As we celebrate the 237th anniversary of the individual liberty and economic freedom embodied in United States of America, it is a shame that the airwaves are dominated not by the visions and wisdom of our founders, but by Supreme Court rulings on sodomy and the assault on marriage waged by five activist, unelected jurists. Making law by judicial fiat is not government of, by, and for the people, but is a clear usurpation of power from the people. These five social activists apparently believe they own the Constitution — they need to remember it was drafted on behalf of “We the People…” It was no accident that the founding document of our constitutional republic begins with those three words.
Pandering to a mere 3 percent of the U.S. population (estimates can range from 2 to 5 percent who practice sodomy), a 5:4 opinion has overturned moral absolutes that have endured in this nation for 237 years and transformed what is contrary to natural law into government-sanctioned behavior. What a disappointing departure from the document which begins with, “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with one another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitles them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
We neglect to teach our children about natural law in public schools today, but let’s look at a simple illustration. If it were possible to isolate communities, envision three completely isolated islands. On the first island, a young married couple; on the second, two consenting young women; and on the third, two consenting young men. Without intervention, revisit the three inlands in 20 years, 50 years, and 100 years. The communities on each island reflect what is historically known as natural law. I believe the founders understood and expressed the relationship between independence and natural law. In the island illustration, one community would be expected to survive and thrive independently. The other two would be totally dependent on others or would be extinct in a single generation.
The violation of natural law has consequences — moral consequences, medical consequences, and eternal consequences. That is why the founders based separation from England’s tyranny and their own declaration of independence from England on natural law. It is reflected in the Biblical account of creation: God did not create Adam and Andrew or Eve and Evelyn, but Adam and Eve. Their sexuality is clearly prescribed for procreation, but American society has redefined it from procreation to recreation. I confess it is sometimes difficult to understand the abandonment of logic that seems so pervasive in today’s America. Common sense is not just absent, but is detested.
For example, it seems odd that those so intent on removing smoking from societal expression are simultaneously intent on protecting behavior that is more offensive and significantly more dangerous. Smoking is condemned for harming the unborn and non-smokers who inhale the second-hand smoke. But the scourge of STDs and children born with AIDS does not elicit the same offensive behavior as depicted on TV, in movies or in public. One is described as an addiction while the other is promoted as a right. Actually odd may not be a suitable description — possibly reprobate may be more accurate.
The theme of the season should be the 28 Principles of Liberty in the book The 5000 Year Leap by Cleon Skousen. Instead, it is the U.S. Supreme Court’s activist opinion regarding granting special legal status due to the culture’s abandonment of Biblical morality. King Solomon, known for his insight regarding both government and human nature said, “For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he…” We have seen how five of the nine Supreme Court justices think in their hearts and witnessed their mishandling of our Constitution.
A true celebration of the spirit of America and of the Independence that Americans have defended with life and limb for 237 years would be to exercise the powers reserved to us by the Constitution. The power to discipline Supreme Court justices is not by election, but by impeachment. An examination of the language, the founders’ writings, and the history of impeachments makes clear that the term of office for SCOTUS jurists is “good behavior.” Why not celebrate the anniversary of America’s independence by impeaching the five jurists whose elitist perspective and social agenda are a violation of their oath of office. In this country, they have every right to their own opinion, but when they exceed their constitutional authority and jurisdiction to impose those opinions as new law, that is tyranny.
11 comments:
The theme of the season is white supremacist nutbaggery and revisionist claptrappery when (W.) Cleon Skousen is quoted by Republicans. From Skousen's 1970 screed "The Communist Attack on the Mormons". Steve Benson explains:
"In 1970, amid growing college protests against BYU sports teams for the LDS Church’s anti-Black priesthood policy, Skousen published a tabloid featuring the screaming headline, “The Communist Attack on the Mormons.”
The article asserted that:
" . . . [Professional] Communist-oriented revolutionary groups have been spearheading the wave of protests and violence directed toward Brigham Young University and the Mormon Church,” [employing] “Marxism and Maoism as their ideological base and terror tactics as their method . . .”
Skousen warned that Communists were plotting to manipulate press reports into depicting the Mormon Church as being “rich, priest-ridden, racist, super-authoritarian and conservative to the point of being archaically reactionary.”
He claimed that, in fact, the Mormon Church was one of the Communists’ “prime TARGETS FOR ATTACK” because it is “STRONGLY PRO-AMERICAN” and that the ‘Negro-priesthood issue” was being used as a “SMOKESREEN” to “further their ulterior motives.”
