The Principle Approach to Education: Reading, Grammar, History, and the Sciences

May 25, 2012

Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

Constitutional Qualification for “Equal Rights” Claim

May 14, 2012

A contention for the Constitutionally legitimate right to LIFE and biblical marriage in brief contrast to the maligned insistence that same-sex “marriage” and other forms of perverted sexuality also qualify as natural, equal rights.

An actuality that most people are increasingly (and, often willfully) ignorant of today is the fact that America began with the collective ambition of effectuating a “city upon a hill” vision. This goal was the dream of our Puritan founders; the proclamation of the Gospel and the freedom to interpret it privately as common citizens was the primary motivation for our establishment. Ensuing liberty was consequently inevitable as responsible men and women recognized that freedom was not an absence of laws, but rather an upholding of God’s Law. One such, namely, was the sanctity of the marriage covenant.

The defilement of sexuality and marriage was rightly understood a reproach to a nation (Proverbs 14:34); this persuasion signified not merely the understanding under the Old Covenant, but continued and surfaced throughout several centuries of our own government, as well. As is the case with every substantial document, the Constitution cannot be properly interpreted by its text alone as definitions and wordage subjectively undergo continual evolution with society and culture. Historical context is nearly as important as textual content itself, acting as the enlightening “lens” of literature, so to speak. During the time of the Constitution’s drafting and following, the sin of sodomy was severely penalized by castration. Thomas Jefferson endorsed a bill supporting dismemberment of rapists. Imprisonment connoted one penal consequence of adultery. Clearly, perverse sexuality was a significant issue to our founders—not a matter deserving “equal-rights protection,” but as a matter deserving due recompense considering the natural right it essentially opposed.

Civic rights are founded initially on the concept of natural law. Natural law delineates those rights divinely dispensed at conception; this conviction was the driving motivation of the Preamble (“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”) The highest and most fundamental of these natural rights was the “right to LIFE,” ensured indirectly by Amendment Ten, and directly by Amendment Fourteen and our Preamble. Life was therein avowed federal protection and preservation from the womb.

Homosexuality blatantly disregards life as it opposes the marriage union and the pattern of sexuality providing the only possible formula for reproduction: the one-man, one-woman bond. More severely, it transgresses the spiritual concept that earthly marriage reflects: the Trinity.

Without a respect for natural rights, no basis for “equal rights” exists.

“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.” ~ George Washington

~Whitney Ann


William Wilberforce: The Impossibility of Moral and Religious Pluralism

May 13, 2012

By Whitney Ann Dotson
wilberforce

“Is it not the great end of religion, and, in particular, the glory of Christianity, to extinguish the malignant passions; to curb the violence, to control the appetites, and to smooth the asperities of man; to make us compassionate and kind, and forgiving one to another; to make us good husbands, good fathers, good friends; and to render us active and useful in the discharge of the relative social and civil duties?”

~ William Wilberforce

What William Wilberforce proclaimed a Christian obligation is regarded with great skepticism today. Legislative attempts to “drive religion and its influence out of public life” (Carson) and appeals for tolerance from within the church have contributed to the labeling of Christian political participation as irrelevant to biblical priority and evangelical calling. As immorality gains legalization in increasing distaste towards life and family, many well-meaning believers assume silent complacency in the face of moral deterioration. Insisting that God’s people are not of this world, and holding to a misconception of church-and-state separation, the Church has unknowingly forfeited her voice in the pulpit and courts. Unfortunately, she has forgotten that an evangelical calling requires that every believer wield the sword of righteousness in a biblical worldview which places earthly law in the scope and view of the consummation of the Great Commission.

To limit the Christian’s accountability to the church or mission field is to underestimate God’s range of presence and concern. He does not reign over those regions pronounced religious only, but also over every aspect of life. To reflect His universal permeation, man was designated the role of cultivator over both natural and spiritual matters (Genesis 2:2). From tilling the ground to constructing profound cities, creation was lent subject to man’s will for the express purpose of directing men to their Creator (John 20:31). Men were called to exemplify the spiritual implications of this cultural mandate in upholding the Law in both daily life and particular vocations. Biblically prominent figures such as Daniel, Joseph, and Deborah were each called to civic roles to enact social order based on biblical statutes. Paul re-affirmed the continuity of this responsibility among believers in addressing the protection of widows, orphans, and the socially weak (Psalm 82:3; Isaiah 1:17).

A truly biblical understanding of the Great Commission perceives the world a mission place in which every earthly subject holds potential to serve and glorify the Savior. This worldview presents not a dichotomy of life, but a unity which centralizes upon Christ. By asserting laws which resemble eternal precepts and restraining surrounding evils, Christians fulfill their office as true “witnesses” (Isaiah 43:10). The institutions of church and state are perceived not as polar associations, but as subjects mutually ordained by God. Only in this perspective do we begin to fathom God’s all-consuming sovereignty. It is only in this enlightenment in which regenerate, mortal beings can exist in the world, utilizing its tools without conforming to its values.

Works Cited: Carson, Clarence B. Basic American Government. Amercan Textbook Committee Publishers. Wadley, Alabama. 1994.


%d bloggers like this: