a law that creates a license for any two people to marry without regard to sex, in obedience to the Supreme Court’s ruling. Then there would be an actual law requiring Kim Davis to act. As it is, you’re trying to insist that since it’s legal to license motorcycles, motorcyclists have to be included under a law specifically created to license automobiles, and that anyone who says, “I can’t issue non-specific vehicle licenses because there’s no such thing in Kentucky as non-specific vehicle licenses” is… Read more »
I think you’re wrong about that. Kentucky did not define marriage until 1998.
“On November 9, 1973, the Kentucky Court of Appeals ruled in Jones v. Hallahan that two women were properly denied a marriage license based on dictionary definitions of marriage, despite the fact that state statutes did not restrict marriage to a female-male couple. …
Since July 15, 1998, Kentucky’s statutes have defined marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman, prohibited same-sex marriage and declared it contrary to public policy, and denied recognition to same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Kentucky
Maybe I replied to the wrong Dunsworth, but you’re wrong about Kentucky law. They did not define marriage as between a man and a woman until 1998.
Sorry, they’re both me. Along the line I wound up creating two Disqus logins and don’t always remember which one I’m using.
Yes, her duty would be to follow the law of the state of Kentucky since the Supreme Court does not now nor did it then have the authority to strike down anti-miscegenation laws. Sure it says it has that authority, but it only does by matter of policy because people have been wrongly convinced to accept (federal) judicial supremacy.
I don’t know why the separation of powers or federalism is so difficult to understand.
That is why the states originally had state religions.
It’s not merely about religious freedom, but also states’ rights, rule of law, and a myriad of other issues. If you think it isn’t about religious freedom, you’re mistaken. And why would a Catholic refuse to process a divorce when the official standing of the Catholic Church is that it is sometimes necessary (ref. Catechism of the Catholic Church 2238)? As for your other example: Surely physical harm and potential death endured by spousal abuse can’t be compared to this? (No one’s life is at risk in the case at hand, except maybe Mrs. Davis’s from the horrid people sending… Read more »
If it’s about religious freedom, then the official stance of the Catholic church doesn’t matter, does it? The only thing that matters is the individual’s belief, right?
Please define religion for us…
Belief in and worship of supernatural entities.
OK. Thanks.
Now, since a detailed answer about the worship practices of every religion would be unnecessary and very time-consuming, let me narrow the scope:
What does worship mean to a Christian?
Or:
How does a Christian worship God?
If you have a point then get to it. If you think the Kim Davis issue is about religious freedom, then you must be ready to defend a county clerk who doesn’t want to issue marriage licenses to interracial couples, interfaith couples, etc.. If not, then you have to admit that you only support freedom for *your* religion.
Well, I was waiting to use your answer as evidence that you don’t really understand what Christianity is all about…
I was a serious committed Christian for 15 years. But what does it have to do with anything? If Kim Davis were a Muslim, would it have any bearing on her religious freedom if you or I “really” understood her faith or not?
Yes, it would. You wouldn’t be asking a Christian to do something a genuine Christian couldn’t do — check their moral compass at the time clock. It’s our stubborn nature to resist bowing to Caesar, a mere linguistic phrase now but an actual reality among early Christians who refused to bow and worship Caesar’s statue. So, to tell us to leave our “religion” at the door is to show a fundamental misunderstanding of what Christianity is supposed to be. It’s not merely a belief and some rituals in a building. Our worship God is performed when we love God and… Read more »
I don’t expect anybody to leave their beliefs at the door, I just expect them to do their jobs. If their beliefs prevent them from carrying out their duties, then they should not do them but they should not expect to continue to collect a paycheck. Would you be OK with a Jain police officer who refused to use force when required? Or a faith-healing pharmacist who refused to fill any prescriptions? It doesn’t really matter if you think Christianity is different or special. I don’t see any reason why Christianity should receive special treatment, which is what it seems… Read more »
Well, not really. Just trying to show that your hypothetical situations, which are legitimate concerns, would, nevertheless, most likely never happen in reality. And, besides, Obama himself said that any restrictions or penalties placed on Christians would NOT apply to any other religions, specifically Muslims, because it would be “un-American” to apply the same standards and penalties to a religious minority(!). Let me quote: —————————————- 9/7 EDIT: ATTENTION READERS: ＞＞＞The quote below is NOT authentic. ＜＜＜ It came from what looked like a legitimate news site, The National Report, but it’s actual parody news site. I apologize for the error.… Read more »
I’m quite certain that Obama “quote” is a lie. There’s not a single reputable source quoting it, and indeed almost every site running that article is a clear fake (usatoday.com.co, washingtonpost.com.co, etc.). Nice try, though. Isn’t confirmation bias a lovely thing?
Thanks, Kyle. You’re right and I was wrong. The quote is, apparently, a fake. Sorry to all! I had found it on the National Report, a site which appears to be a fake news site.
I was just too careless this time. I’ll make a note of it in my post above.
Note: Here’s where I originally found it:
http://nationalreport.net/obama-will-revoke-tax-exempt-status-churches-refuse-wed-gays/
If you can, ignore the quote. Maybe you’ll be wrong, too. Maybe…
jiaxiang, If you believe Kim Davis being a Muslim – – or a Jew, or a Buddhist, etc – – would have changed anything in her case then I submit you do not understand what happened in Judge Bunning’s court. There ARE accommodations in secular law precisely to allow for religious protections. She exceeded the limits of those protections. I think the judge got it right. If you’re interested in the legal details, see: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/04/when-does-your-religion-legally-excuse-you-from-doing-part-of-your-job/ Note: yes, he’s pro-SSM, but he also filed an amicus (friend of the court) brief in both NM and the US Spm Ct in FAVOR… Read more »
Thanks for the link, Kelly.
Usually people are thrown in jail for breaking laws, not for not doing their job, no? So, simple question: What law did she break again?
http://www.westernjournalism.com/mike-huckabee-brings-up-the-one-thing-about-kim-davis-no-ones-talking-about-but-should-be/
She refused to obey a court order. That’s what “contempt of court” means. Suppose a husband had owed a wife child support. Or had visitation rights. But he refused to pay or she refused to let him pick up the children on his assigned weekend. Refusing to obey a court order is contempt. Or he gets cute and pays the alimony with bags of pennies instead of a check. (Yes; stuff that stupid has happened more than once.) Disobey a court order – – ANY court order – – and you risk getting cited for contempt. But first there’s a… Read more »
Hi, Kim! Now, maybe you can read something related to the legal field and understand it the first time. That is not my field, so for me the link requires repeated reading and mental digestion. If taking time to re-read something in order to better understand it is a crime in your book, I admit my guilt. By the way, I appreciate the casual insult there at the end. But rather than return the favor, I’ll be taking the information you shared and read it more, analyze it more, take time to understand it. This topic (and all it entails)… Read more »
More than fair; I mistook you for another Dave because you linked to Huc. My bad. You’re correct, I was hasty. Please accept my apologies.
Oh, no hard feelings! Thanks for being part of my education. I’m reading about the Supremacy Clause right now…
Wish I had been more helpful and less abrasive. Thanks for your patience. If you get boggled down in Art 6 just let me know. I’ll risk bragging/boasting/pontificating/ profound/arrogant to share views with anyone who wants to understand how/why differing views arise.
Hey, Kim. I don’t know about your schedule, but would you care to read this brief blog post and share what you think about it with us?
http://www.afa.net/the-stand/press-releases/two-public-servants-on-different-sides-of-history/
I find it interesting that the AG cried, then cited his personal beliefs as the reason for him not executing his duties (to uphold the law).
Got a big stack of papers beside me: Supremacy Clause; Kim Davis’s Stay, the Volokh article…
Kelly, not Kim, and I’m a he. No biggie. There’s a bunch of these. CA did the same thing, and the US Spm Ct ruled the private party hired to defend CA’s amendment reversing it’s state Spm Ct on gay marriage lacked standing to appeal in federal court. Check out Ed Whelan at “Bench Memos” on “National Review Online” (NRO). The gay hairdresser who stopped doing the NM Gov’s hair because she supported Elaine Photo was also lionized by the press. Showing my bias here, but anyone who expects “balance” or “fairness” or “objectivity” out of the mainline press, well,… Read more »
My apologies about the name fumbling. Should’ve slowed down on that one. I should stop listening to a Podcast, eating lunch, copying papers, and typing all at the same time. LOL Sorry, Kelly. I found your reply interesting. It seems you have some legal training. Is that right? (If you mentioned it in another place on this thread, I’m sorry. I haven’t read the hundreds of comments here.) You said that “KY AG was not disobeying a court order to defend the law.” If that were the case, why the tears? Why was it such a conflict of conscience for… Read more »
“My apologies about the name fumbling.” Ignore that; maybe I shouldn’t have mentioned it at all. (BTW, “katecho” is also a he.) I was much further out of bounds. “It seems you have some legal training. Is that right?” Yes, I’m an attorney. The only other one on the blog is K2, an atheist. “I haven’t read the hundreds of comments here.” No one else has, either. Don’t sweat it. If and when a previous matter becomes important enough for someone to care, it will be found and brought up. ” ‘KY AG was not disobeying a court order to… Read more »
Thank you ever so much for taking the time to write these detailed responses. This one and a previous one I’m going to print out and re-read, then stick in my ever-expanding reference library.
I’ll let you go and ponder these things more.
Thanks again!
Glad you found it useful.
Hi, Kelly. Just one more quick question I thought of while I was reading the news today: Why is it that Gavin Newsom could instruct clerk(s) to issue same-sex marriage licenses without any sort of punishment at a time when they were illegal? Stories say he “asserted” the California’s constitution gave him that authority. However, In this context, I think the word “asserted” is being used to cover what really amounts to “believed”. The reason I ask that is because you mentioned this in one of your previous comments: “Thus, when she ordered EVERYONE ELSE to conform to HER religious… Read more »
As to Newsom, on another blog, I posted: START “Kim Davis should indeed be jailed for obstructing a federal mandate, but only after the neo-Confederate nullificationist mayor, Board of Supervisors, and sheriff of San Francisco.” No, only she violated a court order. The others either never received one or obeyed when they did. Of course they are only symptoms, not problems in their own right. As those of us of a certain age are being reminded almost daily, “A fish rots from the head down.” STOP Note: In case you’re not of a ceratin age, that “head down” thing refers… Read more »
This is more about who is God and who gets to be in charge than religious freedom.
Well I’ve clearly had enough Internet for today.
Amen. Liberty, due process, and rule of law are concepts that only make sense in the context of a Christian state; our ancestors inherited one but threw it away. Christians and progressives in North America are now engaged in fourth-generational war, contending for moral supremacy and political legitimacy. Thank you Pastor Wilson for blowing the bugle distinctly.
A caption to capture the attitude of Western society that is more consistent with the meme above might be: “ALL the beliefs…except the Gospel!”
Which is a demonstration that the Gospel has real power!
I notice that Christians (and secularists go without saying) are quick to offer praise to the civil disobedience that advanced progressivism but are very conflicted about any civil disobedience that would limit it.
I’m not sure if this was mentioned before in the “Yellow Paint” comments since I don’t want to wade through 500 of them to check. Back in 2004, the gay marriage proponents had their own “Doctrine of Lesser Magistrates” moment. San Fransisco mayor Gavin Newsom (who is now Lt. Gov of CA and running for Gov in ’18) directed city clerks to issue gay marriage licenses, against CA law at the time, which they did. Newsom quit when SCOCA told him to. Now, I may be breaking ranks with some here, but I don’t begrudge Newsom his ability to participate… Read more »
Newsom’s defiance gave recognition to rights he thought that some people deserved, while Davis’ defiance denies the rights she believes some people do not deserve. That’s an enormous and very important distinction.
