The Wrath of God and the Supreme Court
On
the subject of the wrath of God, Christians a wide variety of opinions that
cover a wide spectrum. One definition that most Christians are ignorant of is
the wrath of God that is active today, the wrath of God that is all around us
and we are for the most part clueless about it. The defining passage that
brings this to light is Romans 1:18. In the New King James Version it reads: “For
the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” The New
Living Translation says “wicked people who suppress the truth by their
wickedness.” The NLT also adds the note, “Or who, by their wickedness,
prevent the truth from being known.”
What this verse basically declares is that God does reveal his wrath towards
ungodly man who in his ungodly efforts suppress the truth. The text in Romans 1
tells us how.
The
passage goes on in Romans 1:19-32:
“Because what may
be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to
them. For since the creation of the world His
invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the
things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so
that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did
not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile
in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to
be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God
into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and
creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts
of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged
the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than
the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to
vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is
against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the
woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is
shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge,
God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not
fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,
wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit,
evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of
God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to
parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving,
unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God,
that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the
same but also approve of those who practice them.”
Notice
carefully that the above passage Romans 1:18-32 does not say all of the
wickedness including homosexuality will bring the wrath of God, it says it IS
the wrath of God. What we see in this passage is a step by step process of
apostasy of spiritual and social corruption, of man’s willful disobedience and
God’s wrathful response of turning them over to their sin. Rejection of the
truth is always followed by becoming vain in thinking and becoming heathen in
behavior. What is so important to this study is the principles revealed in
these and other Scriptures are universal spiritual law, so to what degree
individuals or groups and even nations reject revealed truth, will be the
degree they will become vain in their thinking and the amount of spiritual
foolishness or heathenism and paganism they will adopt and live out. Concerning
America, this process has been operating in the United States since our
founding.
In
verse 18 the Scriptures tell us the wrath of God is revealed against men who
resist and suppress the truth by their wickedness. In verses 19-22 a spiritual
process is described which always follows rejecting the truth: becoming vain in
thinking and heathen in behavior. Another witness to this spiritual process is
found in 2 Kings 17:15:
And they
rejected his statutes, and his covenant that he made with
their fathers, and his Testimonies which he testified against them; and
they followed vanity, and became vain, and went after the heathen that
were round about them, concerning whom
the LORD had charged them, that they should not do like them.
The
same process occurred after Israel rejected the truth of God’s word as did
after Noah’s flood, vanity in their thinking that resulted in heathen religions
and behavior. Needless to say, the same process is occurring in the United
States. For at least the last five plus decades America has been incorporating
rejecting Biblical truth into constitutional law, as a result, we have become
vain in our thinking and have been adopting heathen customs. This will be shown
below in the section, In Contempt of Court.
In
verse Romans 1:24 & 26 we see the revelation of the “wrath of God” in
response to when man “changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image”
(verse 23), and “changed the truth of God into a lie” (verse 25). In verse 24
God “gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to
dishonour their own bodies between themselves.” Then in verse 26, “God gave
them up unto vile affections:” The Greek word translated “gave them up”
is paradidomai and it means “to deliver over or up to the
power of someone”. In these scriptures it is revealed that when someone is
walking in rejecting or suppressing the truth, that God in his wrath delivers
the individual or group over to the power of their sin to suffer the
consequences of it. This principle is echoed in John 3:36, “He that believeth
on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not
see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”
In Contempt of Court
As
I said previously, America has for over 5 decades been purposely incorporating rejecting
Biblical truth into our Constitution and as a direct result America is adopting
ancient Canaanite customs. We are as a culture becoming barbarians. This is
being accomplished through our media, television, music and movies. Through our
education system and through our courts. All of these entities, within their
respective realms of influence, continue to push thought processes, attitudes
and behaviors that purposely remove any true knowledge of God. The courts then,
declare through landmark decisions that these are the standards for the nation.
The decisions below all embody the spirit of numerous scriptures that will be
shown in the various cases. The two primary passages though are Romans 1:18,
which is discussed above and Psalm 2:1-3.
Psalm 2:1-3 Why do
the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth
set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and
against his anointed, saying Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away
their cords from us.
Constitutionally,
one of the primary ways the Supreme Court determines whether a law or action
violates the Establishment clause of the First Amendment is use of the “Lemon
Test”, a test taken from Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). This ungodly test is
probably cited and used in most if not all the instances where godly Christian
traditions or practices have been removed from our cultural and social
landscape.
The Lemon Test: In
order for a state statute to be permissible under the establishment clause of
the First Amendment, (1) the statute must have a secular legislative purpose,
(2) the statutes principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances
nor inhibits religion, and (3) the statute must not foster and excessive
government entanglement with religion.
The
Lemon Test in all its prongs is ungodly. The first prong, a secular purpose:
according to thesaurus.com, some of the synonyms for secular are: civil, materialistic,
worldly, lay, profane, earthly, nonreligious. Taking it a little bit further,
the definition for profane one of the synonyms for secular according to the
same site is: abusive, blasphemous, indecent, irreverent, nasty, obscene,
sacrilegious, vulgar, dirty, foul, unhallowed, atheistic, filthy, godless,
heather, idolatrous, impious, impure, infidel, irreligious, pagan, raunchy,
sinful, smutty, unconsecrated, ungodly, unholy, unsanctified, and wicked. This
is one of the determining factors in deciding if a law or statute is
“constitutional”. The above definitions
for “profane” follow exactly the warning found in 2 Timothy 2:16:
Shun profane and
vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
The
word profane also means “unhallowed” and “void of religion and lacks all
relationship or affinity with God”. This prong written into our Constitution
increased ungodliness. It was the use of this prong that did away with the Ten
Commandments in public schools and in county courthouses. See Stone v. Graham
(1980), and McCreary County Kentucky v. ACLU (2005). It was also used to strike
down Louisiana’s Balanced Treatment Act, which was Louisiana’s state law requiring
creation to be taught alongside evolution in their public schools. See Edwards
v. Aguillard (1987).
The
second prong, it must neither advance nor inhibit religion. A prong that
erroneously declares the Courts to be neutral. There is no neutrality with God.
Jesus said you are either with me or your against me, Mt.12:30.
The
third prong, the statute must not foster an excessive entanglement with
religion. This prong has an eerie similarity to the purpose of the kings,
rulers, and judges of the earth in Psalm 2, as they declare their rebellion against
the Lord and against his Christ. “Let us break their bands asunder, and cast
their cords from us.” Let us not forget Romans
1:18 [New King James Version] that warns, “For the wrath of God is revealed
from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress
the truth in unrighteousness.”
How
is the “wrath of God” revealed? It is revealed when the willful disobedience
that man exhibits toward God produces a slow descent of a culture deeper into
corruption as described in Romans 1. As the culture pushed the envelope of
immorality, “God gave them up”, in verse 24, 26, and 28.
Romans 1:24-28 Therefore God also gave them up
to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among
themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the
lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is
blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For
even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against
nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,
burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful,
and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even
as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to
do those things which are not fitting;
It
is also described as the result of rejecting God’s wisdom in Proverbs 1:24-31.
Because I have
called and you refused, I have stretched out my hand and no one regarded,
Because you disdained all my counsel, And would have none of my rebuke, I also
will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your terror comes,
When your terror comes like a storm, And your destruction comes like a
whirlwind, When distress and anguish come upon you. “Then they will call on me,
but I will not answer; They will seek me diligently, but they will not find me.
Because they hated knowledge And did not choose the
fear of the Lord,
They would have none of my counsel And despised
my every rebuke. Therefore they shall eat the fruit of their own way, And be
filled to the full with their own fancies.
As
we disdain all of God’s counsel in verse 25, and despise God’s rebuke in verse
30, we will “be filled to the full with their own fancies”, verse 31. Or as
Romans 1:29-31NKJV lists, “…being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual
immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder,
strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they
are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters,
inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning,
untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the
righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of
death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice
them..”
This
is exactly what happened to Israel. Psalm 81:11, 12 says “But my people would
not hearken to my voice; and Israel would none of me. So I gave them up unto
their own hearts lust: and they walked in their own counsels.” And this is
exactly what is happening to America. All of the decisions of the Supreme Court
against God have the effect of suppressing the truth. They know full well of
what they are doing.
The Cases
1). Roth v. U.S., 1956
Justice
Brennan wrote this decision. This is a landmark case because it redefined pornography
and obscenity. One of the Constitutional standards for obscenity as a result of
this case became “the material has to be taken as a whole.” In the decision
Justice Brennan writes:
“The early leading
standard of obscenity allowed material to be judged merely by the effect of an
isolated excerpt upon particularly susceptible persons. Regina v. Hicklin,
[1868]. Some American courts adopted this standard but later decisions have
rejected it and substituted this test: whether to the average person, applying
contemporary community standards, the dominant theme taken as a whole appeals
to the prurient interest. The Hicklin test, judging obscenity by the effect of
an isolated passages upon the most susceptible persons, might well encompass
material legitimately treating with sex, and so it must be rejected as
unconstitutionally restrictive of the freedoms of speech and press.”
This
is why magazines like Playboy are constitutionally protected. They put in
articles about sports, cooking; biographies and they are “protected”. At the
beginning of the opinion Justice Brennan wrote:
“The guaranties of
freedom of expression in effect in 10 of the 14 States which by 1792 had ratified
the Constitution, gave no absolute protection for every utterance. Thirteen of
the 14 States provided for the prosecution of libel, and all of those States
made either blasphemy or profanity, or both, statutory crimes. As early as
1712, Massachusetts made it criminal to publish “any filthy, obscene, or
profane song, pamphlet, libel or mock sermon” in imitation or mimicking of
religious services…Thus, profanity and obscenity were related offences.”
Some
of the examples listed in footnote 12 are: “Act Against Drunkenness, Blasphemy,
Connecticut, 1737; Act for the Punishment of Profane Cursing and Swearing, New
Hampshire, 1791; Act to Prevent the Grievous Sins of Cursing and Swearing,
North Carolina, 1700; Act for the More Effectual Suppressing of Blasphemy and
Prophaneness, Rhode Island, 1703.”
It
is obvious that the standard of early America was much stricter than what we
have today. All those actions that were illegal in 17th, 18th and
early 19thcentury America have been and are now “protected” in 20th and
21st century America. They were incrementally included
into the freedoms of the press and speech of the First Amendment. Some would
try to defend the changes on the grounds it was necessary for the advancement
of science and education, but this is not true. In another obscenity case, this
one from 1972, Miller v. California, Chief Justice Burger wrote:
“There is no
evidence, empirical or historical, that the stern 19th century
American censorship of public distribution and display of material relating to
sex, in any way limited or affected expression of serious literary, artistic,
political, or scientific ideas. On the contrary, it is beyond question that the
era following Thomas Jefferson to Theodore Roosevelt was an “extraordinary
vigorous period,” not just in economics and politics, but in bellesletters and
in “the outlying fields of social and political philosophies.”
The
real reason for the change is earlier in our nation’s history, the local, state
and federal government was still guided for the most part by Biblical
principles, and we still acknowledged our dependence on God. But over time
“secular/profane” “rulers” and “judges” have arisen and purposed to “break
their [the LORD and his anointed] bands asunder, and cast away their cords”.
Because of this our nation is eating the fruit of its own ways.
2). Engel v. Vitale, 1962
This
case forbids children in our nation’s public schools to pray while at school.
