Think how constitutional phrases and terms like “general welfare,” “necessary and proper,” “take Care . .  . faithfully executed,” “lay and collect Taxes” (and the list could go on) could be and have been abused.

Thomas Jefferson wrote to Justice William Johnson in 1821 lamenting the loss of states’ rights due to loose constitutional construction. He noted, “The States supposed that by their tenth amendment, they had secured themselves against constructive powers. They were not lessoned yet by Cohen’s case, nor aware of the slipperiness of the eels of the law.”

It seems we have still not been “lessoned.” One of the latest slippery eels appears in the so-called “indefinite detention” clause of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA 2012) (and what a great environment for an eel!). That law codified the assumed powers of Bush’s Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF) from 2001 to specify that the U.S. government may “detain” certain persons “under the law of war.” These “covered persons” are defined (and we use the term loosely) in part as:

A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

This sounds reasonable enough, but the slippery eel detectives will immediately note that the words and phrases “associated forces,” “hostilities,” “belligerent,” and “directly supported” are themselves left undefined. What does this mean? It means the President gets to decide what they mean in how he executes the law.

Therefore, if you are brave enough, imagine the full range of possibilities when the defining is left to the Obama administration, or worse.

And then, realize that this is not imaginary at all. It is very real. It is so real that one of the chief proponents of the “detention” and “law of war” powers in the 2012 bill (renewed in 2013), perennial hawk John McCain, now says he finds the Defense Department’s unwillingness to see the law changed “disturbing.”

Keen deduction, Johnny. Just wish you would have been “lessoned” by those of us who warned you of this before you helped lead the Senate to approve it 86–13, and then renew it 98–0 in 2013.

This is exactly the issue that took center stage at last Thursday’s Senate Armed Forces Committee hearing. Consider the phrase “associated forces.” Since it was undefined by Congress, it is now an open question for the President who shall execute that law. And if the commander in chief determines that there are “associated forces” anywhere in the world, he may apply the “law of war” status to them. And indeed, this is exactly what he has been doing.

In the hearing, McCain and other Senators tried to use the language of the original AUMF to tie the hands of the President—after all, things are different when the guys from the other party are in control of the fuzzy definitions, right?

McCain argued,

This authorization was about those who planned and orchestrated the attacks of 2011 [he misspoke; he meant 9–11 or 2001]. Here we are twelve years later, and you and the Secretary come before us and tell us that you don’t think it needs to be updated. Well, clearly it does. . . . Because it’s been so long, and because of the changing nature, and I think general Nagati would agree the nature of this conflict has changed dramatically, spread throughout northern Africa, throughout the Maghreb, it’s penetrating into other nations all throughout the Middle East—the situation has dramatically changed. So, for you to come in here and say we don’t need to change it, or revise or update it, I think is, well . . . disturbing.

But what McCain says next is debatable. He quotes Senator Dick Durbin: “Not one of us who voted for the AUMF could have envisioned we are about to give future presidents the authority to fight terrorism as far-flung as Yemen and Somalia.”

Nonsense. Within mere months after that original bill of September 14, 2001, the President and Congress were urging the expansion of its “9–11 only” stipulation to cover the invasion of Iraq. Ron Paul stood and decried this expansion on the exact reason McCain suddenly raises now twelve years after the fact. Paul said that such redefinition “only serves to divert our attention from what should be our number one priority at this time: finding and bringing to justice those who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001.”

But no one, including McCain, listened to that rationale at that time. And worse, when NDAA 2012 came along, McCain himself championed the clause which said that AUMF specifically “includes” the authorization to detain “associated forces” under law of war.

The problem is, this effectively applies all “law of war” conditions to such persons and forces, and thus, drone strikes, etc.

So when McCain followed his remarks with the question, “So we can expect drone strikes in Syria,” you can rest assured that he himself already knew the answer.

The acting general counsel for the Defense Department, Robert Taylor, responded at first with a hesitant, stuttering display on behalf of the President, stating he refused to “speculate.” This has become partisan, after all. He eventually admitted the generality: we are authorized to be at war with any forces associated with Al Qaeda.

What he should have said, boldly and forcefully is this:

Mr. McCain, you voted for the NDAA detention powers; you argued in favor of its provisions despite the warnings of members from your own party such as Rand Paul. You know good and well what it authorizes the President to do and what it leaves for him to define. You delegated to him this authority.

McCain attempted to argue that the NDAA authority was only to “detain” not to “attack.” He concludes, “This authority has grown way out of proportions and is no longer applicable to the conditions that prevail.”

Technically, “detain” is on paper. But since when did McCain become a strict constructionist? Or did he expect the Obama administration to be so when he passed that law? Or did he expect Congress would actually hold any administration to the strict construction of the statute? All of this is laughable to think.

The bottom line here is that any time any Congress leaves an undefined term in any such bill, the vastly prevailing precedent is that of very loose construction on the part of the President who is to execute that law. This problem with executive power was noted very early by opponents of the Constitution, and the U.S. government has proven them right from day one.

And thus McCain was forced to retreat somewhat from his stated assertion: “I must say I don’t blame you, because basically you’ve got carte blanche as to what you are doing throughout the world.” He was left calling for the need for a revision of the law by Congress to redefine the terms and conditions. But until it does, McCain knows that the President has these powers.

But now he faces a Democrat-controlled Senate, and one in which the very Committee policing this issue is chaired by a Democrat who agrees with the Obama administration.

This is the reason Jefferson was right about those slippery eels. Because when undefined powers are granted, the broadest definitions will be applied to justify sweeping uses of that power. It is the reason Congress should strictly define any power it creates or refuse to create it to begin with.

We all know that if men were angels, no government would be necessary. But most people stop there when quoting Madison. The next sentence says, “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

Indeed. And there is no place where the lack of angels is more dangerous than in the area of executive power, war, the military, and foreign policy. And there is no place where the lack of angels is more obvious today than in our Congressional-Executive complex.

Sources:

http://rt.com/usa/terror-al-qaeda-pentagon-war-397/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/us/politics/pentagon-official-urges-congress-to-keep-statute-allowing-war-on-terror-intact.html?_r=0

Her mother died from breast cancer.

Jolie is not the first prominent person to take radical measures to fight cancer. Radical is the operating word.

Christina Applegate is best known for playing the role of Kelly Bundy on the Fox sitcom Married … with Children.

Applegate had a double mastectomy, even though cancer was found in only one breast. Like Jolie, she has an inherited genetic trait, a BRCA1 mutation, which often triggers breast cancer. Her mother, Nancy Priddy, is a breast cancer survivor. Applegate said when she first was diagnosed, “I was just shaking and then also immediately, I had to go into ‘take-care-of-business-mode’ which included a change to a more healthy diet.”

For both women, and others like them, there shouldn’t be any judgment. Cancer is a fearsome disease. A double mastectomy in a sex-obsessed culture and industry that glories in body image is nothing but brave.

Was it the right decision? I don’t know, and it’s not my business to say because the breasts belonged to Jolie and Applegate.

This brings me to the abortion debate. I’m watching the film Juno as I write this. It’s about sixteen-year-old high-schooler Juno MacGuff (Ellen Page) who discovers she is pregnant. She first considers abortion. On her way to the abortion mill, she runs into Su-Chin, a classmate, holding a sign that reads “No Babies Like Murdering” and chanting “All babies want to be born!”

Su-Chin tells Juno that her baby “probably has a beating heart . . . It can feel pain . . . And it has fingernails.”

Juno still considers abortion as she sits in the abortion mill waiting room. She notices finger nails on a little girl and a woman scratching her arm. She starts seeing finger nails everywhere. “The receptionist clicks her nails on the front desk. Another woman blows on her fresh manicure. Everyone seems to be fidgeting with their fingers somehow.”

Juno leaves and decides to have the baby and give him up for adoption.