“Human rights” are an invention of the Enlightenment and are an anti-Christian concept. The relevant distinction here is between promoting public wickedness and preventing it.
I will pay real money to buy you a one-way plane ticket to a place where most people agree that “human rights” is a blasphemous invention of secular Western intellectuals. They even have religious police to prevent public wickedness! You guys would get along.
Substitute “Christian” with “Islamic” and you have *precisely* the same argument as the Taliban or IS.
John, are you a Christian?
I’m asking because it will help me know how to hear your argumentation…
I am not. I don’t believe that the mere claim of divine revelation is sufficient justification for a law. People like @ash_vk:disqus want you to just trust them when they tell you that, in their theocracy (unlike the other guys), they are getting their laws straight from God.
Thank you for responding, much appreciated, and welcome to the board.
Now to start eviscerating your argumentation with snarky witticisms… :)
John ignore ashv. Trolling. But we do want to know what revelation you have about law. We would like to order the book so we can get to studying right away. Looking forward to a “new” authority so we can figure out all these misunderstandings about our laws.
The same way we figure out anything else: using reason and what we observe in reality.
Your thoughts on Natural Law? Stuff like “when in the course of human events..” and “Amendment 2”
Of course.
However, *your* team has blasphemy laws and religious police too. Just ask Brendan Eich, James Watson, or Jason Richwine.
You aren’t all that different from the Mohammedans either, your people just worship Moloch instead of Allah.
Did you notice that Wilson made Land’s Chaos Patch this week?
Are you putting that forth as a guiding principle? Off the top of my head I can think of a few circumstances where I think you might be on the opposite side. Convicted felons shouldn’t have the right to own guns. Adults and 8 year olds shouldn’t have the right to marry. Women shouldn’t have the right to choose “after birth abortion” against their 10 year old.
There are arguments for prohibiting those things that are not “because God said so.”
Exactly. And those arguments represent non-neutral moral judgments just like “God said so” is a non-neutral moral judgment.
As far as I know Christians have never claimed neutrality. “Newsom was wrong because the law was just, and Davis is right because the law is unjust” is certainly not a neutral stance (and if any Christians argue that it is, well, bless their hearts, they are wrong). But those claiming vice-versa are also not taking a neutral stance.
Also because he actively broke an existing statute and she passively disobeyed a non-existent statute (which translates to, she did nothing illegal.) WSJ this morning noted some of the obstacles to getting her out of office. One of them was that she woukl have to be convicted of a crime. We can see why that is a conundrum because there is no legislation to appeal to.
I think it’s wonderful that San Francisco can serve as a haven for people with those kinds of beliefs and lifestyle.
I just wish there was a fence to keep them in.
I’m new to your blog. And I’m definitely not as smart as you are. But I’m a Christian. So here goes: how can we realistically seek for peace and order in a society where not every one is a Christian. I guess my question is simple: should Christians force their beliefs about God’s law and transcendence on those who do not accept it? I mean, it is absolutely sad and lamentable what is going on in our Western societies, where God’s design and God’s Word are disregarded… But I’m trying to understand. How do we realistically engage? By proclaiming that… Read more »
Christian law has been the law of the land for over 200 years despite the fact that not everyone has been a Christian. That’s why we didn’t have school shootings – ever – and left our doors unlocked in many areas, etc. We have managed to get a pagan ruling class of people in large part because those folks lied about who they were on the path to power; pretending to have Christian values that they would stand firm for; and abandoned when they arrived at the ruling party. Now that they have power, they intend to stay. One means… Read more »
Taking a small issue with your “cause-and-effect” statement: We have managed to get a pagan ruling class of people in large part because the Church-going folks sat on their laurels and assumed that life would be just as hunky-dory in perpetuity without the hard work of training up the next generation. Thus, we began flirting with Freudianism, Darwinism, Untarianism, Higher Critical Thinking, Keynesianism, Marxism, and a host of other “cool” stuff we found brewing across the pond. Christians with their pants down at the ankles and their hands in the air gave us Abolitionism, leading us into a bloody war;… Read more »
Both/And. As always.
I actually quite agree with you. You have just said it better.
Note who did the forcing in the case of Kim Davis. There is the matter of simply not cooperating with wickedness (Kim Davis), but on the question of Christians using laws to force others, there must be certain basic enforced barriers around actions that involve crime (murder of unborn babies should be criminally prosecuted) regardless of whether the unbeliever agrees. However, the larger goal is not to simply force the culture from the top down. That rarely works anyway, since politics is downstream of culture. To attempt to bypass cultural change, and simply gain seats of political power by hook… Read more »
Kim Davis is not just “not cooperating”, but actually ordered her office not to issue marriage licenses. She is taking active steps to obstruct the rights of people in her county.
Which rights is she obstructing?
Only because by law her signature is required. There are alternatives that could have been sought. A judge without her same moral qualms could have been permitted to do it.
