Court lows

Safe, legal and rare
I'm not sure when or where the terminology originated, but under President Bill Clinton "safe, legal and rare" became a cry of the pro-abortion forces. The current president embraces this formula, and the Democratic presidential candidate supports it as well. But isn't this really just a hollow rallying cry? When the state of Texas passed an abortion law that kept abortion legal, while making it safer and rare, offended abortion proponents fought it all the way to the Supreme Court -- and won. Both pro-life and pro-abortion forces need not fool themselves. True proponents of abortion really do not care whether it is rare.

In his dissent in this case, Justice Clarence Thomas writes, "The Court has simultaneously transformed judicially created rights like the right to abortion into preferred constitutional rights, while disfavoring many of the rights actually enumerated in the Constitution."

To Sell or Not to Sell
On Tuesday the 28th the Supreme Court refused to hear Stormans v. Wiesman, a religious liberty case. In doing so they let stand the U.S. Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit ruling against the liberty to not sell pharmaceuticals that violated one's religious convictions.

The case circles around the pharmacy at Ralph’s Thriftway in Olympia, Washington. The religious beliefs of the owners includes that life begins at conception and, therefore, they believe preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg is equal to abortion (ending human life). In consequence of those beliefs Ralph’s pharmacy does not stock or sell so-called "emergency contraceptives" that inhibit implantation of a fertilized egg. Facts in the case showed that those kinds of drugs were stocked by over 30 pharmacies within five miles or less of Ralph’s Thriftway store. Nevertheless, the Washington State Board of Pharmacy ruled that a pharmacy may not "refuse to deliver a drug or device to a patient because its owner objects to delivery on religious, moral, or other personal grounds."[1] A District Court determined that very design of the State Board regulations discriminated against religious objectors, but that was overturned by the Appeals Court.

In dissenting in [not hearing] this case, Justice Alito captured the pure hypocrisy of the State Board, noting "Washington would rather have no pharmacy than one that doesn’t toe the line on abortifacient emergency contraceptives." The Board clearly understood that "some pharmacy owners might 'close rather than dispense medications that conflicts with their beliefs'."

Alito declared, "This case is an ominous sign. At issue are Washington State regulations that are likely to make a pharmacist unemployable if he or she objects on religious grounds to dispensing certain prescription medications. There are strong reasons to doubt whether the regulations were adopted for—or that they actually serve—any legitimate purpose. And there is much evidence that the impetus for the adoption of the regulations was hostility to pharmacists whose religious beliefs regarding abortion and contraception are out of step with prevailing opinion in the State. Yet the Ninth Circuit held that the regulations do not violate the First Amendment, and this Court does not deem the case worthy of our time. If this is a sign of how religious liberty claims will be treated in the years ahead, those who value religious freedom have cause for great concern." [emphasis mine, rlv]

[1] Even though "facilitated referrals" are common practice in the pharmaceutical business.

Texas passes stricter abortion regulations

"The Texas Senate passed House Bill 2 (HB-2) bill restricting abortions past 20 weeks and increased  facility requirements would be mean that only surgical centers could  provide abortions. Further, HB-2 would require that doctors performing abortions would have admitting privileges in nearby hospitals."

From Texas Senate Passes Sweeping Abortion Bill HB-2 19 to 11

April 1

This seemed like a bad April Fool's joke, but it is not. On the radio this morning I heard that Judge Scott Jenkins in Travis County had ruled against the Attorney General entering a homosexual divorce case in Texas. The attorney general's office argued a homosexual couple couldn't be granted a divorce in Texas because their marriage is not recognized by Texas law. Perhaps the judge only ruled the AG out because he had already made his decision before the AG got involved. Somehow I wonder. Judge Jenkins was quoted as saying that children are what "we are supposed to be concerned about as lawyers and as judges." Actually as a judge I thought he is supposed to be concerned about interpreting the law.

While trying to find info on this, I discovered that Judge Jenkins is not ploughing new ground. I had not heard this previously, but in Dallas County in October State District Judge Tena Callahan said that two men could divorce in Texas. The Attorney General has appealed that ruling. The Texas 5th Court of Appeals is supposed to hear arguments in this case.

I'm no judge or lawyer, but common sense seems to say that two people who aren't married can't get divorced! Oh, the beauties of judicial activism.

CPS raid and the Texas Supreme Court

"The Texas Supreme Court has ruled the removal of 468 children from a polygamist sect on grounds they were at risk of abuse was unwarranted." -- Texas wrong to take fundamentalist Mormon sect kids

The Fundamentalist Mormons stand a religion before the law and Constitution the same as Baptists, Catholics, Methodists or any other group. If some or many of them have done wrong, let the law punish that wrong. But they should not be dealt with differently. They are not treated one way because they are a "cult" and others are "denominations". To classify all those families as one family because they hold the same faith and live on the same ranch was wrong.

