UNDERSTANDING THE TIMES: 2004/05-06
Print Version
E-mail This Article
Leave CommentUNDERSTANDING THE TIMES
The Newsletter of Contend for the Faith, Inc
1 Chronicles 12:32
May-June 2004
Still “One Nation Under God” (for Now)
THE PLEDGE REMAINS SAFE
When one thinks of June, what usually comes to mind? For many, June means weddings, summertime, and weighty decisions announced by the United States Supreme Court.
In a ruling handed down on Flag Day and on the 50 th anniversary of the vote by Congress to add the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance, the Court voted 8-0 to overturn a 2002 ruling by the 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals that said the Pledge was unconstitutional because it contained those two words. The bottom line: the Pledge is spared judicial mutilation for now.
While the outcome is laudable, the way by which they arrived at it is not. Five justices ruled that Michael Newdow, the atheist who brought the case, did not have legal standing to sue on behalf of his daughter because he does not have custody of her. The three other justices ruled that Mr. Newdow did have standing but his arguments were wrong. They said the Pledge is clearly not unconstitutional.
In an ironic twist, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority which was comprised of the most liberal members of the Court, wrote, “When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand.” In other words, these habitually activist judges decided this time to not act on the merits of this challenge to the Pledge because of the family dynamics of Mr. Newdow. By not ruling on the merits, the door is left open for future challenges to the constitutionality of the Pledge.
On a more hopeful note, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who too often votes with the Court’s liberals, clearly stated that she believes the Pledge is acceptable as is. Referencing the national motto (“In God We Trust”) and religious references in traditional patriotic songs such as the Star-Spangled Banner, she wrote, “These references are not minor trespasses upon the Establish-ment Clause to which I turn a blind eye. Instead, their history, character, and context prevent them from being constitutional violations at all.” She refers to these examples along with the Pledge’s “under God” phrase as “ceremonial deism.”
Chief Justice William Rehnquist aptly noted, “Reciting the Pledge, or listening to others recite it, is a patriotic exercise, not a religious one; participants promise fidelity to our flag and our Nation, not to any particular God, faith, or church.”
Justice Clarence Thomas, whose opinions are often among the most compelling, argues that in no sense does the Pledge of Allegiance “establish” a national religion. He concludes that “religious liberty rights are not in question and that the Pledge policy [of the California school district in question] fully comports with the Constitution.”
So as we celebrate our independence as a nation on July 4 th, we can do so knowing that it is still suitable to declare that we are “one nation, under God” in all 50 states. God bless America!
UNDERSTANDING GAY RITES: RIGHT OR WRONG?: PART ONE
What was once unimaginable has sadly become unavoidable: same-sex “couples” are now able to “marry” legally in the state of Massachusetts.
As of May 17, 2004, “gay marriage” has been forced on that state by a 4-3 vote of their Supreme Judicial Court. While hundreds of those living a homosexual lifestyle rushed to courthouses statewide to obtain marriage licenses, thousands more across the country celebrated and plotted how to spread “gay marriage” to the other 49 states.
There are basically two ways that homosexual activists argue for the acceptance of homosexuality and “gay marriage.” They defend it either with theology or with ideology. That is, some defend same-sex relationships by using the Bible, while others argue for it in a secular way with no reference to religion. In this newsletter, we will examine what the Bible says on the issue.
THEOLOGY
Some say the Bible does not condemn same-sex relationships, and they try to refute the Scriptures that are used to prohibit them. Their claims are false for several reasons.
Homosexual activity is condemned in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. It is contrary to the design of men and women by God, and it is a perversion of the institution of the family ordained by God.
Old Testament: When God created mankind, He made one man and one woman. He designed them in such a way that they would compliment each other and enable the procreation of children. So in Genesis 2:24 Moses wrote, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” God’s design and plan for marriage was one man and one woman from the beginning.
Genesis 19 tells the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, which God destroyed with fire and brimstone mainly because of the homosexual activity commonplace there. Gay activists say that God smashed Sodom because of inhospitality, not homosexuality. But this is ludicrous if one simply reads the text.
All the men of Sodom come to Lot’s house and demand that he bring out the two visiting angels “that we may know them.” The context demonstrates they wanted to know them in a sexual way. If inhospitality were the issue, why would Lot respond to the crowd’s demand, “Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly!”? Jude 7 confirms that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for sexual depravity.
In Leviticus 18:22, the Lord says, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.” Then in Leviticus 20:13, He says, “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death.” The former verse lists the prohibition, the latter verse the punishment. The Lord clearly calls this behavior “an abomination.”
Gay activists say the Hebrew word for abomination carries the idea of idolatry, so the prohibition is on homosexual acts associated with idolatry, not modern loving same-sex behavior. But this is not valid. First, the same behavior is condemned in the New Testament also (as we shall see) and has nothing to do with idol worship, and second, the Hebrew word is not limited to idolatrous practices because Proverbs 6:16-19 lists seven things as abominations using the same word, and none of these has anything to do with idolatry. Further, if homosexuality was prohibited only when related to idolatry, then other behaviors listed in these chapters (incest, adultery, bestiality, and child sacrifice) would also be allowable as long as there was no association with idol worship. This would be absurd.
New Testament: In Romans 1:18-32 Paul describes homosexual behavior of both men and women as vile, unnatural, shameful, and worthy of death. Gay activists respond that these actions were unnatural because people who were heterosexual by nature were doing that which is not natural to them.
This argument is false because Paul uses Greek terms for “males” and “females” here instead of the more common words “men” and “women.” The point is Paul is emphasizing biology, saying that this behavior is unnatural because these are males and females biologically. Additionally, if homosexual behavior is not sin as long as it is committed by those who are “homosexuals by nature,” then is adultery also not sin as long as “adulterers by nature” engage in it?
In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10, Paul writes that homosexuality is a vice that can exclude participants from the kingdom of God. Gay theologians argue that because Paul coined a new term here and does not use the common word for homosexual, he must be referring to male prostitution, not loving, committed relationships between men.
However, the term Paul coined is derived from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, from the two Leviticus passages mentioned above. Paul put together the noun for “male” and the noun for “bed” (which usually carries a sexual connotation), so his term roughly means “men in bed with each other.” There is no hint of the idea of prostitution attached to it.
Jesus tells us what marriage is supposed to look like in Matthew 19:3-8. When He was questioned on divorce, Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24 approvingly as the correct form of marriage. Then He adds, “Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
In their desperation to support their inappropriate relationships with Scripture, gay activists abuse or ignore clear biblical passages condemning their behavior. Since God has instituted marriage as a man and a woman, for the sake of our society let man not redefine it.
