R. Albert Mohler Jr.'s Blog, page 198

An Old Lesson About Government Power, Learned Anew

Just days ago, the United States Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision that reestablished a very basic principle of constitutional self-government. USA Today reported this case with the headline, “High Court Caps Excessive Fines.” The fines are just a hint of what was at stake.

Richard Wolff of USA Today described the Supreme Court’s rule against states imposing excessive fines, fees, and forfeitures as criminal penalties: “The decision which united the court’s conservatives and liberals makes clear that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against excessive fines applies to states and localities as well as the federal government.”

These days, unanimous decisions by the Supreme Court are most often merely procedural—rarely decisions of great constitutional significance. Thus, in this heated season of judicial politics, this particular case marks an important move by the Supreme Court, acting in solidarity on an issue with massive implications for the American way of life.

The case dealt with the use of fines and financial penalties by federal, state, and local governments. This process, often known as civil asset forfeiture, seizes private property to fund portions of the government, especially those branches that deal with criminal investigation and prosecution. Sometimes, governments will seize assets that they then liquidate like a sports utility vehicle, a speedboat, or an airplane. That seizure, however, can only happen after prosecutors argue that those physical assets were used for criminal activities.

While forfeiture is simple enough to understand, cases involving the smuggling of drugs could involve millions of dollars in seized assets. Planes, boats, and fleets of SUVs can be seized by law enforcement agencies. Sometimes, however, law enforcement has apprehended assets of individuals who have yet to stand convicted of any criminal offense. In other cases, law enforcement uses broad definitions and reasoning to justify seizing assets of suspected criminals.

The Washington Post ran an editorial covering this case, stating, “The Supreme Court took one small step towards potentially redressing a big constitutional outrage, the pervasive and unjust forfeiture systems that states and localities have used to deprive even innocent people of their property.” The Supreme Court ruled unanimously for Tyson Timbs, an Indiana man who pleaded guilty to drug related charges and conspiracy to commit a theft. In addition to a year of home detention and five years of probation, the state seized Timbs’s $42,000 Land Rover, which he purchased with money he received from an insurance payout when his father died.

State authorities argued that Timbs’s Land Rover transported drugs, thereby justifying the seizure of this property. As The Washington Post reported, “An Indiana state court denied the forfeiture request, ruling that seizing Mr. Timbs’s $42,000 vehicle in connection to a crime for which the maximum criminal fine is $10,000 would be ‘grossly disproportionate’ and a violation of the Constitution’s ban on excessive fines.” The Supreme Court came to the very same conclusion and ordered that states and localities must observe the same constitutional limitations that operate for the United States government.

Justice Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion of the Supreme Court, stating, “For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history. Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties. Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill speech of political enemies.”

Justice Ginsburg used a very interesting and important phrase in her majority opinion: “Anglo-American history.” In other words, the Supreme Court grounded the justification of its decision in something older than the American constitutional tradition. Indeed, this “Anglo-American” terminology evokes the combined histories of Britain and the United States and places the Supreme Court’s decision in a long stream of precedent that stretches back to the 13th century.

On June 15th, 1215, English nobles forced King John to sign the document known as the Great Charter, or the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta established the principle of property rights—that the king or government could not wantonly seize property belonging to its citizens. This Great Charter marked a watershed moment in world history in which a king was forced to acknowledge that he did not have the right to seize private property without due cause. If the monarch needed the property, he needed to make recompense.

Thus, since the 13th century, the value of property rights has permeated the consciousness of, in the words of Winston Churchill, the English-speaking peoples. An 800-year tradition delimited the rights of governments from unjustly seizing property from its citizens.

The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision on Wednesday indicated that government entities violated this long-standing tradition—a tradition powerful enough to be cited by Justice Ginsburg in her majority opinion.

The biblical worldview, moreover, understands the true gravity of this recent case decided by the Supreme Court. An ephemeral, constitutional principle does not provide the grounding for human rights and human dignity. It is the imago Dei that enshrines human dignity. As creatures made in the image of God, every human bears an indelible mark of the Creator—a mark that demands respect and dignity.

Furthermore, the Scriptures extend the dignity of mankind to property rights. The eighth commandment prohibits stealing. Stated positively, it validates respect for private property. The eighth commandment pronounces a legal and moral condemnation against robbing someone of his or her personal property—a condemnation that flows from God’s design of the created order and how a civil society ought to function.

The Christian worldview also reveals the danger of power, especially unchecked power. Government authority, if left to its own devices, can quickly turn into despotic authority.