Job 21:15 asks, “What is the Almighty, that we should serve him? And what
profit should we have, if we pray unto him?” But as Job 21:16 says, this is
nothing but “the counsel of the wicked”, and full of hypocrisy. Justice
Stewart’s dissent in this case lists 10 different president’s requests for
prayer, he lists how each day the opening Session of the Supreme Court is
opened in prayer, he shows how both houses of Congress open their days with
prayer. He then asks the rhetorical question, “Or is the Court suggesting that
the Constitution permits judges and Congressmen and Presidents to join in
prayer but prohibits school children from doing so?” But the most shocking part
of this decision is from the pen of Justice Black.:
“It is true that
New York’s establishment of its Regents’ prayer as an officially approved
religious doctrine of that State does not amount to a total establishment of
one particular religious sect to the exclusion of all others—that, indeed, the
governmental endorsement of that prayer seems relatively insignificant when
compared to the governmental encroachments upon religion which were commonplace
200 years ago.”
Perhaps
he was referring to laws such as the Sunday laws. In McGowan v. Maryland, 1961
a case that challenged Sunday closing laws Chief Justice Warren writes. “The
American colonial Sunday restrictions arose soon after settlement.” One of the
examples that he lists is a 1695 New York Sunday law that reads:
“Whereas, the true
and sincere worship of God according to his holy will and commandments, is
often profaned and neglected by many of the inhabitants and sojourners in this
province, who do not keep holy the Lord’s day, but in a disorderly manner accustom
themselves to travel, laboring, working, shooting, fishing, sporting, playing,
horse-racing, frequenting of tipping houses and using many other unlawful
exercises and pastimes, upon the Lord’s day, to the great scandal of the holy
Christian faith, be it enacted, etc.”
Or
perhaps Justice Black in Engel v. Vitale, was referring to the many laws
against cursing and blasphemy, such as North Carolina’s Act to Prevent the
Grievous Sins of Cursing and Swearing, from 1790. Or maybe he was referring to
Rhode Island’s Act for the More Effectual Suppressing of Blasphemy and
Prophaneness from 1703. “Encroachments upon religion?” These were state
governments acknowledging their dependence on God. His reasoning is reprobate,
it is backwards. What the courts are doing now to squash all Christian
tradition from our nations heritage is encroachment upon religion. The point is
these judges know the Christian influences of our nations founding, and they
are doing their unholy best to stamp it out. They are as Romans 1:18 declares,
they are suppressing it.
3). Abington v. Schempp, 1963
This
is the Bible reading decision that came down in 1963. In describing the counsel
of the wicked Job said in Job 21:14 “Therefore they say unto God, Depart from
us; for we desire not the knowledge of thy ways.” And yet this is the counsel
of the highest court of land. Justice Stewart writes in his dissent:
“As a matter of
history, the First Amendment was adopted soley as a limitation upon the newly
created National Government, The events leading to its adoption strongly
suggest that the Establishment Clause was primarily an attempt to insure that
Congress not only would be powerless to establish a national church, but would
also be unable to interfere with existing state establishments…Each State was
left free to go its own way and pursue its own policy with respect to religion.
Thus Virginia from the beginning pursued a policy of disestablishmentarianism.
Massachusetts, by contrast, had an established church until well into the nineteenth
century…And a refusal to permit religious exercises thus is seen, not as the
realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion
of secularism, or at the least, as government support of the beliefs of those
who think that religious exercises should be conducted only in private.”
As
I read this I am reminded of the relationship of “secular” and “profane”, they
are synonymous. The warning in 2 Timothy 2:16 is so applicable. “But shun
profane/secular babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.”
Nothing could be more true for the high court. As the years have passed since
those early ungodly decisions much more ungodliness has come down to us through
the court. As they seek to establish a state of neutrality, they are
establishing a state of secularism, a state of profanity.