Citing Ezra Taft Benson’s speech, “Civil Rights: Tool of Communist Deception,” he warned that Communist-inspired assaults on the Mormon Church were designed to:
" . . . create resentment and hatred between the races by distorting the religious tenet of the Church regarding the Negro and blowing it up to ridiculous proportions."
(“Special Report by National Research Group,” American Fork, Utah, 84003, March 1970, p. 1, emphasis in original)"
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,272742,272742.
Since when did the rights of any people in the United States of America depend upon how large a percentage of the population that group comprised? Under that line of reasoning, no minorities would ever have received equal representation and equal rights.
This type of moronic, short-sighted reasoning is why the Republican Party slips farther and farther behind in the eyes of informed, caring Americans.
What is Mr. Emery referencing when he says that going against "natural law" has medical consequences? I suppose this is his back-door way of saying that gay men who got AIDs deserved what they got by veering on the straight and narrow path. So, that being the determining factor, how is any STD spread between participants within the boundaries of natural law?
Also, please remember (if you ever knew, which I seriously doubt), that marriage did not start out as a religious institution. It was a business contract originally between tribes and tribal members and then later between estates. Marriage is not the determining factor of morality. It is a societal contract to protect property rights.
Mr. Emery's definition of "activist, unelected jurists" is obviously: when the decision is contrary to my way of thinking. You don't hear him belly-aching about the 5-4 decision that overrode the voting law and thereby enables states to implement all kinds of obstacles to voting. Rather than admitting that their side lost, these guys wear you out with their activist judges argument. An activist judge is clearly someone who doesn't vote the way he wanted, usually very conservative and denying of rights to certain groups.
It appears that the SCOTUS voted according to the Constitution, which does not always promise we will get that which makes us comfortable. It promises to protect the rights of every individual, regardless of race, gender, religion, or sexual preference. If Mr. Emery is made so incredibly uncomfortable by other people's personal choices, then perhaps he should become a citizen of an extremist country where nothing but the wishes and belief systems of the male tribal chiefs matters. He should feel quite at home there. The women will be modestly dressed, ensconced in the kitchen, minorities will be slaves, and homosexuals and adulterers will be stoned to death. Equal rights will be trumped by religious beliefs every time.
We "fail to teach our children about natural law today?" Is Emery implying that at one time we were taught about the importance of heterosexual relationships and holy matrimony in school? I think I am not but a few years younger than Mr. Emery, and from what I remember, no lessons about any kind of sexuality were taught. No one would have dared wander astray of the beaten path, not because they were afraid of immorality, but because they would have been bullied by self-righteous jerks.
I was never taught about religion in school. And I had real science classes. No one thought to teach Creationism. It was a given that if people wanted to believe that the Earth was made in seven days that they would go to Sunday school to learn such. Now, it seems that the beliefs of the Right must be imposed on every aspect of our lives. Are school uniforms soon going to look like Pilgrim dress from days of yore? Will we be wearing Scarlet A's for Adultery and Rainbow H's for homosexual behavior? Bringing back the pillory any time soon? I'm straight, follow the philosophical teachings of Christ, and am ashamed to the core of so many of those who now call themselves Christians. They preach, but they don't practice.
Be careful, Mr. Emery. If you keep traveling to the right you will eventually fall off the edge of the earth and plunge all the way to Hades.
People like Emery are why I will never step foot in a church again.
Private worship and devout endeavors will have to suffice.
Bigotry can come in many forms, but it's sadly ironic when it attempts to portray itself as moral superiority. Shame on Mr. Emery. Fortunately, history (which is the final judge) will not be kind to such bigoted views or such bigoted people.
His ignorance is typical and represents the values and small minds of those who elected him. Mr. Emery is supposed to represent his constituents. That includes the gay constituents, also. I hope the day of the Puritans is fading. They are hurtful, arrogant people who believe they know what God wants and thinks, but they rarely practice the teachings of Christ. Judge not. Love thy neighbor.
The Book of Luke, Chapter 6, verses 26-42 has been the guiding light of my life. It's a shame more people do not study the beautiful and loving lessons of this scripture, choosing instead to be guided by those verses that bolster their feelings of self-righteousness, judgment, and condemnation. If we would focus more on love and acceptance and less on finger pointing and blame, then the world would be much more peaceful and beautiful.
Post a Comment