Only a fool would use a word like ‘gynotician’

Urban Dictionary includes this definition for the term ‘gynotician’:

A politician who feels more qualified than women and their doctors to make women’s health care decisions. A combination of the words gynecologist and politician.

Republican governors such as Scott Walker and Rick Perry who impose draconian limitations on abortion clinics and attempt to limit access to HPV vaccinations, contraception and women’s health care in general by shutting down Planned Parenthood clinics even though they do not perform abortions. They, and people like them, are gynoticians.

But R.J. Rushdoony shows the foolishness of such an argument—rationally, not emotionally:

Significantly, when a group of young women invaded a New York state legislative hearing to break it up with their demand for total repeal of the anti-abortion law, they declared that “they were tired of listening to men debate something that was of primary concern to women. ‘What right do you men have to tell us whether we can or cannot have a child?’ shouted one of the women.”

The logic of this position is revealing: the women held that men cannot legislate with respect to childbirth because they do not experience it. The test of legislative validity in both the law and the law-makers is thus experience. By this logic, it can be held that good citizens cannot legislate with respect to murder, since the act of murder is outside their experience. Men who cannot, like women, bear children can legislate with respect to abortion because the principle of law is not experience but the law-word of God.

My two cents

Governor Rick Perry of Texas speaking at the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, Louisiana. Please attribute to Gage Skidmore if used elsewhere. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The first quote is a more recent example of the emotional manipulation, irrationality, loaded terms, red herrings and downright fallacy of feminist political rhetoric that I’ve found on the internet.

In the context of abortion, it shows how the term “women’s health” carries more baggage than a jumbo jet.

I agree that the principle of law ought not to be the personal experiences (or non-experiences) of a politician; that’s a ridiculous way of determining right and wrong. Any logical person could push that to its logical conclusion and see where it ends up.

Yet, it won’t stop emotional people or fools from clinging to it.

Quote sources

1. Urban Dictionary (2013). Urban Dictionary: gynotician. Available from http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gynotician. Last accessed 18 Aug 2013
2. Rushdoony, R.J. (1973). The Institutes of Biblical Law. Volume I. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company. pp. 267-268

God is the source of law, not the state

(quoting Ed Brayton)

They [Roy Moore and John Lofton] have stated over and over again that “God’s law” trumps the Constitution, by which they of course mean their interpretation of the Bible.

(quoting R.J. Rushdoony, emphasis in original)

God is the only true source of law; the state is an agency of law, one agency among many (church, school, family, etc.), and has a specified and limited area of law to administer under God. The Moloch state denies any such boundaries…

The Moloch state simply represents the supreme effort of man to command the future, to predestine the world, and to be as God.

My two cents

August 2003 rally in front of the Alabama state judicial building in support of Roy Moore. Taken from the Re-taking America website, copyrighted by Kelly McGinley at Re-Taking America, from whom permission has been received to license this material under the GNU Free Documentation License. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I like the distinction which is drawn by Rushdoony. Brayton draws a distinction as well, but it’s philosophically and politically misplaced. Rushdoony’s distinction I hadn’t quite realised, but now it seems obvious.

As for Brayton’s appeal to “their interpretation of the Bible”, that’s a misleading half-truth, which reminds me of Rodney Clapp’s similar slip back in the late 80s. I’m unaware of any Constitution on earth that has never been subject to different interpretations by lawyers and judges. But that fact doesn’t mean that the opponents of Biblical law will do away with their national Constitution.

As a result, I can turn Brayton’s argument on its head by saying “they have stated over and over again that “the Constitution” trumps God’s law, by which they mean their interpretation of the Constitution.”

At the end of the day, God’s law precedes the state’s fiat law–ontologically as well as chronologically. The only possible issue with Rushdoony’s quote is in breaching the prohibition of mentioning or invoking the name of other gods (Exodus 23:13).  Then again, that might be permissible under Brayton’s own “interpretation of the Constitution”.

