Judeo-Christian Values
Topic: Social Issues
The Left's battle to restore chaos:
Judeo-Christian values: Part X

Dennis Prager

April 5, 2005

It is difficult to overstate the depth of the differences between the Judeo-Christian view of the world and that of its opponents, most particularly the Left. For example, it involves the very question of whether there is order to the world.

Basic to the biblical worldview is the proposition that God made order out of chaos -- order expressed largely through separation and differences. God separated light from dark and created day and night; separated the waters and created land; and so on.

Differences reflect the divine order, while attempts to abolish those differences represent a denial of that order and a yearning for primeval chaos, moral and otherwise.

Here are some of the differences that are central to the Judeo-Christian worldview that are under attack today:

Good and evil: Central to the Judeo-Christian value system is that good and evil are polar opposites and "Woe unto those who call evil good, and good evil" (Isaiah). Opponents of Judeo-Christian values have made war on moral absolutes, on God-based moral values.

This has been attempted through moral relativism ("What I think is good is good for me, what you think is good is good for you"); opposition to moral judgments ("Who are you to call the Soviet Union 'evil'?"); multiculturalism ("No culture's values are any better than any other's"); substituting psychological categories for moral ones (such as routinely labeling violent murderers "sick" rather than evil); dividing the world into the powerful and the weak rather than the good and bad; and through Marxism and all its leftist and liberal materialism-based offshoots that have substituted economic criteria for moral ones ("Poverty causes crime"; or as constantly heard since 9-11, poverty breeds terrorists, the point made by George McGovern recently at a symposium on world poverty at Princeton University).

God and man: God is God and man is man. There is an infinite gulf between man and God, and God is infinitely higher than man. For the Left, man is God and God is man (these were the very words used by Marx and Engels). Each man is the source of values and the measure of all things, unaccountable to any God.

Man and woman: "And God created Adam [i.e., the human being], male and female He created them" (Genesis).

This is the area of the greatest current cultural battle. The biblical view is that man and woman are entirely distinct beings, and human order in large part rests on preserving that distinctiveness. The Left is working to abolish this distinction. That is what its battle for the "transgendered" is about. "GLBT" means "Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered." Transgendered is not transsexual. A transsexual has simply changed sexes, but he or she does not obliterate the sexes' distinctiveness. The transgendered, on the other hand, remains a member of his or her sex but acts out gender-roles belonging to the other (such as the man who wears a dress in public).

The Left advocates much more than merely homosexuality-heterosexuality equality. It is for obliterating the notion of fixed sex, of male and female. That is why in the last 10-20 years the word "sex" -- always used to describe male or female -- has been replaced by "gender." Sex is objective and fixed; gender is subjective and malleable. Thus some universities -- the institution in the vanguard of removing Judeo-Christian values -- are eliminating men's and women's bathrooms, as they imply a sex distinctiveness that is unacceptable to opponents of Judeo-Christian sex distinctions.

Two laws in the Torah provide further evidence of the biblical desire to retain male-female distinctiveness. The first is the ban on men wearing women's clothing and on women wearing what is distinctive to men; the second is the wording of the ban on male homosexual behavior: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman" (my translation). Sexual intercourse between men obliterates the ultimate male-female distinction.

Holy and profane: A major separation in the Judeo-Christian values system is between the holy and the profane. Applied to speech, this means, for example, that cursing is regarded far less seriously in those parts of society estranged from Judeo-Christian values. Applied to sex, this means that sexual intercourse has a dimension of holiness unknown to the Left, which regards it as a volitional and health issue.

One characteristic of the Left is its general disdain for the very concept of the holy. No one better expresses this disdain than the chief writer on culture for the New York Times, who regularly heaps contempt on religious people's sensitivities in this area. Worthy of particular ridicule are those who thought that the baring of Janet Jackson's breast on national television during half-time at the 2004 Super Bowl, and cursing and vulgarity on the public airwaves, are worth getting upset about.

Human and animal: A final example of a Judeo-Christian distinction being obliterated in the secular world is man-animal. For the Bible, man is created in God's image, animals are not. Indeed, the best way to describe holiness is the movement from the animal-like to the God-like. One of the great human tasks, according to the biblical worldview, is to separate oneself from the animal -- to emulate the holy, not the animal. On the other hand, in the contemporary secular world, every attempt is made to show how similar humans are to the "other animals."

