Prop 8 & the Rule of Law

California voters in November approved a measure that defined marriage as between a man and a woman only. Normally, that is recognized as majority rule. Majorities can be wrong, but in this case all they were doing was restoring what has been normal (and Christian, even though some of the supporters didn’t necessarily care about that) for all of human history. Yet now we face a storm of protest over that vote.

Their rhetoric has become heated. Their antichristian belief system has become even more apparent. They have labeled as “enemies” those who voted to approve the proposition. The proponents of “tolerance” have suddenly become rather intolerant. This is no surprise to those who have followed this movement. It is also understandable biblically. People don’t want to be told they are sinful; instead, they want society to make them feel good about their sins.

Now a new development has occurred. Jerry Brown, former governor and current attorney general of California, has decided he will not enforce the ban on homosexual marriage.

CA Attorney General Jerry Brown

CA Attorney General Jerry Brown

 Brown, who earned the nickname “Governor Moonbeam” when he held that office, has thereby concluded that he will not fulfill the responsibilities of his current office. The attorney general is the chief law enforcement official in the state. California now has an attorney general who is thumbing his nose at the law.

Whenever an individual, whether as a private citizen or as an elected official, does not follow the law, he is abandoning the rule of law in a society. In effect, he is saying, “I am above the law. I am not bound to obey it.”

There are times when, for conscience’ sake, a Christian cannot obey a law because it goes against the law of God, which is a higher law. But Brown is simply saying he disagrees with the ban on homosexual marriage, and therefore will not ensure that it is followed. That is anarchy.

I never had to explain this concept to students I taught at the master’s level or when I was teaching at a college full of homeschoolers. More recently, however, as I was mentioning the importance of the rule of law, a student asked, very genuinely, “what is so important about that?” I have to admit I was stunned at first to think that he had never understood the idea or the consequences of uprooting it. But now I realize more than ever just how uninformed this present generation is about such matters. This generation has little understanding of basic principles by which societies operate, and what can lead to their destruction.

This goes back once again to the state of education in America. More appropriately, it is miseducation, some of which is deliberate.

32% of Young Evangelicals Voted for Obama?

That’s what we are being told. A new article by Phyllis Schlafly points to the use of “social justice” as code for inculcating young people into a faith in government-sponsored “change.” And all of this comes, of course, via the taxpayer in the public schools.

I have not said much yet about public schools, but the issue of who should be educating the young has been one of my primary teachings. When given the opportunity, I like to point out that sending one’s children to government-sponsored schools is a risk. Beyond the immediate risk is the rather stark fact that the Bible does not endorse using government as the means for education. There is too much of a temptation to provide a government-approved curriculum, one that will be at variance with the Christian faith.

I have often been amazed at how Christians would never support a state-sponsored church–because it would tell people what they ought to believe–yet they have no problem supporting a state-sponsored education system–which will do exactly the same thing.

If you are interested in the article mentioned above, go to

I will come back to this issue periodically. It’s too important to avoid.

Evangelicals and Obama

Just how far can evangelicals go with Obama? How about with homosexual advocates? There is good insight in the following article. I highly recommend it. Check it out at

Most Outrageous Quotes of the Year

The Media Research Center, a conservative media watchdog organization, always gives out awards at the end of the year for the silliest and/or most outrageous–even disturbing–quotes of the year, primarily from those who claim to report the news or celebrities who think their job is to offer expert commentary on the news.

For a combined thoughtful, agonizing, and hilarious read, go to

Which quote stands out to you?

Just What Exactly Did Those Angels Say?

We all know the words, as recorded in the King James Bible and placed in a number of Christmas carols: “peace on earth, goodwill toward men.” But that was the King James version, and I’ve always questioned its accuracy. It seems rather indiscriminate, this goodwill to men, almost like sentimental humanism.

It’s always best to check other translations: For instance, the New American Standard says, “peace on earth among men with whom He is pleased.” Now that is different. It stresses that peace will come only to those who please God.

We see the same emphasis in the New International Version: “peace to men on whom His favor rests.” God’s favor rests on those who respond to Him. Yes, His love is unconditional, but His favor is something else.

I have an interlinear Greek-English New Testament, which translates as follows: “peace among men of good will.” Again, there is the concept of man’s response–you must be someone of good will to obtain His peace.

So when we see those words this Christmas, let’s not just fall into the worldly way of understanding them. The world loves the King James translation because it can turn its phrasing into a lack of personal responsibility. I don’t believe that is what is intended at all.

Peace on earth, and within each individual on earth, is obtained only through a restored relationship with the God of all. That restored relationship is available via the One who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. There is no other alternative.

In a Celebrity-Mad World . . .

As a people, we seek heroes. Sometimes, we manufacture them:

At times, we even go further:

Yet, in the midst of all this hype, there is one true “hero” and only one Messiah:

May this be a real Christmas for everyone who reads this.

What's in a Name?

How Does Being the Daughter of a Former President Qualify One to Be a Senator?
How Does Being the Daughter of a Former President Qualify One to Be a Senator?

If Hillary Clinton is confirmed as Secretary of State, someone will need to fill her spot as Senator from New York. It appears, as of today, that the leading contender for the seat is Caroline Kennedy, daughter of JFK.

What particular qualifications does she possess that would make her the best senator for the state? As many are noting, her biggest qualification seems to be her name. If she gets the seat, it will be by appointment of the governor. She won’t even have to stand before the people of New York and explain why she should be representing them.

Now, Caroline Kennedy is hardly the first person to be in the Senate who has no real qualifications for the job, but this is particularly disturbing because she will get the position primarily because her family name is famous. We’re not supposed to have royal families in America, but that’s how it sometimes goes.

Of course, I could just as easily question Hillary Clinton’s experience in foreign affairs. Having teas with foreign leaders while First Lady is hardly a qualification. One cartoonist has captured my views precisely.

Jonah Goldberg has a fine article comparing the experience of Caroline Kennedy with Sarah Palin. You can find it here:

After writing all of the above, I found that Kennedy has answered some questions about her beliefs. You can find the article from the New York Times by going here:

It’s easy to summarize her views: pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion (including partial-birth), pro-amnesty on immigration, anti-gun, pro-bailout, pro-union (including “card check”), anti-voucher, and anti-nuclear power. As Amanda Carpenter of puts it, “In other words, she’s just another knee-jerk, doctrinaire, New York liberal.”