She realized that her pre-born baby was a person. His fingers were not her fingers. When the baby was born, Juno would have her fingers and the baby would have his.

Jolie made a decision to remove her breasts. She had a right to do so because they are a part of her own body. She made a similar decision when she had her skinned tattooed.

A baby is not part of a woman’s body. She is a separate entity that at no point even touches her mother. Aborting a baby leaves everything about the mother intact.

So the next time someone says that a woman has a right to do what she wants with her own body, you can say “but only with what is actually her body.”

So let’s get this straight. We start by saying that anything with a degree of complexity must have been designed. Seems logical. And the designer behind that thing must be more complex than the thing itself. Good so far? But if we apply this to God, if follows that we have this infinitely complex being, but no one there to have designed him. Therefore he can’t exist, can he?

Looks like Dawkins might have a point, doesn’t it? Okay, let’s continue the logic and see where it takes us. So if there is no God, it follows that everything ultimately came from nothing, right? Now hold on a minute. Something doesn’t quite ring true there, does it? The chain of logic seemed to be in order right up to that point where our alternative necessitated non-existent space/time/matter bringing itself into existence. Maybe we need to back up and check our thinking.

There is a false assumption at the core of the “Who made God” objection which is the idea that humans are capable of understanding the attributes and properties of God, such as his eternal and infinite being. Yet there is a very good reason why this is not so. The universe you and I inhabit consists principally of three things: time, space and matter, which means that our only frame of reference is to these three things. God, on the other hand, is by definition timeless, transcendent and spirit – the exact opposite of the attributes for which we possess any hard knowledge. In other words, these three attributes of God just happen to lie completely outside the realm of human scientific enquiry, which is confined to time, space and matter, and so our ability to pronounce authoritatively on the existence of God using our knowledge and experience alone is about the same as a three-year-old pronouncing authoritatively on the reasons for the causes of the First World War.

As an illustration, imagine a foetus that could think and reason as well as a fully grown adult, and imagine that it was aware of the water surrounding it, but of nothing beyond that. Its entire sphere of knowledge consists of water, and everything outside water is an unknown, including, of course, its mother. Now, would that foetus be any position to make scientifically verifiable statements about the probability of the existence of a mother by trying to understand the attributes of the mother? To the foetus, which knows nothing but a life lived in water, and therefore has no ability to conceive of life outside water, the idea of a being that is said to exist outside water would appear to be utterly inexplicable. Such a foetus might well conclude that such a being is very very improbable. Of course this doesn’t mean that the foetus has no mother. All it means is that the foetus cannot understand the concept of a mother.

And so it is with Man. Trying to determine the probability of God by trying to grasp the concept of an eternally-existing, uncreated being, is merely a fruitless attempt to superimpose our knowledge of time, space and matter on a being for whom by definition these characteristics simply don’t apply. On the basis of our knowledge and experience alone, the best we could do would be to say that the probability of the existence of a timeless, transcendent spirit who made the universe is 50/50.

But this is not the end of the story. For whilst we can’t determine the probability of God by looking his attributes, we can do so by asking what is the likelihood of the universe even existing given under the God hypothesis or the non-God hypothesis.

Let’s look at the non-God hypothesis first. Broadly speaking there are two competing theories of the “Big Bang”. One proposes that it was literally the start of everything. In other words, prior to the Big Bang there was nothing – no pre-existing time, space or matter. The other assumes the prior existence of space time and matter. The problem with the first is that of nothing producing something. The problems with the second is that it implies eternally existing matter, and that a tiny amount of matter can order itself into a universe of intricacy and beauty. Let’s plug these versions into our question:

1.      “What is the probability of absolute nothing being capable of producing a universe?”

2.      “What is the probability of matter existing eternally and being capable of producing a universe from itself?”

In case you didn’t work it out, the answer to both questions is zero. Or to put it another way, they are infinite improbabilities. Rephrasing the original question, we might well ask: “If everything made everything, what made everything?”

But what if we plug God into the same question? “What is the probability of an infinite and omnipotent entity being capable of bringing a universe into existence?” Well here the answer is clearly the opposite of the others. The likelihood of an omnipotent and infinite entity being capable of bringing a universe into existence is an infinite probability. Which is in effect the teaching of Romans 1:19: “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.”

The “Who made God?” question turns out to be high irony. We have enough knowledge to state that matter cannot have created itself, or appeared from nothing, or been eternally existent, which you would think ought to tell us something. But instead of concluding – as logic would suggest – that it must therefore have been created by something outside the material universe, this very knowledge is then used as a reason for rejecting the only plausible explanation out there. And then when the death of God has been proclaimed, back goes the unbeliever to believing the falsehoods which he knows are impossible.

It’s a bit like a man looking at the Great Pyramid of Cheops, scratching his beard and shaking his head in bemusement saying, “I just can’t understand it. How on earth did they get those stones there without lorries and giant excavators. Now I know that those stones can’t have appeared there from nothing. And I know they can’t have gotten there by themselves. And I know that they cannot have been there forever.” But the more he tries to understand how the men of those days could have put these stones into position, the more he fails to understand it. In the end he gives up, shrugs his shoulders and says, “Oh well, I suppose they must have just appeared there, or got there by themselves, or been there forever after all.” Such thinking may be many things, but logical, rational and reasonable it certainly isn’t!

If you begin your theory of the universe with anti-logic, you’re going to have to go on with anti-logic. Which is why in the The God Delusion, Dawkins explains the beginnings of life in a sentence you sense he would rather not have had to put it in at all, but knew he must otherwise some little boy out there might point the finger at him and blurt out, “Hey look! The professor has got no clothes on!” And what was his explanation? “Life”, he explained, “needed some luck to get it started.”^[2] That was it. The mechanism whereby dust became a living creature was some luck! Notwithstanding his desperate desire not to be thought ridiculous, the little boy stood and cackled derisively at the professor anyway.

So that’s the alternative, folks. Something from nothing, followed by a little bit of luck to turn rocks into bugs, then a long bloody process where we take our place as 55^th cousins twice removed to the dung beetle. Or we can go with the timeless, transcendent, spirit God, without beginning and without end, who spoke a universe into existence for his glory, and crowned it with the creature made in his own image. Now that’s not a hard question, is it?

Endnotes:

1. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, (London: Black Swan, 2007), p. 136.
2. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, (London: Black Swan, 2007), p. 169.

Thus spake Epicurus, the Greek philosopher who lived from 341-270 BC. This is what you might call a tight spot argument. It seems to cover all the bases and leave us Christians without the faintest hope of getting out. But tight spots are okay. The people of God have been there before. And so with a range of impregnable rocks to the left and to the right, the most formidable army in the world chasing after us from the rear, and an impassable sea right before us, what do we do? Trust in the God of tight spots and march right on ahead over the path that he clears for us through the waters.

Although the riddle is undoubtedly clever, it turns out to be loaded with a couple of erroneous presuppositions: firstly, a flawed presupposition, and secondly, a really flawed presupposition.

So what is the flawed presupposition? In a nutshell, it is the idea that to deal with evil, God must do so in exactly the way we think he ought to, and if he doesn’t, we’re going to get all uppity and tell him that he doesn’t exist. In our wisdom, we know that he ought to deal with evil, and we also know just how he ought to do it. Yet the problem we have is that any of the ways we can come up with to deal with evil end up destroying not just evil, but humanity itself. Let me explain.

Take the simplest example of the kind of evil that Epicurus might have envisaged: Cain and Abel. “Okay,” says Epicurus, “so if God is good, willing and omnipotent, why did he allow Cain to kill his brother?” Now how could God have prevented it? There are only really three options: he could have simply prevented Cain from doing it either by natural or miraculous means; he could have destroyed Cain either before or after he did his deed; or he could have “reprogrammed” Cain so that he never again had such a thought in his head.

