At two in the morning, I woke up with an interesting thought (to me anyway). There is one thing the U.S. Supreme Court is supposed to do. It is to judge the actions of men. There are two parts of this duty that we need to look at. The first is, the Court is judging history. If it is going to be consistent, it must start with a worldview that is consistent with an epistemology that says we can find out what historical events have occured. Otherwise, why sit in judgment of them?
Atheism and evolutionism and secular humanism have offered no real ability to do this. This why so often atheists among others have denied that the Bible can be historically reliable. In fact, their systems has become so pervasive, many deny George Washington was even very religious. Anybody ever see the famous painting of him praying?
Second, the courts are to sit in judgment. I have found this to be the most ironic and overlooked contradiction among liberals. How often are we told by the left it is wrong to judge other human beings. Yet, the moment I punch one in the face, they immediately recognize that societies must have some kind of law to prevent utter chaos.
The problem here is "why?" Why is chaos wrong? Was it not chaos that brought the universe to where it is now? The different man-made worldviews simply cannot account for this obvious problem. So they borrow from the Christian worldview of moral absolutes in order to make their system of moral relativism work. But they pick and choose how and when they will do this. I am convinced they often do not even realize they are.
Hence my conclusion is that the U.S. Supreme Court should go back to the Bible as the foundation for the "Rule of Law". It is the only book in the world that provides a consistent worldview to accomplish the very task they have set out to do.
Motives Matter
5 hours ago
No comments:
Post a Comment