4). Roe v. Wade, 1973
No
doubt the most offensive and ungodly decision to come down from the court. In
2005 the count was over forty million lives have been snuffed out from this
decision. Child sacrifice legalized. When God sent Nebuchadnezzar to destroy
Judah and Jerusalem, it was because of their shedding of innocent blood in
child sacrifice, 2 Kings 24:3, 4.
5). Stone v. Graham, 1980
This
is the first Supreme Court case that dealt with the Ten Commandments and the
second time it dealt with the word of God in public schools. The posting of the
Ten Commandments in public schools were declared unconstitutional because, the
majority said, it failed the first prong of the Lemon test-a secular purpose.
Again I am reminded of the relationship of secular and profane. Paul warned
Timothy that profane babbling will increase unto more ungodliness. This ruling
was indeed a profane babbling and it increased unto more ungodliness. In Adams
County, Ohio, this ruling was used as authority to force the county to remove
the monument of the Commandments away from the school. It was used in Cobb
County Georgia to force them to move its Ten Commandment plaque out of the
courthouse. And lastly it was appealed to when McCreary County Kentucky and all
U.S. County Courthouses were forced to remove the Ten Commandments from inside
the courthouse.
The
majority wrote:
“If the posted
copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to
induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey,
the Commandments. However desirable this might be as a matter of private
devotion, it is not a permissible state objective under the Establishment
Clause.”
I
have no information on school shootings before 1980 or even up to the mid
nineteen nineties. On the website, www.infoplease.com in its Crime Data
section it listed 40 people murdered and 108 wounded in school shootings from
1996 to 2005. In light of this quote from Stone v. Graham, and the fact that
Stone V. Graham was sighted as a precedent in 2005 in McCreary County Kentucky
v. ACLU, it appears the Court is willing to sacrifice the lives of school
children to protect it’s perverted interpretation of the Establishment Clause
of the First Amendment. I am reminded of Hosea 4:6 that says, “…because thou
hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee,seeing thou hast forgotten the
law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.” I am also reminded of
Proverbs 1:30, 31 that declares that those who will have nothing to do with
God’s counsel or reproof shall eat the fruit of their own way and be filled
with their own devices.
It
was Martin Luther who wrote: “I am much afraid that schools will prove to be
great gates of hell unless they diligently labor in explaining the Holy
Scriptures, engraving them in the hearts of youth. I advise no one to place his
child where the Scriptures do not reign paramount. Every institution in which
men are not increasingly occupied with the word of God must become corrupt.” I
am not naïve enough to think that simply posting the Ten Commandments would
prevent these murders; I know there are many more factors to consider. But at
the same time, the word of God, because it is the word of God and because it is
spiritual and supernatural, is able to deter individuals by causing a conflict
in the conscience of an individual meditating a crime and convince them not to
commit the crime. See Romans 2:15.
There
is one more example of the foolishness of their reasoning that I want to
reveal. It is grievous enough to watch the times when the Ten Commandments are
stripped from public schools or from county courthouses. It is even more
grievous to know the Supreme Court is more lenient toward pornography thatit is
toward the Commandments. In Miller v. California, a 1972 obscenity case, the
Justices defined obscenity in three parts. The first, “whether the average
parson, pplying contemporary community standards, would find the work, taken as
a whole, appeals to the prurient interest…” The second part deals with state
laws and doesn’t concern us here. The third part is, “…whether the work taken
as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value” The
phrase used twice in this definition, “the work taken as a whole” is the
leniency shown toward pornography. In any pornographic publication, all that
the publishers have to do is throw in a few articles on sports, biographies, or
short stories and Presto! It’s protected free speech because the whole work is
considered. But when it comes to the Ten Commandments, no such leniency is
shown. In Stone v. Graham, the majority wrote, “The pre-eminent purpose for
posting the Ten Commandments on schoolroom walls is plainly religious in
nature. The Ten Commandments are undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and
Christian faiths, and no legislative recitation of a supposed secular purpose
can blind us to that fact. The Commandments do not confine themselves to
arguably secular matters, such as honoring one’s parents, killing or murder,
adultery, stealing, false witness, and covetousness. See Exodus 20:12-17;
Deuteronomy 5:16-21. Rather, the first part of the Commandments concerns the
religious duties of believers; worshipping the Lord God alone, avoiding
idolatry, not using the Lord’s name in vain, and observing the Sabbath Day. See
Exodus 20:1-11; Deuteronomy 5:6-15.
