At this time of year Christians celebrate Easter, or as I prefer, Resurrection Sunday. As one scans history, no other date put such a mark in time as when Jesus Christ shed His grave-clothes and departed the tomb.
Of all the religions of the world, only Christianity claims an empty tomb for its founder. The physical resurrection of Jesus is the cornerstone of Christianity. British theologian Michael Green said it well when he noted, “Without faith in the resurrection there would be no Christianity at all.” Noted biblical scholar, professor, and author Wilbur M. Smith said that, “The resurrection of Christ is the very citadel of the Christian faith. This is the doctrine that turned the world upside down…” Indeed it did.
C.S. Lewis notes that, “In the earliest days of Christianity an ‘apostle’ was first and foremost a man who claimed to be an eyewitness of the Resurrection,” or more accurately, a witness of the resurrected Christ. He adds that, “to preach Christianity meant primarily to preach the Resurrection.” And preach they did.
The transformation of the disciples of Jesus is one of the greatest evidences of His resurrection. For decades following Jesus’ death and resurrection they preached His “good news.” Biblical references and strong extra-biblical sources have almost all of the disciples dying martyrs’ deaths. James, the son of Zebedee, according to Scripture was, “put to death by the sword (probably beheaded).” According to early church historians Peter was crucified in Rome, and Paul (of course not one of the original 12, but an apostle nonetheless) was beheaded there. Strong church tradition has Thomas, the “doubting” disciple, being run through with a spear.
The manner of martyrdom of the other disciples is less clear, but strong evidence suggests all, save John, died horrific deaths because of their faith. Their unwavering efforts spread the gospel to many regions of the world, including Rome, Greece, Armenia, Persia, Syria, India, Egypt, Libya, Arabia, and North Africa.
The faith of Jesus’ Apostles spread to thousands upon thousands in a relatively short period of time. Many of the early believers suffered intense persecution as well. Fulton Oursler, in The Greatest Faith Ever Known, notes that “Thousands of these men and women would die themselves in the arena, burning on pitch-soaked pyres, crucified, they would die for Jesus Christ, and for the Faith, the Church that Christ founded.”
The persecution of the church continued for centuries. After Constantine’s conversion in the year 312 the church passed from persecution to privilege. Councils were called, the Scriptures were translated into various languages, and missionaries carried the gospel to ever farther reaches of the world.
The influence that Christianity has had on the world can be measured in practically every facet of life. Everything from the family, to science, government, medicine, art, literature, business, and so on, has felt the impact of the message of the Resurrection of Christ.
The world’s first university, birthed in 1088, was The University of Bologna in Italy. It was founded to teach canon law. The second oldest university, The University of Paris, grew out of the cathedral schools of Notre-Dame and soon became a great center for Christian orthodox studies. Dr. Alvin J. Schmidt, in his book Under the Influence: How Christianity Transformed Civilization, points out that every college established in colonial America, except the University of Pennsylvania, was founded by some denomination of Christianity. He adds that, preceding the Civil War, 92 percent of the 182 colleges and universities in the U.S. were established by some branch of the church.
Many of the greatest artists in history: Rembrandt, Michelangelo, Donatello, Da Vinci, and Salvador Dali were Christians. This is evident in that many of the great works they produced were scenes or characters from Scripture. Beethoven, considered by many to be the world’s greatest composer, composed some of the most profound Christian masterpieces of history. Johann Sebastian Bach was, as one scholar put it, indeed “a Christian who lived with the Bible.”
Take note of the number of influential charities inspired by Christianity. Among them are The Salvation Army, Campus Crusade, Catholic Charities, Habitat for Humanity, and the YMCA. Also, about 25% of U.S. hospitals are Christian.
The great nation that we inhabit was founded almost exclusively by Christians and upon Christian principles. The United States has become perhaps the most influential nation in world history. Standing for freedom and justice and operating out of love, this nation, whether through its government or private citizens, has come to the aid and rescue of billions of people around the world.