But with each of these “solutions” there is an insurmountable difficulty. The problem with the first option – preventing Cain doing the deed – is that Cain’s heart remains unchanged, and he will simply look for another opportunity to carry out his crime. The problem with the second – destroying Cain – is that not only must Cain be destroyed but Abel too, because he is also a guilty sinner before God. And the problem with the third – reprogramming Cain – is that Cain loses one of the characteristics that make him to differ from the beasts.

With the first option, sin is harboured within Cain’s heart to be brought out into the open on another day. With the second, all humanity is wiped off the face of the earth, because all – not just the Cains and the Hitlers of this world – are guilty before God. And with the third, Cain is no longer made in the image of God. None of these options deals with evil in a satisfactory way, and if God were to choose any of them, humanity dies.

Now in his riddle, Epicurus castigates God for not doing something about Cain, but for choosing another option instead, which was “do nothing.” Here is exactly where the presupposition is flawed. Epicurus assumes that God must deal with Cain in one of the first three ways, and if he doesn’t, this is evidence of his inability, unwillingness or malevolence. Yet God does choose another way, but rather than it being “do nothing”, it is something that not only deals with the evil, but which does so in a way that overcomes all the other problems as well.

So how can this be done? Well God’s method, which may well sound like foolishness to the likes of Epicurus, is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is the only method which not only deals with the problem of evil, but does so at the same time as overcoming the three problems mentioned above. It deals with evil by God taking evil upon himself. It deals with the heart problem by drawing men to God through the Cross, changing their hearts and bringing them into a right relationship with God. It deals with the problem of destroying humanity by offering hope of salvation to sinful humanity. And it deals with the reprogramming problem by restoring men to righteousness, so that they learn to choose the good and forsake evil. Whether Epicurus can accept the “folly” of this method is another matter entirely.

So much for the flawed presupposition, what of the really flawed presupposition? Well if Epicurus happened to be around today, the one question I would want to put to him would be this: “Mr Epicurus, your famous riddle about evil and the impotence of God has wowed many an atheist with its cleverness, and no doubt stumped many a Christian with its difficulties, but what I am really keen to know is this: what do you actually mean by evil.”

At this point it wouldn’t come as a surprise to see Epicurus’ face contorting in barely concealed contempt, implying that I am some sort of a dimwit for not knowing what evil is. Have I never heard of murders and wars and rapes and thefts and that sort of thing? Well yes I have, but contorted faces notwithstanding, that still doesn’t answer my question: what do you mean by evil? Is it just a bunch of actions such as those you have mentioned, or is it something far deeper than that? What actually is it?

The problem with Epicurus’ riddle is that it never gets around to telling us what this “evil” is that God ought to be stopping, and so it seems a pretty safe bet that Epicurus had in mind a bunch of things “out there”. But since his riddle assumes the existence of God before apparently going on to disprove him it follows that the riddle really ought to allow God to define evil, rather than leaving it to Epicurus to assume that his half-baked definition will suffice.

If God is God, then evil is not defined merely as a bunch of bad actions “out there”, but rather as “anything and everything which is opposite of God.” Now if this is the case, then what this means – amongst many other things – is that Epicurus’ riddle itself falls into the category of evil. I doubt very much whether this possibility actually crossed his mind when he wrote it, but if evil is defined by God as being that which is opposite to him, then Epicurus is guilty of that very thing in even proposing his conundrum. In which case, his only legitimate questions would be these: why doesn’t God come and strike me down for even daring to state such a thing? Why doesn’t he come and deal with my evil?

The answer, once again, is the mercy of God. Epicurus had an evil heart, just like the rest of us. He was opposed to God, just like the rest of us are by nature. He calls on God to come and deal with evil, but does he include his own in this? Is he really prepared for God to come and deal with his evil? If he really does desire this, is he prepared for God to leave his heart unchanged, or to strike him dead or to reprogram him? Does he really want God to deal with it in that way? Or will he not rather hope that God can deal with it in such a way that changes his heart for good, leaves him alive, and doesn’t turn him into a machine?

The good news is that this is exactly what God does. It took some thorns, some nails and the death of the Light of the World to achieve it. But it is finished. The grave is empty and the throne is filled. So come, Epicurus, God has found a way to deal with evil and he invites you to join him. Now are you willing to accept?

His neighbors thought he was crazy. “Why don’t you just get yourself a new car,” they would ask. They soon left off asking when he replied – with the kind of stare that could kill a man at twenty paces – “Nothing wrong with her, that’s why. A bit of fixing up here and there, then she’ll be as good as new.”

And so he continues to this day to clean and polish his car, and do the odd bit of mending. The doors are hanging by their hinges, the roof leaks and the wheels have all fallen off, but he remains convinced that everything is essentially well.

Let me introduce this man to you. He is a conservative and he is a lot like many conservative Christians. Nothing wrong with conserving things when they can actually be conserved, of course, but we are at that point in time where we need to ask ourselves, “If I am a conservative, what exactly is it that I’m conserving?”

What is there about the current culture is there that is worth conserving? The current political system? If you like two identikit parties who vie with each other to cajole the people into accepting bigger government after each election, then maybe so.

The economy? If you just want to tinker around the edges of a $16 trillion debt to get it reduced to a more conservative sum – say $15 trillion – then maybe.

Or how about marriage? Well if you think that things were just fine before someone came up with the suggestion that two men who “love each other very much” could actually call each other husband and husband, then again maybe so.

What is there left to conserve? Not much really. Not to worry, though. Our God specializes in such situations. I realize it might come as a bit of a shock to many conservative Christians, but God is not actually a conservative. He is a progressive. But before you all get red in the face and the veins in your temples start to throb as you expect me to start talking about social justice and egalitarianism, let me quickly add that He is not that type of progressive, the one we’re all used to. He is a true progressive. The true progressive. What do I mean by that? Well firstly let me point out what the other type of “progressive” is like.

Progressivism is the philosophical position which favors bringing about political and social reform through a series of gradual changes. It is ordinarily associated with the anti-Christian left and usually comes at us replete with words and phrases like “equality” and “fairer society.” Yet despite the high sounding rhetoric, somehow it always seems to involve puffed up government, the slaughter of the unborn, family breakdown, a coarser and less caring society, a dumber culture, an often aimless and nihilistic youth and an economy whose principal feature is debt.

Societies claiming to be progressive can be easily judged according to their claim: are they actually progressive? Or to put it another way, if they are progressive, what is it they are actually progressing toward? Well if the total state, baby carnage, family destruction and the like are your thing, then I guess that we are making good progress in that direction. Then again, if you think that these things bear all the hallmarks of Canaanite paganism, then the word “progress” might not be the one that springs readily to mind. Regress perhaps, but not progress. And so we react against all this, and we do so under the banner of Christian conservatism.

But there is another type of progressive and he is called God. His Word progresses from a garden to a garden-city. His history progresses from the first Adam to the last Adam. He makes all things new. He kills and makes alive. He sanctifies. He doesn’t just change our hearts once for all and then leave us in that condition. He changes our hearts and renews our minds daily.

God himself is unchanging, but his creation is in constant flux. He isn’t interested in a little bit of preservation here and there. He is interested in reforming the world. He is not the God of stasis – of attempting to preserve the status quo – he is the God of resurrection and having raised his Son from the dead, he is in the business of resurrecting a dead world full of dead people and reconciling all things to himself.

We need to stop thinking like conservatives, and more like God the progressive. We need to stop trying to pretend that a little bit of polishing and a little bit of tweaking will solve things. We have been polishing our clapped out old banger for years, trying to turn the clock back to how things were a little while ago, and what have we achieved? Nothing at all, except allowed the false progressives to turn the clock back several thousand years until they reached Canaan.