While Texas was removing children from the Yearning for Zion ranch, the state attorney general's office was apparently putting the finishing touches on high school parenting classes. When it's the "normal" kids getting pregnant at 13, instead of removing them from their homes we provide them classes and day care.

CPS again

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Austin said CPS had no right to seize over 400 Fundamentalist Mormon children in a raid on FLDS Yearning for Zion ranch. The appeals court ruling gives a lower-court judge 10 days to release the children. The state may appeal to the Texas Supreme Court.

Ramblings on the age of marriage

The state of Texas/FLDS fiasco at Eldorado brings up a question I ask with trepidation -- at what age can a person biblically and morally enter into consent to marry? There are at least three parts to viewing the marriage question: (1) what is legal; (2) what is moral/Biblical; and (3) what is wise.

Legal. Laws vary from state to state in the U.S., as well as varying from nation to nation. In Texas, a person 16 or older but under 18 years of age applying for a marriage license must have parental consent to the marriage or a court order granted under Section 2.103 authorizing the marriage (this is probably for cases when the parents are deceased). A person under 16 may not legally marry in the state of Texas. A person married in the state of Texas may not legally marry if presently married to a another person. So the Fundamentalist Mormons in Eldorado, Texas are (if what we hear is true) in violation of the laws of the state in which they live. This might not apply were they living somewhere else.

Moral. What is legal is not necessarily what is moral.1 Is marriage of children under a certain legal age immoral? I am not asking whether specific instances are immoral, but is the practice inherently immoral? In other words, is it always a sin for a young person under the age of 16 years, for example, to get married? Does the Bible speak to the issue of when a child becomes old enough to enter into a marriage? How much are people of different cultures bound to think their cultural practice is what is morally acceptable rather than looking to the Bible for what is morally acceptable?

It is not unusual for Biblical studies to place Mary's age between 12 and 16 years old at the birth of Jesus, and consider Joseph as an older man.2 Over the past 30 years, I have heard a number of preachers mention this, apparently agreeing with it. Assuming that is true, why would God allow Himself to enter earthly life through a teenage girl? We would never call either the Holy Ghost or Joseph child molesters. Again, assuming this is true, why would God put His stamp of approval on a home based on a marriage that was immoral?

Wise. Regardless of the answer to whether there is a settled age under which it is immoral to marry and over which it is not immoral to marry, I cannot imagine that it is wise for every person to get married just as soon as he or she possibly can.

1. There is an element in the New Testament that places a certain morality in obedience to the law, unless the law causes one to disobey God.
2. The proposed ages are based on Jewish custom and other external factors. The Bible does not indicate how old either Mary or Joseph were in relation to Jesus' birth or to one another.

A moral obligation

"Kids in Baptist churches would be a great deal safer if denominational leaders would recognize that, whether or not they have any legal obligation, they have a moral obligation to congregations and to the public to investigate and disclose admitted, proven and credibly accused child molesters hiding among the ranks of Baptist clergy." -- From Christa Brown's Stop Baptist Predators web site

This post brings together the issue of clergy sexual abuse and the time-honored Baptist doctrine of local church autonomy. Organizations like SBP and SNAP have brought the problem of sexual abuse by clergy to the forefront -- and well they should. This is a very real problem, and unfortunately, one that has been pushed to the background and even covered up by some Baptist clergy, churches and institutions.

The problem. Sexual abuse by the clergy may take at least two forms -- (1) child abuse, in which the victims are under legal age of sexual consent, and (2) abuse of adults who are vulnerable because of the pastor's authority/power. Both are moral issues. And both can be legal matters. The first, child abuse, is obviously so. The second may depend somewhat on and vary by state laws. For example, in the state of Texas, a clergymen can be guilty of sexual exploitation as a "mental health services provider" (Chapter 81 of the "Civil Practices and Remedy Code") and "a sexual assault under Subsection (a)(1) is without the consent of the other person if...the actor is a clergyman who causes the other person to submit or participate by exploiting the other person's emotional dependency on the clergyman in the clergyman's professional character as spiritual adviser..." (Texas Penal Code sec. 22.011).

Doing something to stop sexual predators that have themselves in pastoral, youth, music and other "ministries". Evidence indicates that many times the perpetrators, once exposed, simply move on to another church in another area. Often victims do not have the power or resources to stop them. The perpetrator may be in a position of power and the church may have great trust in him. Churches may not believe the victim, may not have the fortitude to deal with the issue, think forgiveness is the ideal, or handle it in a variety of other ways.