By erasing the distinctions that make for an ordered universe, those working to dismantle Judeo-Christian values are working, consciously or not, to restore chaos.

?2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Standards of Decency
Now Playing: What should be the reference point for values ?
Topic: Social Issues
"Evolving Standards of Decency"

From the April 4, 2005 issue: "Evolving Standards of decency" saved Christopher Simmons's life; they weren't enough to save Terri Schiavo.

by William Kristol
04/04/2005, Volume 010, Issue 27


THANK GOD FOR OUR JUDGES. (Oops! Sorry. No offense, your honors. I didn't mean to write "God." Or at least I didn't mean anything specific or exclusionary or sectarian or unconstitutional by writing "God." It's just an expression I occasionally use. It does go way back in U.S. history. I hope it's okay.)

Anyway. Thank God for our robed masters. If it weren't for them, Christopher Simmons might soon be executed. In September 1993, seven months shy of his 18th birthday, Simmons decided it would be interesting to kill someone. He told his buddies they could get away with it because they were still minors. He broke into the house of Shirley Crook in Jefferson County, Missouri, bound her hands and feet, drove her to a bridge, covered her face with tape, and threw her into the Meramec River, where she drowned. He confessed to the crime, and was sentenced to death according to the laws of Missouri.

Last month the Supreme Court saved Simmons's life. The citizens, legislators, and governor of Missouri (and those of 19 other states) had, it turned out, fallen grievously and unconstitutionally behind "the evolving standards of decency that mark a maturing society." Five justices decided that the Constitution prevented anyone under the age of 18 from being sentenced to death. So Christopher Simmons will live.

It appears, at this writing, that Terri Schiavo will not. In a series of decisions in Florida state courts, Circuit Judge George Greer and his colleagues have chosen to credit the claim of Michael Schiavo that his wife long ago expressed a well-considered wish to be killed if she found herself in a disabled state. Of course, there is no reason to believe she ever seriously considered she might find herself in such a state. They have chosen to deny efforts by Terri Schiavo's mother and father to assume responsibility for their daughter's care. They have chosen to strike down legislation passed by the Florida legislature, and signed by the governor, to permit the governor to allow water and nutrition to be given to patients who leave no written directive, and to allow some recourse for family members who wish to challenge the withholding of nutrition and hydration.

Last week, federal judges chose to dismiss, out of hand, extraordinary legislation passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by the president, which asked the federal courts to take a fresh look at the case. The federal judges chose not to explain why "evolving standards of decency" might not allow Terri Schiavo to be kept alive until the case was argued in federal court. The judges assumed nothing new or meaningful would be learned from such an argument, or that the federal legislation might be found unconstitutional. The federal judges chose not to bother to explain why either might be the case.

So our judges deserve some criticism. But we should not be too harsh. For example, it would be wrong to suggest, as some conservatives have, that our judicial elite is systematically biased against "life." After all, they have saved the life of Christopher Simmons. It would be wrong to argue, as some critics have, that our judges systematically give too much weight to the husband's wishes in situations like Terri Schiavo's. After all, our judges have for three decades given husbands (or fathers) no standing at all to participate in the decision whether to kill their unborn children. It would be wrong to claim that our judges don't take seriously legislation passed by the elected representatives of the people. After all, our judges are committed to upholding the "rule of law"--though not, perhaps, the rule of actual laws passed by actual lawmakers. And it would be wrong to accuse our judges of being heartless. After all, Judges Carnes and Hull of the 11th U.S. Circuit told us, "We all have our own family, our own loved ones, and our own children."

So do we all. They deserve a judiciary that is respectful of democratic self-government and committed to a genuine constitutionalism. The Bush administration should nominate such judges, and Congress should confirm them. And the president and Congress should lead a serious national debate on the distinction between judicial independence and judicial arrogance, and on the difference between judicial review and judicial supremacy. After all, we are a "maturing society," as the Supreme Court has told us. Perhaps it is time, in mature reaction to this latest installment of what Hugh Hewitt has called a "robed charade," to rise up against our robed masters, and choose to govern ourselves. Call it Terri's revolution.

--William Kristol

? Copyright 2005, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

The Right to Life
Now Playing: How much do we value human life ?
Topic: Social Issues
March 24, 2005, 8:14 a.m.