Quote sources

1. Brayton, E. (2006). John Lofton Interviews Roy Moore. Available: http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/07/24/john-lofton-interviews-roy-moo/. Last accessed 3rd Mar 2013.
2. Rushdoony, R.J. (1973). The Institutes of Biblical Law. Volume I. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company. pp. 34-35

A better take on absolute power

Lord Acton’s dictum “All power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” is a liberal half-truth and reflects liberal illusions. First of all, all power does not corrupt. The power of a godly husband and father to govern his family does not corrupt him; he exercises it under God and in terms of God’s law-word. Instead of being corrupted by his power, the godly man is blessed by means of his power, and he makes it a blessing to his family and society. A godly ruler, who uses his power readily for legitimate and moral ends, prospers the society under his power. The two evils with respect to power and the exercise thereof are, on the one hand, the fear of using power, and on the other, the immoral use of power. Both evils extensively prevail in any humanistic society. Men who are afraid to use power lawfully and morally corrupt their families and societies. The failure to exercise due power reduces a society to lawlessness and anarchy. The immoral use of power leads to the corruption of society and the suppression of freedom, but it is not the use of power which causes this decay  but the immoral use thereof. Power does not corrupt when it is used properly under God: it blesses, prospers, orders and governs society to its advantage and welfare.

My two cents

Lord Acton (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I remember hearing Lord Acton’s quote, thinking it was a truism, and never questioning it. Now, after reading Rushdoony’s quote, I’m a changed man.

I was kinda taught to think of power as a bad thing, and that equalitarianism was meant to be this good thing we should aim for all the time. But, I’m more convinced by Rushdoony’s take. In any case, just because you don’t have power doesn’t mean you’re not corrupt.

I first read the Institutes of Biblical Law in 2008, and my plan is to read it all again. In the last month or so, I’ve read about 100 pages of it. Maybe if I spent less time blogging, I could get through the rest of the book.

Quote source

Rushdoony, R.J. (1973). The Institutes of Biblical Law. Volume I. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company,  p. 59

R.J. Rushdoony on defining life and death, Biblically

Since life is given by God and is to be lived on His terms alone, no life of man or beast can be taken except on God’s terms, whether by the state, by man to eat, or by man in his self-defense. To attempt to govern or to take life apart from God’s permission, and apart from His service, is like attempting to govern the world and future apart from God.

My two cents

English: The Ten Commandments, illustration from a Bible card published by the Providence Lithograph Company (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If someone asked me to explain what is meant by terms such as Biblical worldview, then I would probably use this quote. Although it’s important to get this concept out to everyone, I daresay that there are Christians who read the Bible but don’t understand what the term means; so long as salvation and emotion are taken care of, the state can take the lead on defining other parts of life, kind of by default.

I therefore accept the death penalty—where the Bible specifies it as the penalty. If the state intends to extend it to other crimes, it’s treating itself as sovereign, and that’s a no-no. I compare this to the life (and death) of John the Painter, an 18th-century arsonist of British shipyards—that’s life (and death) according to the state, not according to God.

Sometimes I have this romanticised idea that society was completely biblical a few hundred years back—but it seems the ugly scourge of humanism (manifested through judicial relativism) was there as well.

Quote source

Rushdoony, R.J. (1973). The Institutes of Biblical Law. Volume I. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company. p. 36

R.J. Rushdoony on the importance of restitution

Criminal offenses always exact a penalty. The critical question in any society is this: who shall be penalized? Biblical law declares that restitution must prevail: if a man steals $100, he must restore the $100 plus another $100; the criminal is penalized. In certain crimes, his restitution is his own death. In modern humanistic society, the victim is penalized. There is no restitution, and there is increasingly lighter punishment of the criminal. Without restitution, crime becomes potentially profitable, and the victim is penalized by the state. The victim is penalized by the crime, by the court costs, and the prison costs as they appear in taxation.

My two cents

High School for Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Sometimes I hear people ask “where’s the justice?” The Bible provides the source of justice, but people don’t seem to realise it. Sometimes I hear people say “crime doesn’t pay”. If Biblical law is followed, then crime won’t pay. If Biblical law is overturned, then crime can indeed pay.

The concept of punishing the victim (instead of the criminal) would strike people as unjust. But the way that our legal system treats adulterers, that’s exactly what happens. The innocent party gets punished, the courts turn a blind eye, and the adulterer gets away with it. That’s what passes for (humanistic) justice these days.

Quote source

Rushdoony, R.J. (1973). The Institutes of Biblical Law. Volume I. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company. p. 38.