Kim Davis is following Federal and Kentucky Constitution and laws. That is a huge fact that is overlooked in all these discussions. She is not obstructing rights, but rather keeping the rights which she swore to uphold. Judge Bunning made up a political hot air excuse in an attempt to force Davis to violate the law. In fact, he is violating his oath of office. He did not cite any Federal titles or codes nor any Kentucky titles or codes that Kim Davis violated. Instead, he made up a court order demanding she comply, which since he is not ruling… Read more »
Thought experiment: if the USSC can issue a ruling that requires Kentucky to issue a certain kind of marriage license, why can’t Judge Bunning issue a ruling that permits someone other than Kim Davis to sign those licenses, under the “least restrictive” clause of the RFRA? “But! By state law, the county clerk has to issue the licenses!” Yeah, and by state law, two dudes can’t get married. A court ruling was deemed sufficient to change THAT rather major detail of the process, but the universe grinds to a halt because Kim Davis won’t sign her name and there’s nothing… Read more »
Phil, per God’s Word below, godly people do not force their beliefs on anyone. Like Jesus, we speak the truth and His Spirit and Truth does its’ work on peoples hearts after we, His vessels, have repeated His truth. For instance, while Wilson’s blog speaks much truth, this blog simply cannot force anyone to do anything. This blog simply Salts the earth, just the thing we are supposed to do. Yes, stupid thoughts are demolished here and in their place, thoughts obedient to Christ are made known. Even so people are still free to disobey Christ. People are under no… Read more »
What do you do with Matthew 28:18?
Matthew 28: 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” Nord357, “All authority” has been given to Jesus, not me. While I am not all that great at the “Make disciples of all nations” directive, we “make”… Read more »
“Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”
My children have not been taught to observe my commands until they are in fact observing them. I daresay it is the same for the balance of the human race.
I am pretty sure that you cant teach anyone to observe anything, nor yet make them a disciple if you offer it as an option among many.
What God said. (no “force” involved, which is the topic I spoke about. “Come” an option, “give” an option, “take” an option. No “force” involved.)
Matthew 11:28-30
28 “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”
Doesn’t the “them” in the “Teaching them to observe” refer to disciples? As in, discipleship in Christ, with accompanying baptism, precedes (effective) teaching? That I think is part of what OP is grappling with, as are many of us.
JG, “them” in Matt. 28:18, is a different “them” from Matt 28:19.
As the “nations” (and doubters) are taught, (aka “them”) some will become disciples because they were taught. Teaching happens, even if some of “them” refuse to learn. Learning is optional, though refusing to learn is inadvisable.
Item 1 is make disciples ,”of all the nations” “Teaching them to observe” is how disciples are made. A disciple does as the master does, same root word in Latin as discipline. In terms of linear progression then teaching to observe is exactly making a disciple.
Then you believe it is sinful for Christians to be kings, governors, or police?
ASHV, if you are asking me this question, lighten up on co-mingling concepts. By national charter of any sort, Kings, Governors and Police enforce laws. Laws of course do spring from beliefs, but laws and beliefs are not the same thing. In the realm of belief, Christians go the 2 Cor. 10 route. In the realm of Governing authority law, Christians go the Romans 13 route. (and Christians can be government authorities, to answer your question) Here it should be pointed out the Judges and Courts cannot by our charter, the Constitution, make laws. The Legislature makes laws. In this… Read more »
Sure. If we had a situation as good as the Jews had in the Roman empire, then we’d have little cause to complain. We are not so fortunate today.
A’, come on, while there were some godly romans, Israel was supposed to be “occupied” by God. Instead, Israel was occupied by Rome, an empire that said it was god. Israel was under oppression during the life of Christ, Israel was crushed after His death. You are overrating the Roman empire. As for our American “empire”, there are still plenty of Christians occupying it, and we live and speak Gods’ truth to it, for its’ benefit and ours.
The Romans allowed the Jews to make and enforce their own laws, for the most part. Christians don’t have that in the USA.
A’, The Romans ultimately crushed the Jews. You are off the rails a bit on your history. US Law has generally been Judeo Christian principle. Those principles are at the moment, less respected than they should be. Proper discourse is one means to re-establish Judeo Christian principles. Wisdom never goes completely out of fashion.
“Wisdom never goes completely out of fashion.” – But that doesn’t stop them from continuing to try.
No such thing as “Judeo-Christian” principles; the Jews as a people rejected Christ. And yes, the Romans crushed the Jews for staging a tax revolt and attacking Roman citizens… after Jesus’ time. During the period of the Gospels the Jews were allowed to keep their own laws so long as they paid taxes and didn’t challenge Rome. American law has been based on Christian principle insofar as it inherited it from English society. It’s a cut flower with no roots in the Gospel. “Proper discourse” is only possible with people that share common ground with us, and today’s progressives do… Read more »
A’ sorry, you are wrong again. The Word of God, the Bible is among many things, a Judeo-Christian book, full of Judeo-Christian principles, regardless of what a single generation of AD Jews did back in the day. Some jews accepted Christ, some did not. Just like now. What Wisdom speaks is always a proper discourse, even when people try hard not to listen, although I do agree that such is not much of a discourse. Jesus speaking to the Pharisees in the Temple Court was such a lopsided discourse. But He still had the discourse. He still does today.
Jews that accepted Christ are Christians. “Judeo-Christian” is a term invented to yoke belief with unbelief and should be rejected.
Do you think we should stone publicly professed gay people?
Edit: or put them to death is some other way?
Edit #2: Let me nuance this a little more. Do you think that homosexuality should be punishable by death?
I believe this a topic on which reasonable people can disagree. I don’t have strong opinions myself.
That doesn’t really answer my question, but I’m not trying to back you into a corner. If you would prefer not to voice your opinion thats fine. I am curious though why you think this is an issue where disagreement is allowed.
It’s not something I’ve thought deeply about, but the general principle I’d endorse is that it’s best to publicly suppress sins of that kind somehow. Russia’s law against publishing homosexual propaganda is a good step in that direction.
Sorry A’, you are still wrong. “Judeo-Christian” : The term is also used by scholars to refer to the connections between the precursors of Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism in the Second Temple period. aka, historical progerssion. You don’t get to invent definitions and common usage of terms to deny the meaning others are trying to communicate through those terms. If you were allowed to do that, you would be some sort of “bluestocking”, of the type Wilson discussed this week. Anyway, you are arguing agianst reality and The Word, not me. While all verses can be missapplied, God said “Then… Read more »
The term “Judeo-Christian” was popularised in America in the 20th century to attack the idea of America as a Christian nation. There are no “precursors” of the Church and Rabbinic Judaism – the latter is a post-Christian phenomenon specifically developed as a rejection of Jesus as Messiah. Certainly we should pay taxes and show honour and respect to kings and governors who protect us by keeping the peace. Although the USA was founded as a formally atheist state, its subjects were mostly Christian and inheritors of a Christian culture. Today open wickedness is celebrated; the rulers are not God’s servants… Read more »
“Judeo-Christian is more widly defined than you insist. I am faithful now, aren’t you? Our God, well, He,…kicked the ass of darkness quite a while ago, and finally, to end where I started today: 2 Corinthians 10 3 For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. 4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to… Read more »
Some very good comments. Thanks.
When a government enforces its law, it is “forcing beliefs” on its subjects — the question is not whether this will happen, but which beliefs are behind the laws. The choice is between Christian law and anti-Christian law. As Pastor Wilson said in his recent “Totalitolerance” post, a government based on Christian law has a basis for true tolerance of differences in belief, whereas the USA does not since its law is rooted in liberalism. The basis for peace and order is to enforce public behaviour that accords with Christian virtue and promotes the flourishing of a healthy society. (The… Read more »
Welcome to the blog, Phil
Piper is to Christian Hedonism as Wilson is to no neutral ground. Keep sounding that note brother. We need a Billy Graham Crusade sized campaign declaring “Jesus is King! What does that Mean?”
Piper carried the ball for multiculturalism so this generation could do the same for feminism and homosex.
To which ball are you referring?
Piper has written glowing accounts of lily-white Minneapolis receiving immigrants from places like Somalia.
Forgive me, I’m confused on why somalians coming to Minneapolis is a bad thing? Are these reviews Piper is writing not revolving around evangelism and discipleship? Not intending to get too far off the tracks. I was originally just sharing my thoughts about how the two pastors hit the same notes a lot and being thankful for them doing that.
Hint: it’s because Job is a racist.
Hint: Culture matters.
Regarding that particular example of Piper’s multiculturalism, imagine that instead of risking his life going to Ecuador, Jim Elliot had the government bring the Huaorani to Seattle and then “witnessed” by giving out handouts while his neighbors were getting speared on a regular basis. In the bigger picture the problem is absorbing the ethic of equalitarianism from the secular culture at large and then bending scripture and bearing false witness against others to support that project. Piper is one of the prominent voices in the Evangelical church which has supported a primarily Marxist understanding of current and historical race relations.… Read more »
Thanks for the explanation.
Murder, rape, robbery, Jihad tourism including the Kenya mall massacre, female genital mutilation, welfare free riding, and general Islamification of America.
I was only referring to Piper’s support for multiculturalism.
I am suspicious of Somalian immigration though. Somali terrorist groups are now recruiting in Minneapolis and have threatened to attack the Mall of America. An Islamic center blew up / burned down under suspicious circumstances that were never investigated.
Furthermore, if the Somalis in Minnesota are comporting themselves at all like they do in Sweden, then they have been raping square-heads in large numbers.
These things have nothing to do with religious freedom. What if Davis were an atheist and were refusing based on her Darwinist belief that homosexuality was bad for the propagation of the species? Why shouldn’t Christians defend her in that scenario as well?
Why should we? “Religious freedom” is not a Christian principle.
Upvoted for showing the theocrat’s hand. You’re about the only one being honest here. To Doug and other Christians: we know it’s not about religious freedom, so stop pretending, OK?
Every form of government is theocratic; every individual, whether he knows it or not, some kind of theocrat. The only question is: Who is the Theos?
So are you saying that, in order for someone live in and be subject to the governing authorities of the United States, they have to all believe in the same Theos?
No, but they have to be willing to be governed by people who do.
Just like Iran.
And every other government, ever.
heh.
Protestant America, with a History preceding the Constitution about equal to that after was just like “Iran”.
I don’t mean America was ever like Iran. I mean the idea that, to live somewhere, you just have to consent to being governed by people who all believe the same conservative religion.
Well, a nation, by definition, is a like people.
You are of the quaint notion that we Christians will become a people ruled by a Pagan government.
Your notion is wrong.
No. I’m saying that everyone has, in fact, some theos (and some creation myth, some covenant, some eschatology, &c.) by which he evaluates the laws and authorities of the United States. So it’s inconsistent to use “theocrat!” as an epithet — for the one speaking it is also a theocrat, though with a different theos.
The accusation of theocrat is used against someone who wants to make the laws of their theos the law which applies to everyone within a particular geographical location, regardless of each individual’s theos. My theos is the God of the Bible, but I don’t want to put people in prison for not following every one of his laws.
Neither does Doug Wilson. There is a distinction between sins and crimes. “Thou shalt not covet” is one of the ten commandments, but it doesn’t belong in a penal code (though the violation of that particular commandment is often a precursor to transgressions that should be in a penal code). But the distinctions between sins and crimes, the distinctions between those transgressions which should result in punitive fines and jail time and those transgressions which carry only the sanction of some level of official disapproval — how those distinctions are made is governed by the theos. The Father of the… Read more »
Hm, yes, I’ve had Christian friends tell me how “not all sins are crimes” before. They specifically said that Exodus 21:21 meant that beating your slave should not be a crime, even though it is awfully mean and probably a sin. What do you think?
Either you accept Scripture as the basis for valid law, and we can discuss the wisdom or foolishness of a particular application of it to law — or you reject it and you have to come up with a reason for Christians to care about your bad feels.
Which is it?