The current year is 2012. This is not 2012 years from Caesar, Buddha, or Mohammed, but from the birth of Jesus Christ. Dan Flynn notes that, “The attempt to replace Anno Domini (AD) and BC (Before Christ) with BCE (Before Common Era) and CE (Common Era) is yet another exercise in futility. Doesn't this Common Era, after all, begin with the life of Christ?”
The impact of Christ’s resurrection can be seen in institutions and nations, virtually every facet of life, as I said earlier, but I think it is most noticeable in the lives of individuals. We may measure our years from His birth, but our hope is in His resurrection.
(See this column on American Thinker.)
Copyright 2012, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com
Our Books
Books by Trevor Grant Thomas and Michelle Fitzpatrick Thomas
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Obamacare a Political Loser for Democrats
Whatever the Supreme Court decides on Obamacare, President Obama
and the democrats will be the loser. If the Court strikes down Obamacare (as it
should), it would reverse the signature accomplishment of the Obama presidency.
Obama will then be justifiably labeled as having been the architect of one of
the greatest (if not the greatest) assaults on individual liberty in U.S.
history, and his critics will have the U.S. Supreme Court decision to back that
argument.
If Obamacare is upheld, conservatives will then turn to the
electorate and say, “Again, the courts let us down!” From the decision day to Election
Day the GOP will run ads declaring that the only way to then reverse the wildly
unpopular bill will be to elect republicans.
(This will probably be the topic of my next column.)
and the democrats will be the loser. If the Court strikes down Obamacare (as it
should), it would reverse the signature accomplishment of the Obama presidency.
Obama will then be justifiably labeled as having been the architect of one of
the greatest (if not the greatest) assaults on individual liberty in U.S.
history, and his critics will have the U.S. Supreme Court decision to back that
argument.
If Obamacare is upheld, conservatives will then turn to the
electorate and say, “Again, the courts let us down!” From the decision day to Election
Day the GOP will run ads declaring that the only way to then reverse the wildly
unpopular bill will be to elect republicans.
(This will probably be the topic of my next column.)
Saturday, March 24, 2012
George Washington was a "One-Percenter"
With a win in Illinois, Mitt Romney continues to build on his delegate lead, and thus, on his air of inevitability, in the race for the GOP nomination for president. Also, as the weather gets warmer and the political season gets hotter, the Occupy Wall Street (or Main Street, or McDonalds, or your favorite park) crowd will again break out their tents and sleeping bags and get back to camping, chanting, defecating, fornicating, robbing, and raping—along with providing talking points—like “one-percenter”—to the democrats.
Of course, for months now liberals have painted Romney as a super wealthy Wall Street elitist—a “one-percenter” in the words of the Occupiers. Withan estimated net worth of between $150 and $200 million, Romney is certainly in the top one percent of the wealthiest Americans. As Thomas Sowell recentlynoted, “Can a man who has been defensive about his own wealth fight off the standard class warfare of Barack Obama, who can push all the demagogic buttons against Mitt Romney as one of the one-percenters?” The answer is a resounding “yes!”
First of all, Romney should point out that he is in pretty good company. According to 24/7 Wall Street, many U.S. Presidents were among the wealthiest (using 2011 dollars) Americans of their
time. In fact, according to 24/7’s figures, Romney would be far from the richest president in U.S.
history.
That honor would go to our first President, George Washington. With his vast amount of land (approximately 60,000 acres), his wife’s inheritance, and given that his presidential salary was two percent of the total U.S. federal budget in 1789, 24/7 Wall Street estimates that Washington was an elite “one-percenter” with a net-worth of about $525 million.
Thomas Jefferson was also a “one-percenter.” With his architecturally extravagant home, Monticello, containing 11,000 square feet of living space and perched on a 5,000 acre estate, Jefferson had an estimated worth of $212 million.
James Madison and Andrew Jackson were both worth north of $100 million, while John Adams, James Monroe, and John Quincy Adams were all worth over $20 million.