Where the two issues come together. Exposing clergy sexual abuse and local church autonomy sometimes seem at odds with one another. To those who want Baptists to organize at the national level against abuse by the clergy, local autonomy may be seen as an excuse to do nothing. Robert Parham (of the Baptist Center for Ethics) called local church autonomy, in regards to preacher predators, a "smoke-screen behind which fundamentalists hide, covering the dark reasons that they wish to skirt moral responsibility." This is strong language. A bulk of complaints is directed against the Southern Baptist Convention, I suppose since it is by far the largest Baptist group. Those like Parham believe SBC leaders "override local church autonomy when they want to enforce doctrinal and political power" and simply won't do anything about the abuse issue. On the other hand, Art Rogers writes, "...the SBC does not have the privilege of oversight and governance among local congregations." And that is the hard fact. I am not in the SBC and have no intention of defending its structure (which I really don't like). But I believe that most sincere SBC folks believe that their structure and practice maintains local church autonomy and they try to approach it consistently (regardless of how the rest of us see it).

Much energy can be expended condemning the SBC for inaction. More energy can be expended hammering against Baptist polity (local church autonomy) and seeking to change or undermine it in order to fight clergy sexual abuse in Baptist congregations. But Baptist polity has been in place as long as there have been Baptists, and Baptists are unlikely to think about abandoning local autonomy, much less actually changing it. It seems to me that a better approach is to come up with ways to deal with the problem WITHIN existing Baptist polity rather than trying to change that polity. Such a solution might be more universally implemented, since all Baptists (not just SBC) share this belief in local autonomy.

In combination with some better ideas that others might have, I believe a return of Baptists to apostolic practice in the following five areas could prove helpful.

1. Replace the single pastor model with a biblical plurality of equal elders. In addition to following New Testament precedent, this will diminish the authority/power/prestige element that perpetrators use to their advantage to molest and cover it up. Even large churches with more than one minister nevertheless have a top-down hierarchy.

2. Lessen the "clergy-laity divide". The clergy-laity divide in Baptist churches is greater than in the New Testament priesthood of believers. Also, the power and authority of pastors is somewhat "out of control". In some cases a single pastor or senior pastor may be theoretically answerable to his congregation yet practically answerable to no one.

3. Expect God to raise up ministers from our midst. Other than itinerants like the apostles, the New Testament ministers seem to be raised up from the church's own ranks. We may not always know those we think we know as well as we think we know them. But this eliminates the "normalcy" of ministers traveling across the country to new pastorates with their wicked deeds left safely behind.

4. Promote "simple church" in place of the monstrous business-like structures most Americans call church, including house churches with smaller more intimate fellowship where the blight of clergy abuse might be harder to cover up, more likely to be found out, and less likely to be tolerated. It is sometimes a charge that churches are frozen to inaction by a fear of lawsuits. Therefore a church might act in the best interest of their "holdings" rather than the best interest of a victim. I cannot verify or deny the truth of such a charge, but I believe having few assets could help remove the fear of losing them.

5. Return pastors to giving Biblical counsel, rather than being counselors who are "mental health providers". First, pastors should give Biblical counsel. Second, most pastors are not qualified to be "counselors" of the modern "head-shrinking" variety. Third, more people need to hear what the Bible says and think less about how they feel about what the Bible says. In my limited experience I have found many who want to talk to the preacher are looking for some "out" rather than actually wanting find out what the Lord says.

Fighting for Will

An interesting story of judicial prejudice against religion Fighting for Will

Three weeks missing (plus Silver Alert)

Today -- Tuesday 10 July -- my mother-in-law has been missing three weeks. Though search efforts continue, as of yet we have no information as to her whereabouts. We thank all of you for your thoughts, prayers and help you have given.

Since this happened, we learned that the Texas Congress passed Senate Bill 1315, and the Governor has signed it into law. It is supposed to be similar to the Amber Alert, and is called the Silver Alert. Some things the bill does: "provides that the public safety director is the statewide coordinator of the alert;" "sets forth the required actions of a local law enforcement agency regarding the assessment of the threat to a senior citizen’s health and safety caused by the senior citizen’s disappearance;" "requires DPS, in issuing the alert, to send the alert to designated media outlets in Texas;" "authorizes participating radio stations, television stations, and other media outlets, following receipt of the alert, to issue the alert at designated intervals to assist in locating the missing senior citizen;" and "requires a local law enforcement agency that locates a missing senior citizen subject to an alert under this subchapter to notify DPS as soon as possible that the missing senior citizen has been located." It becomes effective on September 1, 2007. Though it may not help us, I believe the Silver Alert will be a good thing that will help alert Texans to missing seniors who suffer from dementia.