Either you accept the Holy Quran as the basis for valid law, or you reject it and have to come up with a reason for why the Caliph should care about your bad feels. See how that works?
The burden is on Christians (or anybody else who would impose a theocracy) to ***demonstrate*** why everybody else should bow down to their beliefs.
You’re the one who’s citing scripture and asking how to apply it in law. Guess that makes you a “theocrat”.
Europe got along just fine having Christian nations for a dozen
centuries plus and produced the world’s most culturally and
technologically advanced civilisation. No reason we can’t go back to something with a track record that good.
I don’t think you actually dumb enough to believe that wondering about how a theocracy would work makes one a theocrat. Which Christian beliefs contributed cultural and technological advancements? Do you think that these things are only possible with Christianity? Don’t the peaceful, prosperous, advanced secular democracies of the world today prove you completely wrong?
The “peaceful, prosperous secular democracies” celebrate sodomy and abortion. The burden is on Americans to demonstrate everybody else should bow down to their beliefs.
A slave is a person, and striking someone without justification (self-defense, defense of others) is battery.
As for the equity of Ex. 21:21, compare 21:18-19.
The matters described in St. Matthew 5:22, on the other hand, are sins but not crimes.
Oh, no, not without justification. They were talking about beating a slave as a form of discipline. This is legal under the system of Theonomy they were proposing.
Pagan Rome had oodles of slaves.
Christianity, starting with St. Paul’s letter to Philemon, ended slavery.
It is quaint watching a neo-pagan defend Christian virtue.
Didn’t it take about 1800 years for “Christianity” to figure that out? Which Christianity figured it out?
Ah! that time thing (as per my previous comment)
To us 1800 years is a long time. To God it is not. He works His things His way at His pace, not ours. The idea is that of “a little leaven” or some such thing where the seed takes root (to mix metaphors) and the plant grows.
No, you may have to yield to their might but that doesn’t mean you have to support their claims to moral authority. America worked because of a unity of values and to the extent those weren’t shared it never worked. The idea of a principled peaceful pluralism is a conceit. Such pluralism may be squeezed from a grudging populace by power alone. You can join the state religion, which is currently universalism, or you can live as an outsider as religious dissenters typically do in a society.
I think that you are equivocating here. We both know that a theocracy is a form of government where authority is asserted through claims about the wishes of a deity (a supernatural being).
David is correct, no equivocation. It is a bald fact that all government claims authority from some higher principle or power and that is by definition the Theos. Whether it be naked power or popular opinion. Definition of morality and hence law to support said morality always come from someones theos.
According to whose definition? Not any that I can find… Just so we’re clear: if we’re just tossing all definitions of words in the garbage, then there’s no conversation to be had. “Theocracy” means something. It does not mean “every form of government ever.” Naked power or popular opinion are not deities, and both of them are objective things that can be observed and measured.
Do you think “theocracy” is bad? If so, why — and why should Christians care that you dislike it?
Would you want to live in a Muslim theocracy? I don’t want to live in a Christian theocracy for the exact same reasons.
You ignored the question: *Why should Christians care about your preferences*?
Except life in the US before the cultural revolution threw off the shackles of theocracy didn’t look at all like the Taliban, it was pretty nice.
What makes you think the US was ever a theocracy? It was founded as a system of secular democracy, even though some of the founders thought that religion was (very) important.
Were the states theocracies?
It was pretty nice if you were heterosexual, white and Christian. For others, not so much.
Do you deny that African Americans were generally taller, healthier, godlier, richer, and better educated that Africans?
I don’t know without researching it if you’re right or not, but suppose you are. Would you have been willing to be a Black person living under Jim Crow, even if you had been taller and healthier than your relatives back in the old country?
God puts a man where he will. Trust me, I’m not stoked about living in 21st century America.
Africa was full of bloodshed and squalor. Slavery was rampant until the Brits helped curtail it. Most people were pagans. Compared to that, Jim Crow would be pretty nice. Like, first world problems nice.
Job, the fact that Black Africans were doing bad things to other Black Africans in Africa — and they were — is not a justification for white Americans doing bad things to Black Americans in America. True, it can always be worse, and you can always find someone worse off than you are, but so what?
Not justifying it. I’m simply saying that being a second class citizen in the richest country on earth can be pretty nice.
Granted, being a second class citizen in the US is preferable to being a second class citizen in Ethiopia, but why should anyone be a second class citizen? And, same question I posed to Barnabas; Would you have been willing to be a black person living under Jim Crow?
Historically in pluralistic societies each group would see to its own interest without consideration for the others’. Ought and should didn’t enter into the equation. But that’s beside the point. America was pretty nice even for those people who weren’t white. “Would you have been willing to be a black person living under Jim Crow?” I view American blacks as essentially a nation without a country, so depending on the amount of loyalty I had to my people, I would have either left the South for a different part of the world, or appealed to the rulers in Washington to… Read more »
American blacks do have a country; it’s called the United States of America.
Sure. Just like the Basques have Spain.
Also the fact that the USA conquered the South meant Washington could end Jim Crow. Hence my response.
International political realities are that not every group that wants its own country — like the Basques — can have one, but I’m not sure they’re a good illustration anyway since they want to leave Spain to form their own country whereas American Blacks want to stay in America as full Americans. But be that as it may, the idea that being a country is determined by bloodlines is, as a practical matter, ridiculous. When the Mongols invaded Europe, they deliberately impregnated as many women as they could, with the result that most Europeans have some Asian blood. In the… Read more »
Nations are determined in large part by blood (see the etymology), but countries are not necessarily. Empires usual aren’t. Some countries contain many nations that coexist for a long time, where there is rough parity between all the nations. Other times they break up into separate countries, usually nation states. American blacks don’t have their own country. That is all I meant. They have achieved rough parity within the USA, thanks to the federal government and Christian charity. Whether that will last is another question entirely. I hope it does. You’ll notice that I never wrote anything about racial purity.… Read more »
Hardly surprising, considering who built it.