The Right to Life
Protecting one woman.

By William J. Bennett & Brian T. Kennedy

Terry Schiavo is near death. If actions are to be taken to save her life, they must be taken now.

Let us briefly review the relevant facts: Terri is a human being whose physical condition is in dispute, but perhaps not for long. She is the daughter of loving parents, and she has a brother and sister. She is the wife of a man who once loved her, may still love her, but has taken a new woman and has with her two children. It is his duty under Florida law, and by common sense, to be her guardian.

Florida courts have found that she is incapacitated and beyond repair. Doctors have voted three to two that she is in a "persistent vegetative state." Her husband and legal guardian claims that she would have wished not to be kept alive should she find such a state. The courts agree. Florida law, as interpreted by Florida courts, provides that she should be allowed to expire. It appears Terri Schiavo has no legal right to life.

But does Terri Schiavo have a natural right to life?

Yes. She is a human being. She has committed no crime and therefore she has forfeited not one of her natural rights. Our American faith teaches us that, "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." And the purpose of all American government is "to secure these rights," not destroy them.

What then is to be done?

The Florida legislature sought to keep Terri alive, or at least postpone her death, by authorizing the governor to issue a one-time stay in order to prevent the withholding of nutrition and hydration from anyone under certain and extreme circumstances. "Terri's Law" was signed into law by Governor Jeb Bush in October, 2003, but soon after, the Florida supreme court struck down the law as unconstitutional.

Clearly, Governor Bush believes "Terri's Law" to be constitutional. Not only did he sign it into law, he later challenged the decision of his own state Supreme Court by appealing to the United States Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court would not hear the case.

In theoretical terms, this is a conflict between the separate powers of Florida government, as the judicial and executive branches have different opinions about what the Florida constitution requires. But in practical terms, Terri's life hangs in the balance: If the Florida supreme court prevails, she dies. If Governor Bush prevails, she lives. It is a mistake to believe that the courts have the ultimate say as to what a constitution means. Every governor is bound by oath to uphold and protect his state constitution. In the case of Florida, the constitution Mr. Bush pledged to defend declares that, "All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty..." If the governor believes that he and the Florida legislature possess the constitutional authority and duty to save Terri's life, then he is bound by his oath of office to do so.

James Madison remarked in the 51st Federalist that "auxiliary precautions" — constitutional mechanisms such as separation of powers and checks and balances — are necessary for limiting the power of government, a means for the end of protecting rights. But, Madison also reminded us, "a dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government." The Florida constitution echoes Madison when it states in Section 1 that, "All political power is inherent in the people."

The "auxiliary precautions" of Florida government — in this case the Florida supreme court — have failed Terri Schiavo. It is time, therefore, for Governor Bush to execute the law and protect her rights, and, in turn, he should take responsibility for his actions. Using the state police powers, Governor Bush can order the feeding tube reinserted. His defense will be that he and a majority of the Florida legislature believe the Florida Constitution requires nothing less. Some will argue that Governor Bush will be violating the law. We think he will not be violating the law, but if he is judged to have done so, it will be in the tradition of Martin Luther King, Jr., who answered to a higher law than a judge's opinion. In so doing, King showed respect for the man-made law by willingly going to jail (on a Good Friday); Governor Bush may have to face impeachment because of his decision.

In taking these extraordinary steps to save an innocent life, Governor Bush should be judged not by the opinion of the Florida supreme court, a co-equal branch of the Florida government, but by the opinions of his political superiors, the people of Florida. If they disagree with their governor, they are indeed free to act through their elected representatives and impeach him. Or they can vindicate him if they think he is right. But he should not be cowed into inaction — he should not allow an innocent woman to be starved to death — because of an opinion of a court he believes to be wrong and unconstitutional.

Governor Jeb Bush may find it difficult to protect Terri's rights without risking impeachment. But in the great American experiment in republican government, much is demanded of those who are charged with protecting the rights of the people. Governor Bush pledged to uphold the Florida constitution as he understands it, not as it is understood by some Florida judges. He is the rightful representative of the people of Florida and he is the chief executive, in whom the power is vested to execute the law and protect the rights of citizens. He should use that power to protect Terri's natural right to live, and he should do so now.

— William J. Bennett is the Claremont Institute's Washington fellow. Brian T. Kennedy is president of the Claremont Institute.