Aug 23, 2015

Dignity Requires Nude Panhandling, Infanticide, Homosexual Marriage, Etc.

Natural Naked Human Dignity
This NYT article uncovers New York City's legal inability to ban women from begging for money by publicly displaying their naked bodies to strangers for lewd pictures. It also offers a peep into the undressed state of U.S. jurisprudence. Revealingly, as with abortion and legalized sodomy, these women's right to display themselves in Times Square is supposedly based on the need to protect their human dignity. (I wrote earlier on the legal theology of clothes here; in sum, the social practice of wearing clothing displays an understanding of man's sin and need for covering, nudism a cultivated denial of man's sinfulness and sartorial dandyism a cultivated denial of man's need for God to clothe us. A society that cannot enforce the basic requirement of self-covering is literally shameless and lacking in the basic moral equipment for civilized life.)

If you don't understand how New York could be required to permit public nudity for panhandling, you haven't learned what our judicial rulers, especially Justice Kennedy, have decreed about human dignity recently. In Casey, Kennedy explained to us that women are dignified by choosing to cut and crush their own babies in their own bodies. In Lawrence, he showed why men are dignified in being sodomized. In Obergefell, he held human dignity required equal treatment for male-male "marriage" and real matrimony.

Knowledge of Good and Evil Will Make You More Dignified
Let me unclothe Kennedy's kind of reasoning further. As Satan and Kennedy teach, since man is dignified in his own nature, in himself, then he is dignified whatever he does. Indeed, he is dignified precisely by being himself. Man is, therefore, more dignified when he chooses for himself without constraint, without consideration for what is not himself. Our dignity does not require us to act in obedience to God; our dignity requires only knowledge of both good and evil, choosing freely between things. We become like God not by participating in His Goodness but by asserting our freedom to choose good or evil indifferently. 

Whether he has chosen to expose himself, to lie with a man as with a woman, to rut, to gorge, to corrupt himself, to mock modesty or to leer at beauty, man is still man, still dignified in his nature by the act of choice. Man has an innate dignity, not exclusively arising from his potential for good, but grounded in his freedom to do anything.

Human dignity comes from the freedom to choose, not from what is chosen. Whether a woman chooses to protect her baby or kill her baby, what matters is that she chooses. Whether a woman chooses to clothe herself or bare herself, what matters is choice. This is the decreed, degenerate dignity of American jurisprudence.

This vision of human dignity, the basis of our culture of legalized infanticide and homosexual unions, also explains why N.Y. can't prohibit women from exposing their bodies in Times Square. Of course, women displaying their bodies to panhandle is a minor problem compared with the others. But it is a better public symbol of American jurisprudence because nude panhandling is on view in Times Square.

Aug 22, 2015

Divorce Lawyers who Hate Divorce

Over at Cross & Gavel Audio, my new podcast is up. I interview Bill Hollberg and Eric Wilborn, family law experts who won't sue for divorce or handle marriage dissolution cases unless the primary goal of the client is to restore the marriage.

Bill and Eric discuss their views of marriage, what they are seeing in the trenches, and what it means to seek to practice law to the glory of God and for the flourishing of the world-- even if you don't always see the results you are hoping for.

I wish more lawyers had their principles. I think this is a good example of a redemptive approach to law practice.

Aug 5, 2015

N.Y Archbishop Cites Biblical Ethics, Attacks Homosexual Poet

Here, in this N.Y. Daily News column.

Don't worry ... it's another anti-Republican attack piece so he won't get in any trouble for injecting the Bible into public life. Maybe one day, prominent pastors will write articles like this about the tyrannical destruction of marriage and the commercial butchery of babies. I guess Dolan thought this issue was more important.

Aug 4, 2015

The Trouble with Obergefell in [Relay] Journal

I really appreciate Dean Enlow providing excellent insight on the deeper issues in Obergefell in his posts here.

My very short piece on three troubling aspects of the case is published in [Relay], the Journal of Worldview Academy, for whom I teach during the summer.

I begin where Chief Justice Roberts and Scalia begin, with the alarming fact that the opinion-- the thing that is supposed to justify the legal reasoning of the court to the world-- has nothing to do with law and has no "legal reasoning" in it:

First, the most troubling aspect of Obergefell is what it says about law itself and what that means for the future of the rule of law in America. This decision was not based on law—in fact, it had nothing to do with the law. The case was decided, instead, on pure will: the political and social preferences of five justices on the Supreme Court.

Read the whole thing. It's barely 1000 words.
Podcasts are now searchable on iTunes

Also, if you wonder how a Christian criminal defense lawyer justifies his trade theologically, check out my latest podcast, which is a Remix of an old Cross & Gavel interview with my former student, J.T. Borah. It's a good conversation. He claims, for example, that a criminal trial is not about truth, but is about "process."