Obama's SCOTUS pick is all kinds of scary
By Josh Mesker
We all knew that President Obama was going to pick a liberal to replace Justice David Souter. And most of us -- especially those who understand Obama's agenda -- were also certain that not only would Souter's replacement be a liberal, he or she would be a judicial activist, too.
Of course, a judge can personally adhere to liberalism and still cling to the most important rule: Judge with impartiality according to the law, not with your personal feelings. Unfortunately, a liberal worldview doesn't usually allow for such a separation to be made. To far-left judicial activists, the courts are where policy is created.
Sonia Sotomayor certainly seems to think so as well.
Sotomayor has also said that she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their "experiences as women and people of color" and that should "affect our decisions." These comments were made during a speech at Berkeley (where she no doubt got a warm recpetion) back in 2002. Later, she went on to say that "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."
The video I posted above, which is Sotomayor at Duke University in 2005, reveals that she has no respect for a judicial philosophy that actually upholds the law. Her quote, "the Court of Appeals is where policy is made," should be constantly repeated until everyone has heard what she really thinks about responsible judgeship.
More on Sotomayor as it develops.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Perez Hilton gets pummeled
Last week after the Miss USA pageant, celebrity blogger Perez Hilton made headlines trashing Miss California Carrie Prejean. Her crime? Disagreeing with Mr. Hilton -- a judge at the pageant -- on whether states should follow Vermont and legalize same-sex marriage.
When asked this question on national television, she responded: "I think that I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's just how I was raised." She then received boos from the audience (mixed in with some cheers), and an irate Hilton turned to his blog, calling Prejean a "dumb bitch." In an interview later, he also eluded to a certain "c-word" to define her.
Most Americans are smart enough to realize where the real hate and intolerance came from. Carrie Prejean was calm and collected -- speaking her mind under serious pressure. Perez Hilton couldn't have been more vile. Prejean later told Fox News: ""By having to answer that (Hilton) question in front of a national audience, God was testing my character and faith. I'm glad I stayed true to myself." Amen.
Well, Mr. Hilton got what he deserved a few days ago in the form of a beat-down by columnist Dennis Prager on Larry King Live. Here's the video for your viewing pleasure.
Isn't it interesting how those who preach tolerance the loudest tend to be the most intolerant of all?
When asked this question on national television, she responded: "I think that I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's just how I was raised." She then received boos from the audience (mixed in with some cheers), and an irate Hilton turned to his blog, calling Prejean a "dumb bitch." In an interview later, he also eluded to a certain "c-word" to define her.
Most Americans are smart enough to realize where the real hate and intolerance came from. Carrie Prejean was calm and collected -- speaking her mind under serious pressure. Perez Hilton couldn't have been more vile. Prejean later told Fox News: ""By having to answer that (Hilton) question in front of a national audience, God was testing my character and faith. I'm glad I stayed true to myself." Amen.
Well, Mr. Hilton got what he deserved a few days ago in the form of a beat-down by columnist Dennis Prager on Larry King Live. Here's the video for your viewing pleasure.
Isn't it interesting how those who preach tolerance the loudest tend to be the most intolerant of all?
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Little Rock Tea Party, 4/15/09
At least 1,000 people attended yesterday's Tea Party in Little Rock. The event was organized flawlessly, especially when you consider that it all came together in a few weeks. Here are some pictures from the festivities -- just click any of them for a larger view. I was so honored to be an Arkansan. Let's keep these things going!
© 2009 - Josh Mesker - all rights reserved
© 2009 - Josh Mesker - all rights reserved
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
New Testament and Homosexuality: 4 Myths
By: Dr. Sean McDonough
Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary
We live in confusing times. The confusion becomes especially marked when it comes to questions of sexuality. Many people, including those within the church, are being taught that the New Testament does not in fact disapprove of homosexual activity. But is this really the case? Let us examine four statements typically made when the conversation turns to this topic:
1. Jesus didn’t talk about homosexuality, so he must not have cared about it. This is extremely misleading. Jesus did condemn sexual immorality quite often (see, e.g. Matt. 5:32, 15:19). The New Testament uses the Greek word porneia, which would have covered a wide range of unlawful sexual behavior – including homosexual activity. Furthermore, Jesus clearly wanted to strengthen sexual morality as understood by the OT rather than to loosen it up. “I did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it” (Matt. 5:17). Can we really believe that the same Jesus who told people that lustful thoughts were tantamount to adultery would suddenly treat homosexual acts as of no great consequence? This is unthinkable. Why, then, did Jesus not single out homosexual activity as a sin the way Paul did? The answer lies in the context of Jesus’ ministry: in the conservative Jewish circles within which Jesus spent the bulk of his time, no one would have publicly affirmed this sort of behavior. Therefore, there was no need to address it explicitly.