Teddy Roosevelt was born into significant wealth and was the beneficiary of a large trust fund, which, of course would make him one of the most reviled of the “one-percenters.” His net worth was estimated to be $125 million. This means that if Abraham Lincoln hadn’t been such a slacker (worth less than $1 million), Mount Rushmore could have been named “One Percent Peak.”
Teddy’s fifth cousin and later U.S. President, Franklin Roosevelt, was also born into privilege that qualified him as a “one-percenter.” As a youth, he made frequent trips to Europe, attended an elite boarding school, and later went to Harvard. The architect of the New Deal was also the beneficiary of a large inheritance. He had an estimated wealth of $60 million.
However, each of these pales in comparison to the Kennedy family fortune. Preceding his father Joe Kennedy in death, John F. Kennedy was unable to inherit his father’s vast wealth. And vast it was. Through stock, industrial, commodity, and real estate investing, along with what some have
deemed to be illicit means, Joe Kennedy accumulated a truly enormous amount of wealth. In 1957, when Forbes magazine published its first list of the richest Americans, Kennedy’s fortune was estimated to be between $200 and $400 million ($1.6 to $3.5 billion in today’s dollars). This placed him in Forbes’ top 20.
If alive today, perhaps President Kennedy, when addressing the Occupiers (if he were allowed to speak) would utter something like, “Ask not what your country can do for you, just ask a ‘one-percenter’ like me!”
The fact is that, whether or not they were “one-percenters,” all U.S. presidents, including liberal favorites like FDR and JFK, were very accomplished men. (Though Obama is BY FAR the least accomplished.) It would be nearly impossible to become President of the U.S. and not be a significantly gifted individual. Generally, leaders—whether political, business, spiritual, military, athletic, and so on—are by definition very gifted. In our capitalistic culture (what’s left of it), this generally leads to some, if not significant, financial success.
Despite the rantings of the Occupiers, financial success in and of itself is nothing to be condemned. In fact, the greatest social activist of all time, Jesus Christ, never condemned wealth or the wealthy. His message on wealth was not to let it get in the way of following Him. Also, when it comes to money, Christ taught us to be personally generous with however much we have.
In light of this, when examining a candidate’s personal finances, instead of focusing on his bottom line, a better indicator of whether he is fit to lead would be his personal generosity. If a candidate claims to care for the poor and less fortunate, did he put his own money where his mouth is, or as is too often the case, is he more focused on giving away other people’s money?
(See this column on American Thinker.)
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com
Of course, for months now liberals have painted Romney as a super wealthy Wall Street elitist—a “one-percenter” in the words of the Occupiers. Withan estimated net worth of between $150 and $200 million, Romney is certainly in the top one percent of the wealthiest Americans. As Thomas Sowell recentlynoted, “Can a man who has been defensive about his own wealth fight off the standard class warfare of Barack Obama, who can push all the demagogic buttons against Mitt Romney as one of the one-percenters?” The answer is a resounding “yes!”
First of all, Romney should point out that he is in pretty good company. According to 24/7 Wall Street, many U.S. Presidents were among the wealthiest (using 2011 dollars) Americans of their
time. In fact, according to 24/7’s figures, Romney would be far from the richest president in U.S.
history.
That honor would go to our first President, George Washington. With his vast amount of land (approximately 60,000 acres), his wife’s inheritance, and given that his presidential salary was two percent of the total U.S. federal budget in 1789, 24/7 Wall Street estimates that Washington was an elite “one-percenter” with a net-worth of about $525 million.
Thomas Jefferson was also a “one-percenter.” With his architecturally extravagant home, Monticello, containing 11,000 square feet of living space and perched on a 5,000 acre estate, Jefferson had an estimated worth of $212 million.
James Madison and Andrew Jackson were both worth north of $100 million, while John Adams, James Monroe, and John Quincy Adams were all worth over $20 million.