I will second whoever it was who said that if nothing else, you deserve to be commended for your honesty in blatantly admitting that you don’t believe people who are different from you have any rights. There are reasons, however, for why that viewpoint has fallen into disfavor.
I thought you were a utilitarian, where do “rights” enter the picture?
(“Human rights” are an anti-Christian concept anyway, so I’m no more interested in them than I expect you to be.)
It’s not so much that I have the “right” to something as who has the right to stop me. If you are using force to prevent me from doing what I want to do (including holding on to my property) then there are only two options. Either you have a right to impose your will on me (in which case, where did that right come from), or it’s simply a matter of might makes right and I just need to bide my time until I have more firepower than you do. It’s slightly more complicated than that, but that’s the… Read more »
LOL
They should. Her beliefs would correspond with the reality that God established.
Religious freedom is not possible for all, due to the fact that some things are in opposition. For instance, Christ said you can’t serve God and mammon.
This is excellent and timely given the weak responses that I have been hearing from within the Reformed and other like minded ranks to Ms. Davis’s jailing. Thank you very much. Sideline sitting and waxing philosophical about “rule of law” and “political theory” while ignoring the fact that the other side believes in killing babies under the “rule of law” is social and perhaps literal suicide. The “rule of law” was dealt a death blow with Roe. We have just been dealing with shadows and wishful thinking since. If many of today’s Christian leaders, who prefer far removed bleacher seats… Read more »
It’s time for the American church to make a radical reappraisal of the American revolution, of both the principles and facts.
Huckabee is by all accounts a godly man, but he isn’t “leading.” Leaders don’t start petition drives, they get power and use it.
That’s why I wrote “trying to lead” A campaign for president is a good effort at trying to lead to get power and use it, don’t you think?
Good point, but petitions look weak. Huckabee (and others) have an opening to make this campaign about social issues and steal some of Trump’s popularity. This isn’t going to happen if Christians aren’t even sure if Huckabee would pardon them if they were convicted by tyrannical courts and he had the power to do so.
Autocrats, princes, and tyrants “get power and use it”
Man, do Christians need a lesson in Realpolitik.
Yes. and do we pray for ones who honour God, or oppose Him?
Since I owe my allegiance to the Lord Christ I pray for those who honor Him (spelled right) Im guessing that’s you as well, agitator that you are.
@Nord357: “Since I owe my allegiance to the Lord Christ I pray for those who honor Him (spelled right) Im guessing that’s you as well, agitator that you are.”
An aside…”honour” is a valid alternate spelling for “honor” in the UK and other Commonwealth nations. While I don’t know @ashv’s country of origin, it’s kind of funny calling out a spelling error while committing spelling and grammatical errors in the same run-on sentence.
If we are going to practice gnat-catching, don’t buy cheap nets. ;)
That was snark sorry it missed. I work with a lot of UK boys and girls and that is part of our banter. No offense meant
Back at you – looking back, I should have asked first at “agitator that you are”. Cheers!
Both, just differently.
Ah, I see I was ambiguous. I meant “do we pray to have ones who honour God or not”. Certainly we pray _for_ whichever kind we have.
“The rule of law has no evident authority apart from the authority of a transcendent God.”
This nails it.
Not sure you can say ours has always been a Christ-honoring system. Divorce, drunkenness, gossip, adultery/fornication, physical violence, backstabbing/divisiveness (especially the crap via social media in the name of Jesus), etc have always been legal – by your definition, places where Christ has been banished. Let’s admit that our system has never really been one that wanted Jesus at the helm – even the guys that wrote the constitution banished him (to use your perspective) when they decided to allow slavery. I agree that things are not good, but our system will always give Jesus a seat at the table,… Read more »
“Make disciples”
Christ instructed us to make disciples…of all the nations
..and a disciple does as the master instructs ergo, no obedience no discipleship.
Perhaps we should join hands and sing kumbayah until the unbelievers cease trying to subvert our children, and make our God fearing grandchildren second class citizens in that same land which our fathers declared they were colonizing “for the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith
Lol. I can’t sing. Praying for the Lord to raise up preservative preachers.
Jesus never instructed anybody to make drunkenness, gossip, and fornication illegal.
Besides the fact that drunkenness has been illegal at some times, and physical violence always has been.
There are two related but distinct issues. First, the state of Kentucky has the authority to determine what it recognizes as a valid marriage if it is a sovereign state. It did so by constitutional amendment. Davis is actually the one following the law here. Second, even if her state recognized the “marriages” of two men or two women as legitimate, she is obligated to not give them legitimacy as a Christian. In this scenario one can make the case it is best for her to resign, since she would be technically disobeying (man’s) law. But under no circumstance is… Read more »
Well said! I googled Kentucky law:
402.005 Definition of marriage.
As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, “marriage” refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.
Effective: July 15, 1998
History: Created 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 258, sec. 4, effective July 15, 1998.
And they strengthened this with a constitutional amendment. Look up: “Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1.”
And now we the people of the several states will decide who will rule us. Will we rule ourselves under God or will we submit to these nobodies?
I have made my choice. So has Kim Davis. I think the professional’s will be the last to know.
If many of today’s Christian “leaders” were in Nazi Germany, the check-in-clerk at Auschwitz would feel very comfortable in their front pews with their blind adherence that the “rule of law” absolves all.
christian,
This is probably true of men in most times and places. Human nature is flawed and weak and most of us are followers.
Here’s a fun little “what if?” I’ve been thinking about. What if the supreme court had decided instead that they were making it mandatory for every state to NOT give marriage licenses for same sex couples, and then someone at a clerk court, lets say in Oregon decided to give a couple a marriage license. In essence the same thing that has happened but in reverse. Does anyone think that person would go to jail?