Pornographic
magazines are protected because, the publication must, “be taken as a whole.”
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed because, “they do not confine
themselves to arguably secular matters”, but also, “concerns the religious
duties of believers.” This is such a twisted interpretation; its only source of
inspiration could be wicked spirits whispering into the ears of judges.
6). Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987
This
decision was about a Louisiana statute that required Lousiana’s public schools
to give “balanced treatment” to “creation science” and “evolution science.”
This decision forbids public schools from teaching that God created all life
including mankind and allows them to teach exclusively that all life
evolved from slime. Not only is it a God hating opinion, it is also
hypocritical. Its demonic effort to protect Louisiana and the nation from a
violation of the Establishment Clause is in itself a violation of the said
clause. In Torcaso v. Watkins the Supreme Court established Secular Humanism as
a religion, and evolution is a basic tenant of that religion.
7). Stenberg v. Carhart, 2000
Partial
birth abortion became known to America through the Pro-life ministry Right To
Life. Their March of 1993 newsletter focused on this procedure.
“As
described by Dr. Carhart, the D procedure [dilation and evacuation] requires
the abortionists to use instruments to grasp a portion (such as a foot or hand)
of a developed and living fetus and drag the grasped portion out of the uterus
into the vagina. Dr. Carhart uses the traction created by the opening between
the uterus and vagina to dismember the fetus, tearing the grasped portion away
from the remainder of the body. The traction between the uterus and vagina is
essential to the procedure because attempting to abort a fetus without using
that traction is described by Dr. Carhart as “pulling the cat’s tail” or
“drag[ging] a string across the floor, you’ll just keep dragging it. It’s not
until something grabs the other end that you are going to develop traction.”
The fetus, in many cases dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds
to death as it is torn from limb to limb. The fetus can be alive at the
beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its
limbs are being torn off. Dr. Carhart agreed that “[w]hen you pull out a piece
of the fetus, let’s say, an arm or a leg and remove that, at the time prior to
removal of the portion of the fetus,…the fetus [is]alive”. Dr. Carhart has
observed fetal heartbeat via ultrasound with “extensive parts of the fetus
removed…and testified that mere dismemberment of a limb does not always cause
death because he knows of a physican who removed the arm of a fetus only to
have the fetus go on to be born “as a living child with one arm.” At the
conclusion of a D [dilation and evacuation] abortion no intact fetus remains.
In Dr. Carhart’s words, the abortionist is left with “a tray full of pieces.”
The other procedure implicated today is called “partial-birth abortion” or the
D. The D can be used as a general matter, after 19 weeks gestation because the
fetus has become so developed that it may survive intact partial delivery from
the uterus into the vagina. In the D, the abortionist initiates the woman’s
natural delivery process by causing the cervix of the woman to be dilated,
sometimes over a sequence of days. The fetus’ arms and legs are delivered
outside the uterus while the fetus is alive; witnesses to the procedure report
seeing the body of the fetus moving outside the woman’s body. At this point,
the abortion procedure has the appearance of a live birth. As stated by one
group of physicians, “[a]s the physician manually performs breech extraction of
the body of a live fetus, excepting the head, she continues in the apparent
role of an obstetrician delivering a child”. With only the head of the fetus
remaining in utero, the abortionist tears open the skull. According to Dr.
Martin Haskell, a leading proponent of the procedure, the appropriate
instrument to be used at this stage of the abortion is a pair of scissors.