Teddy Roosevelt was born into significant wealth and was the beneficiary of a large trust fund, which, of course would make him one of the most reviled of the “one-percenters.” His net worth was estimated to be $125 million. This means that if Abraham Lincoln hadn’t been such a slacker (worth less than $1 million), Mount Rushmore could have been named “One Percent Peak.”
Teddy’s fifth cousin and later U.S. President, Franklin Roosevelt, was also born into privilege that qualified him as a “one-percenter.” As a youth, he made frequent trips to Europe, attended an elite boarding school, and later went to Harvard. The architect of the New Deal was also the beneficiary of a large inheritance. He had an estimated wealth of $60 million.
However, each of these pales in comparison to the Kennedy family fortune. Preceding his father Joe Kennedy in death, John F. Kennedy was unable to inherit his father’s vast wealth. And vast it was. Through stock, industrial, commodity, and real estate investing, along with what some have
deemed to be illicit means, Joe Kennedy accumulated a truly enormous amount of wealth. In 1957, when Forbes magazine published its first list of the richest Americans, Kennedy’s fortune was estimated to be between $200 and $400 million ($1.6 to $3.5 billion in today’s dollars). This placed him in Forbes’ top 20.
If alive today, perhaps President Kennedy, when addressing the Occupiers (if he were allowed to speak) would utter something like, “Ask not what your country can do for you, just ask a ‘one-percenter’ like me!”
The fact is that, whether or not they were “one-percenters,” all U.S. presidents, including liberal favorites like FDR and JFK, were very accomplished men. (Though Obama is BY FAR the least accomplished.) It would be nearly impossible to become President of the U.S. and not be a significantly gifted individual. Generally, leaders—whether political, business, spiritual, military, athletic, and so on—are by definition very gifted. In our capitalistic culture (what’s left of it), this generally leads to some, if not significant, financial success.
Despite the rantings of the Occupiers, financial success in and of itself is nothing to be condemned. In fact, the greatest social activist of all time, Jesus Christ, never condemned wealth or the wealthy. His message on wealth was not to let it get in the way of following Him. Also, when it comes to money, Christ taught us to be personally generous with however much we have.
In light of this, when examining a candidate’s personal finances, instead of focusing on his bottom line, a better indicator of whether he is fit to lead would be his personal generosity. If a candidate claims to care for the poor and less fortunate, did he put his own money where his mouth is, or as is too often the case, is he more focused on giving away other people’s money?
(See this column on American Thinker.)
Copyright 2012, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Answering Steve Siebold
Per Steve Siebold’s letter to the editor in the Gainesville Times March 14: Yes, it would be immoral to associate oneself with an organization that has devoted itself to pornography—even if the “cause” might be deemed moral. In other words, (of course) the end does not justify the means. One would think that a man who, according to one of his many websites, “ranks among the top 1% of income earners in the professional speaking industry worldwide,” would be aware of this.
Obviously Mr. Siebold has built his house on a foundation of sand and resides in the flimsy world of moral relativism, as he declares that I was “suggesting that an agreed-upon set of morals has been established by society.” He concludes, “They have not. The religious community can kick and scream that the Bible dictates morality, but until they present sufficient evidence of its divine inspiration, they will continue to be marginalized.” Marginalized or not, when a person lives under a “morality” that justifies pornography, abortion, etc., is it little wonder that we are now debating “post-birth abortion?”
He then calls Ben Franklin an “atheist.” Franklin wrote his own epitaph which declares: “The body of Benjamin Franklin, printer, like the cover of an old book, its contents torn out, stripped of its lettering, and guilding, lies here, food for worms. But the work shall not be lost; for it will, as he believed, appear once more in a new and more elegant edition, revised and corrected by the Author.”
Also, at a very crucial point at the Constitutional Convention in May, 1787, Franklin gave a short, but resounding speech. (The debate over representation was becoming very bitter, and the Convention was on the verge of breaking up.) In it he said, “In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered…I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: ‘that God governs in the affairs of man.’ And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?…We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it."