Christians ought to be the true progressives – not just trying to conserve a little bit here and there, nor “progressing” back to Canaan, but progressing towards building the majestic Kingdom of God. It’s time to change our thinking. Time we got ourselves a new car. Time to call upon God the true progressive and ask him to radically change our hearts and our thinking from our dead conservatism to a resurrected and glorious Christian progressivism.

Conservatism is dead…Long live progressivism.

Brewer is an elected Councilor in Cornwall, UK. He made firestorm headlines two months ago when it was revealed that he had bluntly endorsed a eugenics policy: “Disabled children cost the council too much money and should be put down.”

The remarks were made in 2011, but only recently came to public light.

Brewer apologized, saying his remark was “bloody stupid” and that he did not stand by what he said. But the comment was so outrageous his party booted him out and a local poll revealed that 96 percent of locals wanted him gone as well.

Then, those same people elected him back to office.

A disabled people’s advocacy group called “The Black Triangle Campaign” (a reference to the practice in Nazi Germany of forcing disabled people to wear black triangle badges) notes, “It seems voters may have accepted his apology.”

After all, in an interview with Disability News Service (DNS), “Brewer insisted that he was a Christian, and believed that ‘all life is precious’.”

Then, Brewer demonstrated why you should never trust a politician’s apology. In the same interview, he did more than stand by his former view, he expanded upon it graphically. The comments are distilled, in my opinion accurately, from his analogy of a sheep farmer:

“If they have a misshapen lamb, they get rid of it. They get rid of it. Bang! You can’t have lambs running around with five legs and two heads. It would be put down, smashed against the wall and be dealt with.”

All life is precious, but some lives are more precious than others.

While the Brewer case sounds radical and 3,000 miles away, it’s is not far from what recent Americans have advocated or suggested. Some have advocated this exact view for decades now. Princeton “ethics” professor Peter Singer has infamously argued for infanticide of disabled children up to one year old. He believes all Christians including fundamentalists will agree with him by 2040.

There is the now well-known case of Planned Parenthood lobbyist Alisa LaPolt Snow just last month making the case that should a child be born alive during a botched abortion, the decision to save it should be left to the mother and her doctor. That view was rightly called a defense of infanticide.

And of course, there is Kermit Gosnell, whose grizzly baby butcher shop is, as it has just been revealed, duplicated by Texas abortionist Douglas Karpen.

These murderers and alleged murderers don’t even use the excuse of disability. These children are just unwanted in general, period. Slit their throats.

And this really puts the logical screws to the “disability” argument. At root, it is nothing more than 1) an economic rationalization, 2) exacerbated by socialized medicine, and 3) justified by selective experts. The context of the Brewer interview makes this clear:

But he then told DNS that a retired doctor had walked up to him two weeks ago and told him that he was “perfectly right” to have said what he said in 2011. . . .

When DNS asked whether that meant there was some truth in what the doctor was saying, he said: “If that is what he said, there must be.”

He also spoke about a farmer in his ward who had approached him about his comments, and made it clear that he “didn’t see a lot wrong with what I said, because it is something they do every day”.

Brewer said:  “If they have a misshapen lamb, they get rid of it. They get rid of it. Bang!”

He added: “He’s certainly got a point. We are just animals. He’s obviously got a point… You can’t have lambs running around with five legs and two heads.”

When DNS asked if he believed there was not much difference between putting down a lamb and a child with two heads, he said: “I think the cost has got to be evaluated. It is not something I would like to do but there is only so much in the bucket.

“If you are talking about giving services to the community or services to the individual, the balance has got to be struck.”

First, the economic rationalization: His original comment from 2011 was that “Disabled children cost the council too much money.” Now we hear it again, “I think the cost has got to be evaluated. . . . [T]here is only so much [money] in the bucket.” The same concern was at the root of Margaret Sanger, and is still touted today: women who can’t “afford” to have children should be allowed to abort them. I will write more on real-life examples of this in the coming days.

Secondly, this problem is exacerbated when the state’s funds are involved. Brewer was concerned about how much these children cost “the council.” We all know what kinds of discussions begin to take place in a system of socialized medicine once funds are pinched. Shall the oldsters get means tested? Shall the Terry Schiavos get unplugged? When healthcare decisions are linked to the public treasury, the slaughter of the misshaped lambs will follow. The state pays, so the state decides. We will revisit this idea more fully in the future as well, for it was Hitler’s exact argument against the pro-life movement of his day.

Thirdly, there are the hand-picked expert justifications. In Brewer’s case, Doctors and farmers agree, so there you go. It would be worth noting at this point that it was from selective animal breeding as well as cutting-edge “medical” science that eugenics theory in both the U.S. (Margaret Sanger, John D. Rockefeller, et al) and subsequent Nazi Germany (which copied the U.S.) was developed. After all, “we’re just animals.” Darwin would have been proud.

We have already noted Peter Singer. His philosophical school is directly represented here, as it is in all socialistic societies. That philosophy is utilitarianism: what makes for the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people? This means those among the least and for whom the least amount of good can be accomplished for the price will suffer. You see this clearly when Brewer says “If you are talking about giving services to the community or services to the individual, the balance has got to be struck.” Again, more on this in the future.

In light of all of this, we have a choice before us: whether we shall continue to follow Darwin and socialism, or return to a system of individual freedom and free markets. If the Sangers, Singers, and Brewers (and their doctors and farmers) are to decide, we will have socialized medicine and socialism, which means we will have the slaughter of the lambs.

Among other things, this will leave us asking the title question above: if we follow this course, will we not have to say that Hitler won the war after all? Millions bled and died to prevent this, and yet we’ve brought it upon ourselves anyway through the ballot box?

Will Hitler win after all? Through our own ballot box? If the issue is socialized medicine and socialism, the answer will logically be, “Yes.”

Sources:

http://disabilitynewsservice.com/2013/05/colin-brewer-there-is-a-good-argument-for-killing-some-disabled-babies/

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/05/14/politician-kill-disabled-children-like-we-kill-deformed-lambs/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/disabled-children-should-be-put-down-cornwall-councillor-collin-brewer-to-be-investigated-by-police-over-controversial-comments-8616097.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/colin-brewer-police-investigate-shamed-1888841

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/councillor-says-disabled-kids-should-1734583

That reign begins with an overwhelming show of military force, a victory, and then a show of mercy on Saul’s part. Judging from this, it would seem that Israel had made a wise choice. The “hooah!” national greatness crowd could not have been happier at this point. Yet when renewing the national civil covenant officially under Saul, Samuel sees the need to continue with stern protests and warnings to the people. We are told why: there is great danger when evaluating ourselves by temporary successes rather than God’s Law. This is true for individuals, and also for nations. As the text will relate, Israel would be in danger of placing its trust in empty things that cannot profit or deliver (12:21).

Saul’s Early Success

Chapter 11 relates Saul’s inauguration both as a military leader and in the official sense as a political leader. This was a just cause, as a foreign nation had besieged a city of Israel. There is some theological symbolism here as well: the enemy was Nahash the Ammonite. Not only was Ammon an historical enemy of Israel, but “Nahash” means “serpent.” It is the same word used for the serpent in Eden and elsewhere throughout the Old Testament. It is also the word used for “enchantment” or “divination,” and thus would have been a title boasting the king’s wisdom and connection to the gods. But here the Hebrew audience would have understood an immediate connection with Genesis 3 in general. In the immediate context, it bespeaks a test for Israel just as Adam had with the tree.

Initially, the people of Jabesh failed that test. They were so terrified of Nahash they were willing to make a covenant with him, which would have meant subjecting themselves to his rule. This was absolutely forbidden for God’s people, and reveals just how faithless they had become. It is no wonder they were so willing to demand a king like other nations, rejecting God, for they were actually much more rebellious than that; they were willing not only to have a king like other nations, but to submit to a king—and thus a law—literally of one of those pagan nations. This was total apostasy. And in fact, Samuel reveals that it was this very confrontation with Nahash that motivated Israel’s call for their king (12:12).

Jabesh was willing to submit to the foreign serpent-god-king, but Nahash’s terms were steep. Nahash was a no-compromise foe. He did not just want dominion, he wanted humiliation: “On this condition I will make a treaty with you, that I gouge out all your right eyes, and thus bring disgrace on all Israel” (1 Sam. 11:2). This was actually God’s mercy at work: the terms were so harsh that even rebellious and idolatrous Israel balked. Nahash’s brazen offer was about the best thing that could have happened to them in this situation—absent repentance and turning to God, that is. The elders of Jabesh requested a week to consider the offer, buying time to seek an alternative (11:3). The alternative would be the asking of that king like all the nations, which meant in this case the rejection of God. To these faithless and fearful elders in this situation, it seemed like deliverance compared to Nahash’s offer. But let the lesson be clear: those who refuse to stand faithfully for God and His Law will end up demanding the lesser of two evils and calling it good politics.

When the news reached the land of Saul, the people reacted in despair. There was no call for repentance or prayer. When Saul himself heard, the text says that the Spirit rushed upon him and his anger was greatly kindled. I don’t believe this was a godly response to the Spirit. Righteous anger in such a situation seems appropriate, but we know that the wrath of man does not work the righteousness of God (Jam. 1:20). And such a reaction is not commonly used to describe God’s leaders in battle. David, for example, will never in this book be described as reacting to military threats with anger, despite being harassed, maligned, chased, and attacked repeatedly by Saul, as well as engaging in multiple battles with foreign enemies. Saul’s first test as a military leader is already beginning on the wrong foot—that is, with the wrong heart.

Sure enough, Saul proceeds to call the nation to arms in an ungodly and unbiblical manner. There is no appeal whatsoever to the process outlined in God’s Law. That process was for the priest to address the assembly, quell the fears of the people, remind them that God fights for them, raise a militia of expected but voluntary fighters, and then allow several opportunities for men not to be compelled to fight (Deut. 20:1–9). But Saul does just the opposite on almost every count. He does not consult the priests, does not have a priest address an assembly, and proceeds in his anger to use threats of violence, destruction of property, and thus fear to compel all the nation’s men to fight:

He took a yoke of oxen and cut them in pieces and sent them throughout all the territory of Israel by the hand of the messengers, saying, “Whoever does not come out after Saul and Samuel, so shall it be done to his oxen!” (11:7).

Instead of “fear not,” Saul imposed fear. His tactic had just that effect: the dread of the LORD fell upon the people, and they came out as one man (11:7). It was Saul’s establishment of the military conscription Samuel had predicted (8:11–12), and it affected virtually the whole nation: it resulted in a massive army 330,000 men. Fear is a powerful motivator, but it is the opposite of godly obedience. John would later write, “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love” (1 John 4:18). Saul was instituting a society and a national defense campaign based on fear—not on the love of God and neighbor, and certainly not on love of liberty. Saul’s administration proved to be the lesser of two evils indeed: a free people had become servants of their government.

Just as fear is a powerful motivator, so are the passions aroused by collectivist, nationalistic behaviors. Many people mistake nationalism for patriotism, especially when the military is involved, and especially when the cause seems so large. Joining a cause greater than yourself can be ennobling and addictive, but if it is not a godly cause to begin with, or if not embraced in the way of God’s love, then it will grow destructive to society. This is especially true, as we shall discuss in a moment, if the ungodly approach results in pragmatic success. Men then justify their ungodly methods and schemes and then seek to enforce them further upon society. Thus does tyranny spread in the name of success and “God bless America.”

Saul’s campaign met with massive success: Israel routed the Ammonites in a decisive battle. And indeed, the self-justifying and tyrannical lusts of nationalism raised its ugly head even higher. In such an atmosphere, criticism of the government becomes dangerous. Remember those critics back in 10:27 who despised Saul and fell into cynicism? Following Saul’s initial success, a pro-Saul party arose which called for the execution of his political opposition: Then the people said to Samuel, “Who is it that said, ‘Shall Saul reign over us?’ Bring the men, that we may put them to death” (11:12). This was a threat to all who demurred from Saul’s kingship. His administration and party was moving immediately to annihilate all political opposition in Israel. Considering that Samuel had warned the people so sternly, this death threat implicated even him. That the would-be executioners addressed this to Samuel was a slap in his face. They were trying to put the old man—whom they assumed had been proven wrong—in his place. Pragmatic success to the forces of nationalistic and political party pride like blood in the water is to sharks. God’s Law once set aside in such a case opens into outright advocacy of murder.

Saul reacted to this bloodthirsty call with probably the most praiseworthy act of his that we have recorded. In a moment of recognizing God’s hand of mercy in their victory, Saul extended mercy himself. He would not allow these gung-ho super-patriots to execute the dissidents. Saul said, “Not a man shall be put to death this day, for today the Lord has worked salvation in Israel” (11:13). Indeed, it was a good act.

Such an act also made for good PR for the new government. But when an administration has already started off acting contrary to God’s Law, this type of good PR is actually detrimental to society in general. It sends false impressions to people: it portrays the tyrant in a good light, allowing average people to be deceived about his qualities and in that deception support the government that much less critically. We will discuss this more in a minute. In short, for what is going to be a wicked government in general, acts of goodness leave false impressions—fuel for government propaganda.

The New Normal

After Saul nixed the murderous desires of the “brown-shirts” among his supporters, Samuel called all the people to an assembly to renew the kingdom (11:14). This is an important watershed moment for Israel. It marks the end of the period of Judges and the beginning of the period of the Kings; it was the official reconstruction of civil society according to the wishes of the people: the replacement of God as king with a monarchy like all the nations. From this point on, Samuel is reckoned more as a prophetic voice to the king rather than a judge (Acts 13:20–21). Although he is considered as having judged Israel all the days of his life (7:15), he is also considered the beginning of the prophets (Acts 3:24).

As a prophet, just like as a judge, it was Samuel’s job to preach the truth of God’s Word to the people. And the truth about this new arrangement was about to come as a wet blanket upon the victory party. The kingship may be the new normal, but the new normal did not mean God’s Word would cease being the standard. The people and their king would still be held to the covenant under their covenantal head.

As a prophet, it was Samuel’s job to bring covenant lawsuits in behalf of God against Israel when necessary. His warnings throughout chapter 12 are nothing less than his first court case: he calls the people to court; he brings testimony of his own faithfulness, testimony of God’s faithfulness, and evidence of Israel’s unfaithfulness. He calls God Himself as witness to all of this. He calls Israel to dare cross-examine him (12:3); not one can bring evidence against him. Instead, both God and God’s anointed (Saul himself?) could testify only in favor of Samuel (12:5). In testifying of God’s faithfulness to the people, he recounts God’s deliverance of Israel on so many occasions. Samuel brings this up in order to say stand still that I may plead with you before the LORD (12:7). The word “plead” here literally means “judge.” He then reminds the Israelites that even though God had been so faithful in the past, the people forgot the LORD their God. And he sold them into the hand of Sisera, commander of the army of Hazor, and into the hand of the Philistines, and into the hand of the king of Moab (12:9). Yet when they cried out, God delivered them time and again. But now they had made a decisive turn for the worse: just as those faithless fathers in the past, Israel now faced a foreign oppressor. But this time, instead of crying out to the Lord, the people said “No, but a king shall reign over us” (12:12). Samuel’s point in all of this is to emphasize the nature of this watershed covenant renewal: it was based in rebellion and was a turn for the worse in reacting to God’s judgment. Despite all of the exultation and euphoric nationalistic pride at the moment, the decision they had made was not good.