2. Prohibition against homosexuality is just another silly Old Testament law, like not eating pork or cheeseburgers. Remember what Jesus said: he did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. While some of the dietary codes and purity laws which separated Israel from the nations may no longer be binding under the New Covenant, this hardly means that the entirety of the Law was one big mistake, as critics imply. The prohibitions against homosexual behavior in Leviticus 18 and 22 look back to the creation of humanity as male and female in Genesis, and affirm the good order that God has placed in his world. Do we have any clearer guidance in the New Testament that these prohibitions—just like loving your neighbor and not committing murder—are still binding on the New Covenant community? Yes. Besides Jesus’ general condemnation of porneia noted above, Paul specifically prohibits homosexual behavior in 1 Cor. 6. But that brings us to our next myth…
3. Paul wasn’t really against modern homosexual relationships. He was only concerned about “imbalanced” and “unjust” relationships between older men and young boys. It is true that Greek homosexual pairings regularly featured an older man and a younger man or boy. But in 1 Cor. 6, Paul uses two words to condemn homosexual activity: malakoi and arsenokoitai. The first literally means “soft ones” and likely refers to the passive partner in homosexual activity. The second is more interesting. It translates as “men who have sex with men,” and it is clearly derived from the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT) of Lev. 18:22: “You shall not sleep (= have sex with) a man like you sleep with a woman.” Since Paul is clearly affirming Leviticus here, he is prohibiting all homosexual behavior in the Christian community, not just pedophilia. The problem is not “injustice,” but a departure from God’s created norms. This theme is also evident in Romans 1, where Paul critiques both female and male homosexual activity.
4. Who cares what the Bible says anyway? This brings us to the heart of the matter: does it really matter what the Bible says? In my experience, would-be advocates for the “biblical” approval of homosexuality eventually concede that it is extremely difficult to argue that Jesus, Paul, or any of the apostles would have condoned homosexual practice. But like the Greek god Proteus, it is necessary to hold them fast with sound arguments before they reveal their true position. Sometimes such activity is sanctioned within a framework of “progressive revelation”—people (including Jesus and Paul) used to think homosexuality was wrong, but now we know better. But how exactly do we know this? Scientific studies? Personal testimonies? It would need to be weighty evidence indeed to completely overthrow the uniform testimony of the word of God. And if the Bible cannot be trusted on such a fundamental matter of human conduct, why would one be inclined to trust it on any other topic? At other times, people will concede that they genuinely do not care about Scripture or God. This admission can be discouraging for Christians to hear, but at least it has become clear where people are standing…or falling.
One final word is in order. One of the presuppositions of modern discussions of this issue is that it is “unloving” to “single out” homosexuality among all the other sins people commit. There is some truth to this. We ought to be just as zealous in our condemnation of greed and sloth and self-righteousness as we are in our condemnation of sexual sins. Furthermore, the New Testament is clear that all of us come to God solely on the basis of his grace and mercy. Precisely because the intellectual climate is so polluted, we need to be particularly careful to minister with grace and sensitivity to those who are struggling with homosexuality.
But I am afraid that “not wanting to be unloving” usually translates into “not wanting to tell the truth.” Whether we like it or not, the issue of homosexuality is out there, and the Church must take a stand. More importantly, there is nothing loving in leading people to believe that their behavior is acceptable when God says otherwise. The medicine of God’s word will no doubt be distasteful to many in our culture, but the consequences of not taking it will be far worse.
Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary
We live in confusing times. The confusion becomes especially marked when it comes to questions of sexuality. Many people, including those within the church, are being taught that the New Testament does not in fact disapprove of homosexual activity. But is this really the case? Let us examine four statements typically made when the conversation turns to this topic:
1. Jesus didn’t talk about homosexuality, so he must not have cared about it. This is extremely misleading. Jesus did condemn sexual immorality quite often (see, e.g. Matt. 5:32, 15:19). The New Testament uses the Greek word porneia, which would have covered a wide range of unlawful sexual behavior – including homosexual activity. Furthermore, Jesus clearly wanted to strengthen sexual morality as understood by the OT rather than to loosen it up. “I did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it” (Matt. 5:17). Can we really believe that the same Jesus who told people that lustful thoughts were tantamount to adultery would suddenly treat homosexual acts as of no great consequence? This is unthinkable. Why, then, did Jesus not single out homosexual activity as a sin the way Paul did? The answer lies in the context of Jesus’ ministry: in the conservative Jewish circles within which Jesus spent the bulk of his time, no one would have publicly affirmed this sort of behavior. Therefore, there was no need to address it explicitly.
2. Prohibition against homosexuality is just another silly Old Testament law, like not eating pork or cheeseburgers. Remember what Jesus said: he did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. While some of the dietary codes and purity laws which separated Israel from the nations may no longer be binding under the New Covenant, this hardly means that the entirety of the Law was one big mistake, as critics imply. The prohibitions against homosexual behavior in Leviticus 18 and 22 look back to the creation of humanity as male and female in Genesis, and affirm the good order that God has placed in his world. Do we have any clearer guidance in the New Testament that these prohibitions—just like loving your neighbor and not committing murder—are still binding on the New Covenant community? Yes. Besides Jesus’ general condemnation of porneia noted above, Paul specifically prohibits homosexual behavior in 1 Cor. 6. But that brings us to our next myth…
3. Paul wasn’t really against modern homosexual relationships. He was only concerned about “imbalanced” and “unjust” relationships between older men and young boys. It is true that Greek homosexual pairings regularly featured an older man and a younger man or boy. But in 1 Cor. 6, Paul uses two words to condemn homosexual activity: malakoi and arsenokoitai. The first literally means “soft ones” and likely refers to the passive partner in homosexual activity. The second is more interesting. It translates as “men who have sex with men,” and it is clearly derived from the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT) of Lev. 18:22: “You shall not sleep (= have sex with) a man like you sleep with a woman.” Since Paul is clearly affirming Leviticus here, he is prohibiting all homosexual behavior in the Christian community, not just pedophilia. The problem is not “injustice,” but a departure from God’s created norms. This theme is also evident in Romans 1, where Paul critiques both female and male homosexual activity.
4. Who cares what the Bible says anyway? This brings us to the heart of the matter: does it really matter what the Bible says? In my experience, would-be advocates for the “biblical” approval of homosexuality eventually concede that it is extremely difficult to argue that Jesus, Paul, or any of the apostles would have condoned homosexual practice. But like the Greek god Proteus, it is necessary to hold them fast with sound arguments before they reveal their true position. Sometimes such activity is sanctioned within a framework of “progressive revelation”—people (including Jesus and Paul) used to think homosexuality was wrong, but now we know better. But how exactly do we know this? Scientific studies? Personal testimonies? It would need to be weighty evidence indeed to completely overthrow the uniform testimony of the word of God. And if the Bible cannot be trusted on such a fundamental matter of human conduct, why would one be inclined to trust it on any other topic? At other times, people will concede that they genuinely do not care about Scripture or God. This admission can be discouraging for Christians to hear, but at least it has become clear where people are standing…or falling.
One final word is in order. One of the presuppositions of modern discussions of this issue is that it is “unloving” to “single out” homosexuality among all the other sins people commit. There is some truth to this. We ought to be just as zealous in our condemnation of greed and sloth and self-righteousness as we are in our condemnation of sexual sins. Furthermore, the New Testament is clear that all of us come to God solely on the basis of his grace and mercy. Precisely because the intellectual climate is so polluted, we need to be particularly careful to minister with grace and sensitivity to those who are struggling with homosexuality.
But I am afraid that “not wanting to be unloving” usually translates into “not wanting to tell the truth.” Whether we like it or not, the issue of homosexuality is out there, and the Church must take a stand. More importantly, there is nothing loving in leading people to believe that their behavior is acceptable when God says otherwise. The medicine of God’s word will no doubt be distasteful to many in our culture, but the consequences of not taking it will be far worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