Doesn’t sound like an atheist to me. Mr. Siebold needs to take some of his vast “mental toughness” (see his website) and devote a little of it to studying American history.
Copyright 2012, Trevor Grant Thomas
Obviously Mr. Siebold has built his house on a foundation of sand and resides in the flimsy world of moral relativism, as he declares that I was “suggesting that an agreed-upon set of morals has been established by society.” He concludes, “They have not. The religious community can kick and scream that the Bible dictates morality, but until they present sufficient evidence of its divine inspiration, they will continue to be marginalized.” Marginalized or not, when a person lives under a “morality” that justifies pornography, abortion, etc., is it little wonder that we are now debating “post-birth abortion?”
He then calls Ben Franklin an “atheist.” Franklin wrote his own epitaph which declares: “The body of Benjamin Franklin, printer, like the cover of an old book, its contents torn out, stripped of its lettering, and guilding, lies here, food for worms. But the work shall not be lost; for it will, as he believed, appear once more in a new and more elegant edition, revised and corrected by the Author.”
Also, at a very crucial point at the Constitutional Convention in May, 1787, Franklin gave a short, but resounding speech. (The debate over representation was becoming very bitter, and the Convention was on the verge of breaking up.) In it he said, “In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered…I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: ‘that God governs in the affairs of man.’ And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?…We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it."
Doesn’t sound like an atheist to me. Mr. Siebold needs to take some of his vast “mental toughness” (see his website) and devote a little of it to studying American history.
Copyright 2012, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com
Social Issues are really Moral Issues
One of the greatest deceptions perpetuated by the mainstream media concerning the American political scene is that whenever the “social issues” are prominent in election debate, conservatives lose. James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal recently wrote about an upcoming book by Jeffrey Bell—“The Case for Polarized Politics”—that helps dispel this myth.
“Social issues were nonexistent in the period 1932 to 1964,” notes Bell. “The Republican Party won two presidential elections out of nine, and they had the Congress for all of four years in that entire period. . . . When social issues came into the mix—I would date it from the 1968 election . . . the Republican Party won seven out of 11 presidential elections.”
Bell concludes, as have many others, that American social conservatism began in response to the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Thus, it is unsurprising that all of the most significant “social” issues in America today are sexual issues.
To borrow from pastor, author, and Christian apologist John MacArthur (as I have done before), “Within the moral realm in our society the conflict is almost exclusively about sex.” Abortion, fornication, homosexuality, divorce, and so on, he adds, are all sexual issues.
Therefore, the phrase “social issues” is a bit of a misnomer. Topics like abortion, homosexuality, marriage, contraception, and the like are not hot political issues simply because—as the word “social” implies—they relate to people’s personal lives. They are hot political issues because they reside deeply in the moral realm of our culture. We are not debating mere “social” issues; we are debating moral issues.
Being a nation that was “conceived in liberty,”—and for modern conservatism to have so wrapped itself up in the concept of liberty—it is often seen as a contradiction that conservatives wish to “legislate morality.” However, as Edmund Burke (considered by many to be the father of modern
conservatism) noted, “Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their appetites…Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free.”
Is there little doubt that when these words first came to Burke in the late 18th century, among other things, mankind’s sexual appetite was foremost in his thought? Since our founding we have had laws that govern moral, including sexual, behavior. Our Founders, and throughout our nation’s history, most of our lawmakers and judges understood well Burke’s implication that true liberty cannot exist without those “moral chains” which bind our “appetites.”
For decades now, and with significant success, liberals have fought to break those Judeo-Christian “moral chains” that they have deemed unjustly binding. For example, in late 2003 the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6 to 3 ruling, overturned the Texas sodomy law, and therefore invalidated similar laws in the 12 states that still had them on their books.
In his dissent, Justice Scalia summed up the conservative position well: “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' (the 1986 Supreme Court decision upholding Georgia’s sodomy law) validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.”
Scalia continued, “The Court embraces… 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.” He concluded that, “This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation.”