Nevertheless, God would remain faithful to His promises. Samuel gave them both sides of it: salvation and deliverance were still possible if Israel obeyed, but further judgment loomed just as close:

If you will fear the LORD and serve him and obey his voice and not rebel against the commandment of the LORD, and if both you and the king who reigns over you will follow the LORD your God, it will be well. But if you will not obey the voice of the LORD, but rebel against the commandment of the LORD, then the hand of the LORD will be against you and your king (12:14–15).

In this, Samuel was merely recalling the historical sanctions of the covenant from Deuteronomy 28–29. But in light of Israel’s already close rebellion and glorying in Saul’s waging of unbiblical war, the warnings of Deuteronomy 8 seem more apropos. Israel historically had been warned against making false assumptions about their own prowess based upon historical success:

Take care lest you forget the LORD your God by not keeping his commandments and his rules and his statutes, which I command you today, lest, when you have eaten and are full and have built good houses and live in them, and when your herds and flocks multiply and your silver and gold is multiplied and all that you have is multiplied, then your heart be lifted up, and you forget the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery, who led you through the great and terrifying wilderness, with its fiery serpents and scorpions and thirsty ground where there was no water, who brought you water out of the flinty rock, who fed you in the wilderness with manna that your fathers did not know, that he might humble you and test you, to do you good in the end. Beware lest you say in your heart, ‘My power and the might of my hand have gotten me this wealth.’ You shall remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you power to get wealth, that he may confirm his covenant that he swore to your fathers, as it is this day. And if you forget the LORD your God and go after other gods and serve them and worship them, I solemnly warn you today that you shall surely perish. Like the nations that the LORD makes to perish before you, so shall you perish, because you would not obey the voice of the LORD your God (Deut. 8:11–20).

And to drive home the nature of the judgment looming for such disobedience, God gives something of a repeat of Sinai:

Is it not wheat harvest today? I will call upon the LORD, that he may send thunder and rain. And you shall know and see that your wickedness is great, which you have done in the sight of the LORD, in asking for yourselves a king.” So Samuel called upon the LORD, and the LORD sent thunder and rain that day, and all the people greatly feared the LORD and Samuel (12:17–18).

We must not ignore the fact that this frightening sign from heaven came because up until this point (which must include Saul’s first battle), Israel’s wickedness was great. For emphasis, Samuel repeats the fact: you have done all this evil (12:20). Thus, Samuel’s instruction to be faithful must be understood here as a reproof: Israel needed to straighten up. They had installed this king and had not even begun that kingdom on the right foot. They needed not only to be faithful, but to return to faithfulness already.

In this context we find an implicit criticism of Saul who was probably standing right beside Samuel at the time: do not turn aside after empty things that cannot profit or deliver, for they are empty (12:21). The word for “empty” (tohu) is very theologically suggestive: it is the word used for the formlessness of the primordial chaos in Genesis 1:2. It was formless and void matter before God continued to make it the creation we know. The word is later appropriated to describe Israel before God delivered her: “He found him in a desert land, and in the howling waste of the wilderness; he encircled him, he cared for him, he kept him as the apple of his eye” (Deut. 32:10). What was the point? Israel was empty and hopeless, uncreated so to speak; but God came along and made her into a new creation. The word is not that common, so its appearance is likely strategic. I think Samuel was tapping biblical-theological language for a reason here: he was warning Israel not to return their nation to uncreated chaos—decreation so to speak—but to live up to the status of new creation which God had made them within the covenant.

Yet this would be a work in progress. Having chosen a king whose tendencies were already toward rashness, selfishness, self-reliance, self-will, anger, etc., returning to obedience as a nation—especially in government—would prove a very difficult, uphill task indeed. Having already placed their faith in man and military might to begin with, it would be hard for Israel going forward, especially after initial success, to avoid placing their trust in vain things which can neither profit nor deliver.

Application

1. Beware of false assumptions from success

Israel continually forgot God in their successes. In this passage, they justified and compounded their disobediences based upon their success in battle. Yet their success had been arrived at by God’s grace, and certainly not by their own humanistic, unbiblical, fear-mongering methods. To assume otherwise is to commit a basic logical fallacy to begin with: confusing correlation with causation. The fallacy was even more elementary considering God had given them His Word up front. They should not have made any assumptions other than what God has revealed.

To attribute success to other causes, especially unbiblical, self-justifying ones, is to reveal the idolatry at the root of one’s disobedience. It is the classic sin of placing oneself on God’s throne, and assuming that our word and our way should replace His. On the social and political level, when addressing large issues like war and foreign policy, this sin may come packed with appeals to necessity, emergency, crisis, and threat. The appeals to address it with unbiblical means are almost always justified in that context. Such solutions are alleged to be the only viable, practical measures, or at least better than the alleged alternative. The issues involved are presented as too complex for simple biblical solutions, and thus obedience to God is dismissed as simplistic, outdated, or even naïve. National experts—Christians and conservatives—will be called upon to provide rationalizations for unbiblical measures, and God’s Word will not enter into the discussion at all. The explanations will come across as reasonable and even profound. They will be presented as necessary. And yet they will be disobedient. They are no better than the transparent attacks on family values from the left. They are in reality nothing more than a sophisticated form of “If it feels good, do it.”

We today are prone to this error in various ways, and politics and national policy are some of the most dangerously abused areas. War is an obvious example. Even if all previous rationalizations for waging a particular war were shown to be dubious at best, many proponents can still rationalize based upon certain objective “successes”: “You can’t argue that the world isn’t a better place now without that tyrant in it.” At this point, it would not matter if the war had been started and maintained throughout in a completely godless manner, against every law God has given us; the many proponents of said war will cling to that apparent success marker as a justification of themselves, their policies, and their favored administration.

Likewise in politics in general. Otherwise good and faithful men will stoop to endorsing candidates who do not meet biblical criteria for office, some even who deny the Christian faith and wish to replace it with the superstitious doctrines of men—i.e. empty things that cannot profit or deliver. And why? Merely because the other side is perceived to be even worse. Thus in America today we are so often cajoled even by our Christian brothers to choose between Nahash and Saul, even when God would prefer us to have neither. Yet such pressure is brought to bear upon Christians unapologetically and with long lines of rationalization why such a decision is necessary. The motivation is, just as with Saul, fear and often anger as well.

Such candidates are often presented as a stepping-stone to a more faithful government. We must take baby steps and work by gradualism in politics. Thus the initial compromise candidate is acceptable, we are told, as the first step along the way. From this, however, should we not expect some progress once such a candidate is in office—progress towards conservative freedom upon which we can build those next steps? Yet, when such a candidate gets into office, what happens? He does little more than hold the line, and sometimes fall back further. The “success” of winning the office is taken as justification of the statist status quo and not an impetus to further reforms or roll-backs of government. The success is used to justify further legislation of humanistic policies. In other words, the compromise side of the compromise is all that materializes; the promises used to gain the votes of biblical Christians never do. Such is the fruit of placing your trust for the fulfillment of God’s promises in men who deny that God and His Law to begin with. The compromise candidate ends up being a stepping stone to social hell, not glory.

Another area in which this is most abused in finance. There is no more unbiblical abomination at the heart of modern life than a monopolistic fiat currency. In this nation, the Federal Reserve System and the “printing” of money is the beast. God’s Word clearly calls for just weights and measures, and a false balance is just as much an “abomination” (Prov. 11:1) as abortion, sacrilege, idolatry, or sexual deviancies. The manipulation of the value of money and the priority distribution of huge sums to government for welfare and warfare programs, and to favored banks and industries, is the very abomination which God condemned. Yet many Christians and conservatives, even may alleged proponents of free markets, support and defend this system as a good and necessary thing. And the rationalization for it is just like Israel’s support of successful Saul: it has brought us such great success. Who can argue with the system that has produced the largest economy and greatest financial superpower in human history? Beat that, chump. But God’s Word does beat that. It trumps all standards, despite any others’ claims to pragmatic success. Pragmatism is not our Law; success is not to be defined by human fiat or human measures, but by faithfulness to God’s Word.