Almost certainly not, but if they did they’d have far more supporters than Davis has had rallying to their defense and calling them heroes and martyrs for the cause.
In 2004, San Francisco did something like this, but they stopped when the court ordered them to. I would expect them to be fined or held in contempt of court just like Kim Davis here if they refused to obey the court order, though.
Mr. Wilson, I can’t decide if you are evil or just plain stupid, in light of recent revelations that Stephen Sitler has become sexually aroused by his infant child. You used your power to keep him free to abuse, and now a family may very well be destroyed. I call you to repentence. You owe a huge apology to Katie Sitler and her family, but the consequences cannot be undone. Shame, shame, shame on you. http://www.correctionsone.com/corrections/articles/9369232-Idaho-sex-offender-allowed-to-return-home-with-child/
Jack, there is another option, which is that not all the facts are on the table yet. The Christ Church session is going to be issuing a statement that addresses all the relevant facts in a week or so. In the meantime, Prov. 18:17.
So you are of the opinion that an accusation is proof of guilt?
Testing a theory:
Pastor Doug sees “pluralism” as indistinguishable from “multi-culturalism.”
Be a while before I can be back for a longer time. Doing some skimming before lights out.
Kelly, you must really enjoy sending the Jews to the gas chamber. I hope that you are happy just following orders.
Hint: such comments are NOT helping your cause.
Hint: Kelly, your posts show that you would gladly send Jews to the gas chambers. Why do you want to follow man’s law rather than God’s law?
OK lets say that.
Here’s a good example of the difference between “pluralism” and “multi-culuralism:” “First a Clerk, Now a Judge: Oregon Jurist Under Investigation for Refusing to Perform Same-Sex Weddings” by David French. See: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/423632/first-clerk-now-judge-oregon-jurist-under-investigation-refusing-perform-same-sex?target=author&tid=1048 Is this “investigation” merely “pluralism” in operation or is it “multi-culuralism?” To be like Kim Davis, he would have to have issued an order that NO ONE perform such a marriage. He did not. He himself only declined, which had no effect on anyone else. (FWIW, note that the only other JD/lawyer here, K2 the atheist, agrees, as does the WaPo law prof. If the 6th Cir takes… Read more »
Ok. To be clear, I am speaking for myself and not Doug. Although he is certainly invited to chime in. Provided, he has accolades and kudos to heap upon me. It is not possible to have a pluralistic society without eventually looking down the barrel of a multicultural shotgun. It is therefor necessary, should we wish to regain those liberties that have been lost and sfegaurd those that remain. That we insist our society become a Christian one. As John Adams observed in his letter to the Third Mass. “because we have no government armed with power capable of contending… Read more »
No sweat. MaMa has other things for me to do the rest of the day anyway. Given the four stroke cycle of Judges (bondage, deliverance, prosperity, decadence) a/k/a “lather-rinse-repeat” no one ought to expect ANY human society to stay upright continuously. A solidly homogeneous Jewish state did not manage to hold off the pagans. Wise ol’ Solomon drifted away just from foreign women. The Jews once accidentally (re)discovered whole books of their scriptures while doing some remodeling. “Who knew?” became “Who forgot?” Joseph to Moses was about 400 years. The Catholics were in the catacombs about 200 years. The Good… Read more »
Roger that. (all of it) The point for me becomes: “As long as I breath I insist that Jesus is in fact King. Because He is all my speech action and thought,( not necessarily in that order) must reflect that. Understand that civilizations will rise and fall. I submit that they will only do so until we all insist that our culture reflect that fact of His Kingship.’ (I suspect my “dominion-ism” shows a bit there. But there you have it.) Until it does we are necessarily subject to the exigencies of “lather rinse and repeat.” Some of us are… Read more »
Pleasantly surprised we reached so much agreement. If timothy and katecho ever see even close to eye-to-eye with you and I, perhaps that will signal K2 to rethink being an atheist? [;).] One quibble; you decide if it’s minor or major: ” . . . civilizations will rise and fall. I submit that they will only do so until we all insist that our culture reflect that fact of His Kingship.” I never got into pre- vs post- millennial so maybe that’s just over my head. Or maybe that’s a whole ‘nother thing and not a Rev/end-times concept at all?… Read more »
Minor. The only major here is that we understand we have a job to do. My take on this. We were told to “make disciples of all the nations.” Since He told us to do that, I assume that we are going to get it accomplished. Simple guy that I am, I get that we are a stiff necked and truculent people. He did say however that He changed us when He bought us back. Sooner or later when enough of us have been changed we will actually be able to agree on our job description, pull together and get… Read more »
The term “theocracy” comes up a lot on this blog and its generally used to criticize the idea that civil law should conform to God’s word. Its interesting, however, that God separated the powers of priest and king in Israel. Even during the pre-Saul period God separated the political and priestly leadership through Moses and Aaron. I think that civil law should conform to God’s word but that separation is something to think about.
Can a trained OBGYN be forced by a Federal Court to perform an abortion?
Caveats:
– Dr used to perform them but came to Christ and ceased the practice due to his faith
– Dr. works at a government-run health care facility, let’s say the VA, and his salary is paid by Federal Government
– post Roe v Wade decision
My bet is “No.” Since the HHS mandate failed in Hobby Lobby (2014), and since the federal RFRA (Reli Free Rest Act) has been upheld as to the feds, and since the “no inquiry” logic of Thomas (1981) survived Smith (1990), and since the feds can’t meet “least restrictive,” I’m thinking the OBGYN wins. ADDED: how long ago OBGYN changed his mind doesn’t matter, nor does pre or post Roe, nor how badly he expresses himself at the hearing, nor does other Drs of his same faith being willing to do one, nor does the opinion of his bishop (etc,… Read more »