“Laws without morals are in vain,” said Ben Franklin. In other words, all law is rooted in some morality. On morality, C.S. Lewis declared that, “Moral rules are directions for running the human machine. Every moral rule is there to prevent a breakdown, or a strain, or a friction, in the running of that machine.”
Liberals have not really ended all morals legislation; they are attempting to redefine what is moral. They want to rewrite the “directions” for running the “human machine.”
Consider Europe, where liberals often look for their new marching orders in their war against Judeo-Christian morality. Recently, the UK Telegraph reported that, in the Journal of Medical Ethics, an article entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?” argues that newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life.”
The Journal’s editor said that those who made “abusive and threatening posts” about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.” With such “values” (morals) espoused by the left, is there any wonder that conservatives have been—and I believe will continue to be—successful when it comes to debating the moral issues in America?
(See this column on American Thinker.)
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com
“Social issues were nonexistent in the period 1932 to 1964,” notes Bell. “The Republican Party won two presidential elections out of nine, and they had the Congress for all of four years in that entire period. . . . When social issues came into the mix—I would date it from the 1968 election . . . the Republican Party won seven out of 11 presidential elections.”
Bell concludes, as have many others, that American social conservatism began in response to the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Thus, it is unsurprising that all of the most significant “social” issues in America today are sexual issues.
To borrow from pastor, author, and Christian apologist John MacArthur (as I have done before), “Within the moral realm in our society the conflict is almost exclusively about sex.” Abortion, fornication, homosexuality, divorce, and so on, he adds, are all sexual issues.
Therefore, the phrase “social issues” is a bit of a misnomer. Topics like abortion, homosexuality, marriage, contraception, and the like are not hot political issues simply because—as the word “social” implies—they relate to people’s personal lives. They are hot political issues because they reside deeply in the moral realm of our culture. We are not debating mere “social” issues; we are debating moral issues.
Being a nation that was “conceived in liberty,”—and for modern conservatism to have so wrapped itself up in the concept of liberty—it is often seen as a contradiction that conservatives wish to “legislate morality.” However, as Edmund Burke (considered by many to be the father of modern
conservatism) noted, “Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their appetites…Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free.”
Is there little doubt that when these words first came to Burke in the late 18th century, among other things, mankind’s sexual appetite was foremost in his thought? Since our founding we have had laws that govern moral, including sexual, behavior. Our Founders, and throughout our nation’s history, most of our lawmakers and judges understood well Burke’s implication that true liberty cannot exist without those “moral chains” which bind our “appetites.”
For decades now, and with significant success, liberals have fought to break those Judeo-Christian “moral chains” that they have deemed unjustly binding. For example, in late 2003 the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6 to 3 ruling, overturned the Texas sodomy law, and therefore invalidated similar laws in the 12 states that still had them on their books.
In his dissent, Justice Scalia summed up the conservative position well: “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' (the 1986 Supreme Court decision upholding Georgia’s sodomy law) validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.”
Scalia continued, “The Court embraces… 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.” He concluded that, “This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation.”
“Laws without morals are in vain,” said Ben Franklin. In other words, all law is rooted in some morality. On morality, C.S. Lewis declared that, “Moral rules are directions for running the human machine. Every moral rule is there to prevent a breakdown, or a strain, or a friction, in the running of that machine.”
Liberals have not really ended all morals legislation; they are attempting to redefine what is moral. They want to rewrite the “directions” for running the “human machine.”
Consider Europe, where liberals often look for their new marching orders in their war against Judeo-Christian morality. Recently, the UK Telegraph reported that, in the Journal of Medical Ethics, an article entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?” argues that newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life.”
The Journal’s editor said that those who made “abusive and threatening posts” about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.” With such “values” (morals) espoused by the left, is there any wonder that conservatives have been—and I believe will continue to be—successful when it comes to debating the moral issues in America?
(See this column on American Thinker.)
Copyright 2012, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)