We must beware of all such rationalizations in our lives, including these in the social sphere. We must have the integrity and courage to call unfaithfulness what it is, and to call propaganda what it is. When bad government does good things, we must remember that in God’s eyes, it is still bad government imposing bad policy. We must continue to preach and seek reform according to God’s Word. Do not be deceived by appeals to past successes or promises of future success if they do not honor Him. Remember that the solution to the many serpents that surround us is rarely if ever more government, especially programs, police measures, and wars that contradict God’s revealed standards of social life. We cannot place our trust in vain things which can neither profit nor deliver, and we must judge such things by His standard. Let us not congratulate ourselves based upon our own delusions.

2. Civil freedom requires strict application of God’s Law

In reproving the people for their extravagances under Saul, Samuel called them back to the standard of the covenant, God’s Law. He did this in the context of a covenant lawsuit, calling the whole nation to witness before God. He set up a contrast between his civil government and the one they had just chosen under Saul. The contrast was stark. We have already discussed the unbiblical approach of Saul, but consider also that Samuel’s defense of his government fell solely along the lines of God’s Law:

Here I am; testify against me before the LORD and before his anointed. Whose ox have I taken? Or whose donkey have I taken? Or whom have I defrauded? Whom have I oppressed? Or from whose hand have I taken a bribe to blind my eyes with it? Testify against me and I will restore it to you” (1 Sam. 12:3–4).

Samuel’s administration was marked by strict protections of private property, strict honesty (upholding of contracts), freedom (no oppression), and impeccable justice. The people confessed this. His was a government that protected life, liberty, and property, and made no exceptions to enrich himself through his position.

The contrast is against what Saul would become (1 Sam. 8) and indeed, had already started to become. The new normal would be marked by oppression, taxation, appropriation, and eventually corruption and all forms of dishonesty as well. In this context, the return to godly government would prove nearly impossible. In this setting, those establishment super-patriots unleash their oppressive tactics against dissenters, and the corrupt government becomes entrenched more deeply in its corruption. The system soon grows so corrupt that honest men cannot even get elected because climbing the ranks of the system requires one to become corrupted along the way. Exceptions are few. Those who oppose the establishment—even those who criticize from a conservative, Bible-believing perspective—are marginalized, ridiculed, and pushed out of the party. They may not be in danger of politically-motivated calls for execution at this point, but this narrative shows us that this can indeed be a danger even among God’s people. And of course, modern history is filled with examples of murderous and tyrannical statism among “conservatives.” Don’t forget that Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco were all in the conservative parties of their national equations. All of them confused nationalism for patriotism, and all were willing to murder political opposition. Don’t think that America can remain immune if we continue to trample God’s Word as the standard for political and social progress.

The only plan to maintain a free society is one in which the government is held strictly limited and accountable to God’s Law. At the legal level, a free society requires strict fiscal accountability, strict protection of private property, strict enforcement of contracts, and freedom from oppression. Civil governments are instituted among men to protect these things. For this reason, God gives the power of the sword to the civil magistrate. But the agency which has the power of the sword must itself be held strictly accountable, or else oppression, theft, and fraud are inevitable. Once accountability is compromised, compromise becomes a precedent. Government by compromise and corruption become the new normal, and the cycle of God’s judgment sets in. If we think that our political devices, economic successes, or military might are going to serve us well apart from faithfulness, then we have already accepted the delusion that invited the tyranny of Saul upon the Israelites. We must stop and reverse this trend with national repentance and a call for godly government, serving the Lord with our whole hearts. While there is time, while there is hope, let us speak like Samuel: far be it from me that I should sin against the LORD by ceasing to pray for you, and I will instruct you in the good and the right way (12:23). Let us pray for our states and teach openly God’s plan for a free society.

And for the record, let those preachers who refuse to do so note that Samuel considered such negligence a sin before the Lord.

If there is no God, there are no morals for anyone. There is neither good nor evil. Whatever a person does cannot be evaluated in moral terms. Evolution knows nothing about morality. Let me be clear. I am not saying that atheists are immoral people. Most atheists do not murder, steal, and rape. But if they did, given the nature of the atheistic worldview, if they were truly consistent with their materialistic operating assumptions, there wouldn’t be anything morally wrong with killing people for whatever reason, or raping to advance the species, or stealing to grow the evolutionary model.

The atheist borrows morality from the theistic worldview. He does the same with logic, love, and laughter.

Atheists admit as much, even though they are not consistent with their operating assumptions. Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger (1886–1961) wrote:

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.”^[1]

A materialist can measure the temperature of a corpse, determine the approximate time of death, and how the evolved entity’s life was extinguished, but there is nothing inherent in the atheist’s worldview that can say that there is any moral difference if the bullet to the meat bag was murder, self-defense, or suicide. Death is death, and there’s nothing beyond the cold corpse. The after death future of the world’s greatest philanthropist is no different from that of the world’s greatest genocidal maniac.

The atheist has to go outside his matter-only worldview to find any moral light. An atheist cannot find moral certainty in the atoms of matter-only worldview.

Atheist William Provine, historian of science and of evolutionary biology and population genetics, has concluded that “modern science directly implies that there are no inherent moral or ethical laws.”^[2] In a debate with Intelligent Design (ID) advocate Phillip E. Johnson, Provine admitted that there are “no ultimate foundations for ethics.”

Christian philosopher Norman L. Geisler states:

How would you know that the Holocaust is ultimately wrong unless you knew what was ultimately right? If you don’t have an absolute standard for right, you can’t say that [the Holocaust] is absolutely wrong. That’s just your opinion, and somebody else’s opinion could be, the Holocaust was the best thing in the history of mankind.^[3]

This is why an atheist must act in a clandestine way as an “interloper on God’s territory. Everything he uses to construct his system has been stolen from God’s ‘construction site.’ The unbeliever is like the little girl who must climb on her father’s lap to slap his face. . . . [T]he unbeliever must use the world as it has been created by God to try to throw God off Hs throne.”^[4]

Robert Bork, in the Preface to Herbert Schlossberg’s book Idols for Destruction, recognizes the “borrowed capital” principle:

“Some few years ago friends whose judgment I greatly respect argued that reli­gion constitutes the only reliable basis for morali­ty and that when religion loses its hold on a society, standards of mo­rality will gradually crumble. I objected that there were many moral people who are not at all religious; my friends replied that such people are living on the moral capital left by generations that believed there is a God and that He makes demands on us. The pros­pect, they said, was that the remaining moral capital would dwindle and our society become less moral. The course of society and culture has been as they predict­ed, which cer­tainly does not prove their point but does provide evidence for it.^[6]

Endnotes:

1. Erwin Schrödinger, Nature and the Greeks (Cambridge University Press, 1954). Quoted in Henry F. Schaefer, Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence? (Athens, GA: University of Georgia, 2003), 8.
2. William Provine, “Progress in Evolution and Meaning in Life,” Evolutionary Progress, ed. Matthew H. Nitecki (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), 47–74. Quoted in John Byl, The Divine Challenge on Matter, Mind, Math and Meaning (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2004), 39–40.
3. Quoted in Carey Kinsolving, “For Christian Apologist, God Speaks in the Voice of Reason,” The Washington Post (July 3, 1993).
4. John A. Fielding III, “The Brute Facts: An Introduction of the Theology and Apologetics of Cornelius Van Til,” The Christian Statesman 146:2 (March-April 2003), 30.
5. Robert H. Bork, “Preface” in Herbert Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction: Christian Faith and Its Confrontation with American Society (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, [1983] 1990), xvi.
6. R. C. Sproul, The Consequences of Ideas: Understanding the Concepts That Shaped Our World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2000), 171.

Copyright Michael Ramirez

The U.S. Department of Justice just released a study of gun violence statistics and the results blow holes through the anti-gun crowd’s most cherished story lines.

Based on the findings, two basic truths stand out: 1) more guns correspond with less crime, and 2) the much maligned “gun show loophole” is a boogeyman.

First, the study reveals just the opposite of the standard gun control line: an increase in the prevalence of firearms has corresponded with a decrease in gun violence. Or as John Lott has famously put it: more guns, less crime.

The Justice Dept. data reveal this to be true for both gun-related homicide and non-fatal gun violence. Over the period 1993–2011, firearm-related homicides dropped a whopping 39 percent, while nonfatal firearm crimes dived by 69 percent. That’s a dramatic decline.

Yet throughout this period, gun ownership appears to have risen just as dramatically. A Justice Department study in 1997 estimated 44 million gun owners in America. A Harvard study in 2004 concluded 57 million—an increase of 30 percent in just seven years. More recently, the FBI reported record breaking numbers of background checks for likely firearm purchases in December of 2011, then again in November of 2012, then again in December of 2012. The full year of 2012 set an annual record involving a 19 percent increase over the previous year.

Another recent study by Pew Research confirms the drop in crime, but also notes that the vast majority of the decline took place between 1993 and 2000, not as much since then. This raises the question of causation. The tempting answer for the left is the signing of the 1993 “Brady Bill” which required background checks. But this cannot be the case. Duke Professor Philip Cook, who is regarded as the nation’s foremost authority on gun control, and also an advocate for gun control, admitted in 2003 that the Brady bill had hardly any noticeable effect on crime. A Virginia Law School report notes that the Brady bill’s enactment created two groups of states: those which had to change their laws to comply (treatment states), and those which already were in compliance (control states). This allowed for a comparative test of the bill’s effectiveness. The results?

Data shows a slow gradual decline in gun homicides from 1993 to the present, a trend that started before the Brady Bill passed, but figures from both the control and treatment states track virtually identically. “Control and treatment states had the same gun homicide rates before and after the Brady law passed,” Cook said. “It made no discernable [sic] difference. There is no statistically significant effect.”

Cook remained an advocate, and at the time, condemned another leftist favorite: the “gaping barn door” of gun show sales. But Holder’s latest stats show this to be largely a myth as well. The study surveyed state prison inmates who possessed a firearm at the time of their offense. It found that the 40 percent of these convicted criminals obtained their weapons illegally, and 37 percent from a family member or friend. Only seven percent purchased their weapon from a retail gun shop. But get this: less than a single percent bought at a gun show.

Despite these simple facts, the American public has been led to believe just the opposite. Pew notes from another recent poll, “56% of Americans believe the number of crimes involving a gun is higher than it was 20 years ago; only 12% say it is lower and 26% say it stayed the same.”

Maybe the same media which has so tirelessly hyped gun crime can now help disseminate Holder’s latest stats to set the record straight. But don’t bet on it.

So what do we know from all of this? Gun ownership has risen dramatically and gun violence has dropped dramatically. Meanwhile, background checks have had no statistical effect on crime, and the gun show loophole has hardly made a blip in the statistics.

The bottom line is that these gun control measures do nothing but cajole and harass innocent people, making it more difficult to protect themselves and thus less safe. Indeed, FBI stats reveal that California, the state rated highest in gun control laws by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, also had the highest number of gun homicides. Likewise, Washington, D.C., which also has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, ranked first in homicide rate with 12 per every 100,000 people. Now that’s one “statistically significant effect” of gun control laws.

(h/t Larry Bell at Forbes, and Jason Howerton at TheBlaze)

But justice was not served in the Gosnell trial.

Let’s be clear about one thing: Kermit Gosnell was not convicted for abortion. He was convicted for murder.

Abortion is murder. I agree, abortion is murder. You agree, abortion is murder. But in this nation, abortion is not legally murder. If abortion is murder (as you and I agree), then we cannot say that justice was fully served in the Gosnell trial.

Kermit Gosnell’s conviction is a pro-life victory only in our hearts and minds. In the minds of pro-life supporters, an abortionist is going to jail. That’s one more abortionist off the streets. We associate the jail time with the abortion. But this is a personal reaction. It’s what we believe and feel should be the case. But it has done nothing to change the laws allowing abortion.

Accepting this as a moral victory can actually be detrimental to the pro-life mission. To allow our wishes to sway our hearts into a feeling of satisfactory achievement against abortion is to fall into a false sense of accomplishment. This is vicarious victory of the worst kind. A false sense of victory leads to compromise and complacency at a time when we have gained no real ground in the real battle.

This is the type of false victory with which the pro-life movement too often contents itself. In just one example, pro-life forces considered it a victory when they helped pass legislation that requires abortionists to administer painkillers to unborn babies so they will not feel pain when they are aborted.

But gentler murder is still murder. Else, just think how Cain could have fared much better had he first given his brother a good sedative.

Worse yet, such victories entrench compromised forces in legislatures, preventing real pro-life victories from taking place. Senators and representatives can vote for gentler murder or more informed murder bills, and yet turn back to their constituents and call themselves “pro-life”—and with the endorsement of the national pro-life group at that. Good Christian voters who wouldn’t know any better will take their word for it. Few if any abortions will be prevented by it, and not a single person will be convicted for the murders they commit because of it.

This is why a new breed of no-compromise activist organization is emerging. A good example is Iowa Pro-Life Action, but there are, and will be, many others.

Justice will not be served until abortion is legally considered murder and prosecuted accordingly.

Does the Gosnell case help the pro-life cause at all? Only insofar as people assume all abortion clinics are horror shops like Gosnell’s. But there are two sides to this argument, one of which the pro-death side advances as well and considers its own victory.

There are a few organizations doing good work exposing that other abortionists are horrifying as well. Life Action’s project “Inhuman” has exposed a few. Operation Rescue is making the case. Carol Everett is a former abortionist who exposes the financial greed driving the industry. There are others.

But how far do any of these go in getting abortion in general legally considered murder? Just because something is gruesome or profitable does not persuade people it is murder.

A few pro-choice journalists reportedly changed their minds when they were shocked by the details of the Gosnell case. But I heard of none who actually switched all the way to pro-life. Why? Because they are not opposed to abortion as murder, they are opposed to gruesome abortions. Their minds were not changed because of the definition of life. Their minds were changed because Gosnell kept babies’ feet as trophies, severed spinal cords of living children, and left a fetus “swimming” in a toilet.

And this is where the flip side comes in. The leftist line “safe, legal, and rare,” comes into full swing. One pro-choice Republican argued that the media must make the case to keep gruesome Gosnell a separate issue from abortion in general. Get it: Gosnell is not convicted of abortion, but murder.

To “safe, legal, and rare,” the left now wants to use Gosnell to add “cheap.” The left is now writing columns and making press releases leveraging Gosnell as a cause for the government to fund abortions:

Denying women this care until they can raise the money to pay out of pocket can force them to seek abortion later in their pregnancies and drive them into the clutches of back-alley providers such as Gosnell, who offer them substandard care.

And:

From the lack of funding available for low-income women to access abortion services, to the sharp decline of reputable providers in Pennsylvania, to the gross negligence of authorities to enforce the law after complaints were filed against Gosnell, each aspect of this case must be a teachable moment for lawmakers. . . .

With this reasoning, leftists readily join the chorus of conservatives who think justice was, in fact, served in the Gosnell trial. NARAL touted: “Justice was served to Kermit Gosnell today and he will pay the price for the atrocities he committed.”

No, justice was not served. Not until abortion is considered murder and every abortionist and their accomplices are convicted of murder will justice be served.

If you say you stand for the right to life, then stand for the right to life. This is a judicial issue, not merely emotional. If this remains merely an emotional issue in our argumentation, we will lose.

That is the standard. That must be the goal. Let us not take a victory lap, let us not fall asleep, until we achieve it.