Regardless of Kavanaugh's Confirmation Outcome, We Must Address This - FRANK TUREK CHARISMA NEWS

(AJEL / Pixabay)

Regardless of Kavanaugh's Confirmation Outcome, We Must Address This

10/5/2018 FRANK TUREK  CHARISMA NEWS

If your back was turned when your child asked, "Daddy (or Mommy), can I kill it?" What would be your first question?

What is it?

A spider? Sure. Your baby sister? No.

Many of the problems in our culture stem from the fact that many people fail to correctly answer the question, "What is it?" What is the nature of the thing in question?

This applies in everything from abortion to Senate confirmation hearings, which, come to think of it, are really about the same thing. What is the nature of the Constitution? What is the nature of the unborn? What is the nature of sex?

Get Spirit-filled content delivered right to your inbox! Click here to subscribe to our newsletter.

It seems to me that the left's answers to these "What is it?" questions are wrong. And their wrong answers lead to wrongdoing.

What is the nature of the Constitution?

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land that expresses the will of the people, and, at the same time, protects the people from an overreaching government. It can only be changed through the amendment process (that's why the amendment process is in there). The will of the people should not be overruled by rogue judges who merely disagree with what the people have decided (that's what overreaching governments do).

But the left doesn't care about the will of the people. The left wants judges who will impose leftist policy preferences and will fight any judge who isn't a leftist legislator. That's why the left came out against Judge Kavanaugh immediately after he was announced back in July. It had nothing to do with any alleged sexual misconduct. This is about abortion.

Abortion is not, and never has been, in the Constitution. In 1973, seven unelected judges overruled the will of the people in all 50 states by inventing a right to abortion through their Roe vs. Wade opinion.

The left knows that if a case rises to the court that challenges Roe vs. Wade, a judge like Brett Kavanaugh might actually read the Constitution and join others to overturn Roe. That would put the question of abortion back to the states where people could actually vote on it. (Overturning Roe vs. Wade wouldn't outlaw abortion—it would just return the issue to the states and allow the people in each state to vote on it.)

What is the nature of the unborn?

Why are leftists afraid to allow people to vote on abortion? Because democracy and truth are the enemy of their pro-abortion position. An informed public might correctly answer the question, "What is the nature of the unborn?" and vote to restrict or outlaw abortion. Indeed, anyone who has ever seen a sonogram knows there's an actual baby in there. It's not just "a blob of tissue," but a genetically unique human being from the moment of conception. That's a scientific fact.

Related Articles

• TODAY: Intercessors Declare National Day of Prayer Over Brett Kavanaugh
• The Real Reason for the Rage Against Brett Kavanaugh

But for the science-denying left, the nature of the unborn doesn't matter. Power matters. Their wrong answer about the nature of the unborn leads them think it's justified to use power to commit wrongdoing to get what they want. After all, once you've convinced yourself that it's justified to kill the unborn, how hard is it to convince yourself that it's justified to kill the reputation and candidacy of a conservative judge?

"Daddy, can I kill it?" "Why not? It's in my way."

What is the nature of sex?

And then there's sex, from which all of this derives. For the left, sex is like a religion, and a militant one at that. Anyone who questions their sexual dogma will be branded a heretic, as I was. In the name of "inclusion, tolerance and diversity," you will be excluded and not tolerated for holding a diverse view.

The left's views on sex are not only contradictory on so many levels, but their wrong view on the nature of sex leads to personal and societal destruction. For the past 50 years, leftists in academia, the media and Hollywood have been cheering on casual sex as if the nature of sex itself is merely physical. It's little more than a sport. It's a competition where you're urged to throw off all restraint and constantly pursue sexual conquest, especially when it's outside of marriage.

So why are leftists now outraged to hear that some teenage boy may have actually pursued sexual conquest as if it were merely a sport? They create and champion an environment that amps up youth to "score" sexually and are then shocked when a youth may have actually gone too far in attempting to do so.

The left has helped create the very problem they're now selectively incensed about. (I say "selectively" because who on the left voted to remove Bill Clinton for the sexual sins he committed, not allegedly as a drunken teenager, but known sins he committed as president of the United States?)

They've done the very thing C.S. Lewis observed about those who undermine virtue. Lewis wrote, "In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful."

In fact, the left has castrated the proper view of sex itself. A moment's reflection should convince anyone that sex is far more than just physical. If sex is just physical, then why is it worse if someone rapes you than if someone physically assaults you? Why are people more traumatized over sex than almost anything else? Why do we consider the uncorroborated word of Dr. Ford so seriously, even when all of the supposed witnesses deny it happened?

Because deep in our hearts, we know that sex isn't just a sport or physical activity to be taken lightly as the left has been advertising for so long. It's much more than physical. There are spiritual, emotional, reproductive, psychological and moral aspects to sex, which means the consequences can be either wonderful or devastating.

Sex is like fire: if you keep it in your fireplace, it will warm you. But if you get it anywhere else in your house, it will burn your house down. If you have sex with someone, then everything changes dramatically forever.

Regardless of how this confirmation process turns out, there are more foundational issues we must address personally and as a country. Are we going to continue to lie to ourselves about the nature of the Constitution, the nature of the unborn and the nature of sex? If so, we're not only going to continue killing our vulnerable children, we're going to continue killing our vulnerable country. 

Dr. Frank Turek (D.Min.) is an award-winning author and frequent college speaker who hosts a weekly TV show on DirectTV and a radio program that airs on 186 stations around the nation. His books include I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist and Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case.

Get Spirit-filled content delivered right to your inbox! Click here to subscribe to our newsletter.

What  happens when man's law conflicts with God's law? (Reuters)

Should You Do Your Job or Obey Your Conscience?

