The SUPREME Court - The Bigger Picture - Welcome to Totalitarianism

It has been an eventful week. First the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare. The same justice Roberts who earlier defied the argument of the measures supporters that the mandate did not amount to a tax and essentially rewrote the statute to make it a tax in order to uphold it (yes, it was that bad), was at it again.

This time, in spite of almost irrefutable evidence and plain logic based on the words of the law indicating that the Obamacare subsidies were to be provided by individual states, not the Federal Government, Justice Roberts found a way to stretch the meaning of "State" to include a nebulous "intent" that went beyond the wording, thus making the law valid. This massive usurpation of legislative authority relied on feeling over law and a basic denial that words have meaning at all, as Justice Scalia pointed out in a scathing dissent.

Then the Supremes ruled on same-sex marriage. Again the linguistic gymnastics required to manufacture a desired outcome was something the Court found a way to justify. Justice Scalia excoriated the line " "The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity."

What exactly does it mean, as a legal matter, to "define and express (one's) identity?" What are the limits on this right now that gender in society is defined entirely by one's "feelings"?

Dennis Prager on Tolerance

The always worth reading Dennis Prager wrote a few days ago about the abuse of power in the name of tolerance. 

The key case that sparked his column is described in these words by Prager:

"Last week, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that an event photographer's refusal on religious grounds to shoot the commitment ceremony of a same-sex couple amounted to illegal discrimination.

"The photographer had never objected to photographing gays. She did not, however, wish to be part of a ceremony to which she religiously objected. In America today, thanks to myriad laws and progressive justices, people can go to prison for refusing to participate in an event to which they object."   (More)

Tony Jones Slays a Unicorn (Updated)

Tony Jones posted last week on the question of whether Christian progressives have a moral foundation.  The discussion  was raised with a question from Steven Kurtz

Johathan Haidt’s new book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. He says that research has shown that Western and Educated people from Industrialized, Rich, Democratic countries (or WEIRD people) who self-identify as “progressive” (socially) use, almost exclusively two moral “foundations” as criteria for making moral judgments: Harm/care and Fairness/reciprocity. We progressive WEIRD people do not use the remaining 3 foundations: Ingroup/loyalty, Authority/respect, or Purity/sanctity – the 3 that conservatives do use, in addition to, and in a higher priority manner than Harm and Fairness.

But progressives then have a problem with the God of most traditional and especially Christian formulations – especially with retribution, punishments, curses, condemnations, as well as problems with the unfairness of the treatment of women, slaves, and other outsiders. This gives us a huge problem with the bible and the god it describes, which forces us to re-think everything. Thus our problem speaking much, or coherently about God. Where do we go for information? Obviously from the comments I’ve read, anywhere available to our tastes.

(More)

Ben Shapiro on Bullies

Not sure I relish all of Ben's recommendations or the notion we have to embrace tactics that lean toward "incivility", but there comes a point where self-defense requires a bit of force. Long video, but worth watching. Bright mind, brave soul.

What is the Gospel? (Part 2)

Scot McKnight asked a while ago whether the gospel was misunderstood by rank and file evangelicals.  He specifically pointed to Luke 4:18-19 which speaks about the poor, about captives, about the oppressed.  The suggestion was that for most evangelicals the gospel is defined in terms of “personal salvation”, where we are individually saved from our own sins and benefit as individuals in a spiritual sense, when the more “robust” gospel is about the “kingdom” here and now, righting of wrongs, healing of wounds, mercy, justice and liberty.  

It is  not my intention to hammer Dr. McKnight, but to push back on the emphasis.  The so-called "soterian" gospel of personal salvation is indeed worthy of some scrutiny.  But so is a gospel that suggests that the effects of grace in the here and now should be the primary focal point of "gospel".(More)