Witnesses report observing the portion of the fetus outside the woman react to
the skull penetration. The abortionist then inserts a suction tube and vacuums
out the developing brain and other matter found within the skull. The process
of making the size of the fetus’ head smaller is given the clinically neutral
term “reduction procedure.” Brain death does not occur until after the skull
invasion, and according to Dr. Carhart, the heart of the fetus may continue to
beat for minutes after the contents of the skull are vacuumed out. The
abortionist next completes the delivery of a dead fetus, intact except for the
damage to the head and the missing contents of the skull.”
7). Gonzales, Attorney General v. Carhart, 2007
This
decision reversed the 2000 partial-birth abortion decision, Stenberg v.
Carhart. There is no doubt that this was an answer to prayer. It occurred after
President George W. Bush appointed two pro-life justices to the High Court.
8). Lawrence v. Texas, 2003
In
this section I want to apply the wisdom of 1 Timothy 1:8-11 & 2 Timothy 4:3
& 4 to the laws of our nation. In 1 Timothy 1:8-11 writes,
“But we know that
the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not
made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly
and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and
murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile
themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and
if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; According to the
glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.”
One
of the messages the Apostle Paul is saying in these verses is that laws that
forbid among other things, lying, murder, kidnapping, and homosexuality are not
only “good” and “sound doctrine” they are also according “to the glorious
gospel of the blessed God”. One reason that makes these verses vitally
important to our time is the definitions of a couple words. The Greek word
“whoremonger”, is pornos. It means a male prostitute, (Zodiates,
4205). The other phrase, “them that defile themselves with mankind”, is
one Greek compound word. It is arsenokoites , and it means, “a
man that lies in bed with another man”, (Zodiates, 733); these definitions
are important to our present time in light of the warning the Apostle Paul
writes in his second epistle to Timothy 4:2-4:
“Preach the word;
be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all
longsuffering and doctrine.
For the time will
come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall
they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
And they shall
turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”
The
Apostle Paul warns that the time was coming when people would no longer believe
and uphold sound doctrine, i.e. laws that forbid homosexuality, but they would
gather around and listen to teachers who would accommodate their
lusts. There are denominations out there that proclaim homosexuality to be
simply one of the varied orientations that make up human sexuality. There are
people who flock to these teachers to have their ears tickled. They turn away
from the truth of the word of God concerning homosexuality and turn to listen
to myths rather than God’s Word. As of June 26, 2003 all laws within our nation
forbidding homosexual conduct have been struck down by the Supreme Court. The
justices have now found in the Constitution the right to engage in homosexual
behavior. This decision is so rebellious and so void of wisdom but at the same
time it fulfills the prophetic word. It also establishes that present day
America is not the America the founders envisioned.
In
the beginning of our republic, the framers of the Constitution never intended
for that document to protect the right to engage in homosexual acts. We know
this by using simple common sense: If committing an act is against the law, it
is not possible to give someone a right to commit that act. In Bowers v.
Hardwick, the 1986 Supreme Court decision that upheld state laws that
prohibited homosexual sodomy, Bryon White, writing for the majority said,
“Sodomy
was a criminal offense at common law and was forbidden by the laws of the
original 13 states when they ratified the Bill of Rights…In fact, until 1961,
all 50 states outlawed sodomy…” This is such a prophetic development. When our
nation started, homosexual behavior was forbidden in every state and up until
1961 in all 50 states, homosexual behavior was against the law. Now remember,
the Apostle Paul writing under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, wrote that
such laws were “according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God”. They were
“sound doctrine.” Then here we are in 2004, 43 years later, not only is
homosexual behavior a protected right, but we are fighting to preserve the God
given institution of marriage between a man and a woman. Jesus is coming soon.
In
1961 Illinois became the first state to drop its sodomy laws. Between then and
2003 there was a relentless effort by individuals and groups to repeal all
sodomy laws until by the time Lawrence came about in 2003 there was only a
small number of states that still had laws on the books to prosecute homosexual
behavior.