 9/9/2015 FRANK TUREK  charisma News

Should Christians ever disobey their government? Some say no. But Kim Davis sides with Martin Luther King Jr. and thinks civil disobedience is justified. Mrs. Davis is the Rowan County Kentucky clerk who spent four days in jail for refusing to put her name on same-sex marriage licenses. Claiming to be a new Christian, Ms. Davis is also a longtime Democrat.

"The court cannot condone the willful disobedience of its lawfully issued order," Judge David Bunning told Davis last week in court. "If you give people the opportunity to choose which orders they follow, that's what potentially causes problems."

Judge Bunning is absolutely right. This is the kind of chaos that results when people do not respect the law. But I'm not referring to Kim Davis—I'm referring to the United States Supreme Court. As I've written before, and the multiple dissents state more eloquently, there is no justification in the Constitution for judicially imposing genderless marriage on every state in the union. Five unelected justices simply imposed their own law on 330 million people.

But does that justify civil disobedience? Where do you draw the line?

Certainly, there is a line somewhere. After all, we laud those behind the Underground Railroad who freed slaves and those who protected Jews in Nazi Germany. While bad marriage laws are obviously not as serious, consider a more equivalent scenario: Suppose the Supreme Court decided to drop the age of consent in every state to 12 years old (a position Ruth Bader Ginsberg supported before she became a Supreme Court Justice). Would you think that Kim Davis should be forced to endorse the marriage of a 75-year-old man who brought a 12-year-old girl into her office? I hope you can see that there is a line and it's not far from Kim Davis.

Liberals believe in civil disobedience—when it suits their causes. Despite chanting, "Do your job!" outside Kim Davis's office, liberals were rejoicing when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered clerks to violate California law and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2004. They certainly were not chanting "Do your job" outside of Attorney General Eric Holder's office when he told the states last year to ignore their own laws that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. And liberals were not asking a federal judge to throw President Obama in jail when he refused to do his job by defending the Defense of Marriage Act in Court.

So just 10 minutes ago liberals believed that defying marriage laws was heroic! Now their blatant double standard is all too obvious—they laud civil disobedience when it's used to advance the religion of sex and denounce it when it's used to protect Christian or natural law beliefs.

But on what authority does one defy the government? One man who wanted a same-sex marriage license asked Kim Davis on "what authority" was she not issuing licenses. She cited God.

Yet the question needs to be asked of both sides. By what authority did Newsom, Holder, Obama and other liberal politicians defy the law? They certainly weren't citing God or the Creator cited in our Declaration of Independence who gives us unalienable rights. But without an authority beyond man's law, there is no authority for their actions nor is there any objective standard to ground unalienable rights. Without God, every right claim is merely a human opinion. At least Kim Davis, agree with her or not, is citing an authority beyond herself.

Civil disobedience has rich precedent in the United States. In fact, our country was founded on it largely to secure religious freedom. Civil disobedience also has precedent in the Bible. When Pharaoh ordered Hebrew midwives to murder all Hebrew boys, they disobeyed and even lied to the authorities (Ex. 1). And Daniel and his friends peacefully defied laws that contracted God's commands. Likewise, when the Jewish authorities told John and Peter to stop telling people the good news that Jesus paid for your sins and rose from the dead, they disobeyed, saying that they would obey God rather than men (Acts 4).

Therefore, the principle for Christians is this: Civil disobedience is necessary when a government compels you to sin or prevents you from doing something God commands you to do. You don't disobey the government merely because it permits others to sin—only when it compels you to do so. Kim Davis thinks that line has been crossed.

It's actually not hard to avoid crossing the line. Both parties can be accommodated as Judge Bunning finally figured out when he released Davis yesterday. In North Carolina, we passed a law to allow people like Kim Davis to opt out of endorsing relationships that violated their religious or moral beliefs. Since other government employees are more than happy to issue licenses, no one is inconvenienced or forced to violate conscience. We do this for far more serious issues than weddings. For example, even during a time of war when we draft people to defend the country, we allow for conscientious objectors to opt out. If we can allow exemptions for government employees involved in protecting the very existence of our nation, we can certainly allow exemptions for government employees involved in weddings!

Will the Kentucky legislature act when it returns in January to pass such a law? Unfortunately, I doubt the activists who are always demanding tolerance will tolerate such reasonableness. It seems that some people just can't live and let live. They will not rest until all opposition is crushed and everyone is forced to celebrate what they are doing.

If that's your position, I have a question for you: Why would you want anyone who disagrees with your wedding to have anything to do with it? Go to another clerk, another florist, another photographer. Why force people to violate their conscience when there are so many other people willing to help you and celebrate with you?  After all, isn't this supposed to be a time when "love wins?"

Apparently not. For some liberals, "love wins" as long as everyone agrees with them. Those that disagree will not like the kind of "love" some liberals dish out. Are the same people who are chanting, "Love wins," some of the same people who issued death threats to Kim Davis? It certainly wasn't the Christians.

The truth is Kim Davis and other victims of "tolerance" don't want a holy war. Davis just doesn't want her signature on the license. She suggested other government officials sign, and Judge Bunning finally agreed. But a law needs to be passed to prevent future problems.

North Carolina has led the way. It remains to be seen if liberals in Kentucky will accept that way. If their recent history is a guide, I'm afraid they will demand that every knee bow and every tongue confess the dogma of their secular religion.

Frank Turek is the president of crossexamined.org, coauthor of I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist and the author of the new book Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case.

For a limited time, we are extending our celebration of the 40th anniversary of Charisma. As a special offer, you can get 40 issues of Charisma magazine for only $40!

The Charisma Podcast Network is now live. Subscribe now for free!