The 2004 presidential election will turn on secular/religious issues. Same sex marriage, abortion, cloning, the difference between good and evil and what responsibility we have to support one and to oppose the other, the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, gun control (meaning removal from the hands of the people and restriction to the hands of the government) and judicial activism are all in this space. Why does judicial activism belong on this list?
The role of a judge in Judeo-Christian society derives from Moses, the law giver, who received the Ten Commandments from God and brought them to the people from Mount Sinai. This is why his mural is so prominent on the wall of the Supreme Court building on Capital Hill in Washington. Moses' father-in-law Jethro, after a time, pointed out to Moses that he just did not have time to deal with civil arguments among the Hebrews. Moses leadership was associated with his direct access to God. Moses even wore a veil over his face upon leaving the Tabernacle due to the brightness of the Glory of the Lord shining from him when he emerged from conversing with God.
The judges that Moses appointed were to hear all cases they could, and then come to him when they did not know what to do and he would take it to God. Judges were to judge, not make law. God made the law.
The constitution was set up with separation of powers to protect us from abrogation of power by elites and to involve as many people as possible to discern God's will when laws were considered and enacted. The separation of powers were placed primarily to protect us from judges. The framers of the Constitution intended that we make laws with the help of representatives of the people charged with this responsibility. Judges were not authorized to make law. Their only role was to be interpretation. If a judge makes a law, it is necessarily without reference to the people, their representatives or even to the will of God through the petitions of the people and their prayers to God for relief.
The framers were largely Christian men. Over 51 percent of the signers had theology degrees. They knew that corrupted judges who legislated from the bench would split the country politically, causing judiciary appointments to become contentious. If law were made by judges, judicial appointment would become charged with politics. That has now happened.
The minority party, devoted to the causes that they espouse but no longer able to pass laws to further them due to their diminished numbers, is trying to control the courts and supports only the judges who will act to make these causes triumphant, while blocking those who will not. They favor activist justices who believe what they do and they block constitutional traditionalists who either do not share their opinions or intend only to interpret the law.
The theory they labor under is that God does not work to care for his people through the structure of the Constitution and representative government, but in his stead it is the duty of "intelligent" people with "correct" views to create laws in order to right wrongs and amend behavior. Liberal elites believe that God may exist but that he is distant and not to be trusted with important matters. Putting themselves and the current ideas of other elites in academia in His place, they intend to do what is "right" in their collective eyes.
This is idolatry. We should see it for what it is and oppose it.
The role of a judge in Judeo-Christian society derives from Moses, the law giver, who received the Ten Commandments from God and brought them to the people from Mount Sinai. This is why his mural is so prominent on the wall of the Supreme Court building on Capital Hill in Washington. Moses' father-in-law Jethro, after a time, pointed out to Moses that he just did not have time to deal with civil arguments among the Hebrews. Moses leadership was associated with his direct access to God. Moses even wore a veil over his face upon leaving the Tabernacle due to the brightness of the Glory of the Lord shining from him when he emerged from conversing with God.
The judges that Moses appointed were to hear all cases they could, and then come to him when they did not know what to do and he would take it to God. Judges were to judge, not make law. God made the law.
The constitution was set up with separation of powers to protect us from abrogation of power by elites and to involve as many people as possible to discern God's will when laws were considered and enacted. The separation of powers were placed primarily to protect us from judges. The framers of the Constitution intended that we make laws with the help of representatives of the people charged with this responsibility. Judges were not authorized to make law. Their only role was to be interpretation. If a judge makes a law, it is necessarily without reference to the people, their representatives or even to the will of God through the petitions of the people and their prayers to God for relief.
The framers were largely Christian men. Over 51 percent of the signers had theology degrees. They knew that corrupted judges who legislated from the bench would split the country politically, causing judiciary appointments to become contentious. If law were made by judges, judicial appointment would become charged with politics. That has now happened.
The minority party, devoted to the causes that they espouse but no longer able to pass laws to further them due to their diminished numbers, is trying to control the courts and supports only the judges who will act to make these causes triumphant, while blocking those who will not. They favor activist justices who believe what they do and they block constitutional traditionalists who either do not share their opinions or intend only to interpret the law.
The theory they labor under is that God does not work to care for his people through the structure of the Constitution and representative government, but in his stead it is the duty of "intelligent" people with "correct" views to create laws in order to right wrongs and amend behavior. Liberal elites believe that God may exist but that he is distant and not to be trusted with important matters. Putting themselves and the current ideas of other elites in academia in His place, they intend to do what is "right" in their collective eyes.
This is idolatry. We should see it for what it is and oppose it.
posted by Unknown @ 8:17 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home