During
the period 1961-2003 as states were decriminalizing homosexual conduct,
municipalities began enacting ordinances that added “sexual orientation” to
anti-discrimination laws. This began in the late 70’s. The Miami-Dade ordinance
of 1977 and the fight that resulted was probably the most famous. To counter
the homosexual juggernaut and their allies, communities began enacting
ordinances that prohibited adding “sexual orientation” to their
anti-discrimination laws. Cincinnati’s Issue 3 is an example of a city wide
authority while Colorado’s Amendment 2 is an example of statewide authority.
Issue 3 was enacted by popular vote on November 2, 1993, and though it survived
challenges lasting years, and became an amendment to Cincinnati’s Charter,
Article XII to be exact, it was overturned by the voters of Cincinnati on
November 2, 2004, eleven years later. Colorado’s Amendment 2 was a response by
voters in Colorado to ordinances that were adopted by various Colorado cities
that added “sexual orientation” to their anti-discrimination laws. The
amendment was adopted after a majority of voters approved it in 1992. It was
overturned on May 20, 1996 by the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision titled,
Romer v. Evans was written by Justice Kennedy. In the decision Justice Kennedy
wrote, “…the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the
class that it affects;” In other words, in his mind the only thing fueling this
amendment was animosity toward homosexuals. Justice Kennedy’s contempt for
moral disapproval of homosexuality is very revealing. Proverbs 8:13 says, “The
fear of the LORD is to hate evil:” Now that’s moral disapproval from God’s
perspective.
Justice
Kennedy also wrote the decision Lawrence v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court case
from 2003 that struck down all laws prohibiting homosexual conduct. In doing
that it overturned a previous Court decision, Bowers v. Hardwick from 1986
upholding laws that prohibited homosexual conduct. The same contempt he had in
Romer v Evans is also evident in Lawrence v. Texas. In Lawrence v. Texas
Justice Kennedy wrote:
“When homosexual
conduct is made criminal by the law of the State, that declaration in and of
itself is an
invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public
and private spheres…The stigma this criminal statute imposes, moreover, is not
trivial…it remains a criminal offense with all that imports for the dignity of
the persons charged. The petitioners will bear on their record the history of
their criminal conviction…We are advised that if Texas convicted an adult for
private, consensual homosexual conduct under the statute here in question the
convicted person would come under the registration laws of at least four
States…This underscores the consequential nature of the punishment and the
state-sponsored condemnation attendant to the criminal prohibition.”
In
this writing, Justice Kennedy is condemning the God ordained role and effect of
law in civil government. There are consequences to crime and God has
ordained civil government to be his ministers in meting out those consequences.
Romans 13:3 & 4 in speaking of the condemnation from civil government says
the following: “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.
Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou
shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good.
But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in
vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that
doeth evil.” One of the last statements Justice Kennedy writes in this decision
is unacceptable in that he applies it to godly law. “…times can blind us to
certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary
and proper in fact serve only to oppress.” What the Bible calls “the fear of
the Lord” and “sound doctrine”, Justice Kennedy declares to be discrimination
and oppression.
In
a little more than 4 decades we have gone from homosexual conduct being
constitutionally illegal in all 50 states to being a constitutionally legal
conduct in all 50 states. That in itself is, in light of Scripture, a prophetic
fulfillment. Add to that the fact that ‘the fear of the Lord” i.e. the moral
disapproval of homosexuality that used to be considered normal, is now
characterized as mental illness (homophobia-the irrational fear of
homosexuals), or evil shows that in regard to homosexuality, we have been
turned upside down. What Isaiah wrote concerning Israel 2700 years ago now
certainly applies to contemporary America.
Isaiah 5:20,21,23,24:
“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light,
and light for darkness…Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and
prudent in their own sight….Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away
the righteousness of the righteous from him! Therefore…their root shall be as
rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away
the law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.”