For this very reason, the decision handed down by the Supreme Court in the Indiana case marks an important moment in American judicial history. Liberal and conservative justices joined together in a unanimous decision to protect rights enshrined in a long-standing tradition—indeed, rights grounded in human dignity as creatures made in the image of God. The decision, as rooted in the long precedent cited, also affirms the dignity of private property.

Don’t miss another big lesson here. In this decision by the Supreme Court we see the remarkable achievement of constitutional self-government. One branch of government checked an overreach by another branch. Our constitutional form of government, through its highest court, thwarted the abuse of power by another branch. A government that respects the rights of individuals must necessarily be a limited government—a government with checks and balances in place that prohibit the misuse of authority.

In this moment of political peril and polarization, the question often arises: Can the American experiment in ordered liberty and self-government work? This is a legitimate question and one that has long been debated and tested since the nation’s founding. Yet, we ought to note when the system works—and it worked this week with the unanimous decision by the Supreme Court.

Any decision that brings together Justice Clarence Thomas with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ought to have our attention. In this case, we witnessed justice prevail, individual rights protected, and the continued perseverance of constitutionally protected liberty.

The post An Old Lesson About Government Power, Learned Anew appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Friday, Feb. 22, 2019

In striking down excessive fines and asset forfeiture, Supreme Court unanimously re-establishes basic principle of constitutional self-governmentUSA Today (Richard Wolf) — Supreme Court strikes blow against states that raise revenue by hefty fines, forfeituresWashington Post (Editors) — The Supreme Court just took a small step toward redressing a big constitutional outrageNew York Times (Adam Liptak and Shaila Dewan) — Supreme Court Limits Police Powers to Seize Private Property

Pro-abortion movement opposes legislation banning abortion based on rage, gender, and disability, sparking debate over eugenics Courier-Journal (Deborah Yetter) — Kentucky now wants to ban abortion based on fetus' race, gender, disability

Regardless of what one Kentucky politician claims, if you support Roe v. Wade, you are not pro-lifeCourier-Journal (Phillip M. Bailey) — Andy Beshear's running mate described herself as a 'pro-life' Democrat

If “we parenting” becomes the norm in America, we are all going to pay the priceNew York Times (Marc Tracy) — The Helicopter Parent Descends on College FootballNew York Times (Pamela Druckerman) — The Bad News About Helicopter Parenting: It Works

The post Friday, Feb. 22, 2019 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

How Martina Navratilova Found Herself ‘On the Wrong Side of History’ in a Hurry

She won the Wimbledon women’s singles title a phenomenal nine times. Martina Navratilova’s name, however, appears in the headlines not for her athleticism but for her collision with the LGBTQ revolution. Why is this interesting? Because Navratilova identifies as a gay athlete who championed the cause of gay rights. Now, the LGBTQ mainstream has disavowed Navratilova for her comments that criticized the participation of transgender women in gender specific sports—that is to say, allowing men who identify as women to compete against actual women in athletic contests.

This controversy began in December of last year when Navratilova tweeted, “You can’t just proclaim yourself a female and be able to compete against women.” She advocated for standards that would disqualify trans women from competing against women in athletic events.

Navratilova faced immediate backlash from the LGBTQ community. Transgender activists lambasted Navratilova and warned her that she was about to be on the wrong side of history. Once a leader and international symbol of the gay rights revolution, Navratilova had been left behind—her views were no longer in step with the sweeping moral upheaval propagated by the sexual revolutionaries. After the backlash, Navratilova deleted her tweet and promised to study the issue in depth.

That was late 2018. Now, in The Sunday Times, one of the most influential newspapers in London, Navratilova expanded her argument in an article with the headline, “The rules on trans athletes reward cheats and punish the innocent.”

Navratilova began her article, writing, “Shortly before Christmas I inadvertently stumbled into the mother and father of a spat about gender and fair play in sport. It began with an instinctive reaction and a tweet that I wrote on a serious forum dealing with the subject… Perhaps I could have phrased it more delicately and less dogmatically, but I was not prepared for the onslaught that followed.”

She described how she did what any rational person should do when presented with a moral quandary: she decided to learn about the subject she addressed in her tweet and allowed herself time for contemplation on this very important issue. After her time of reflection, she came to the same conclusion—when sports organizations capitulate to the trans-agenda and allow transgender women to compete against other women, they foster an environment of cheating.

Navratilova wrote, “If anything, my views have strengthened. To put the argument at its most basic: a man can decide to be female, take hormones if required by whatever sporting organization is concerned, win everything in sight and perhaps earn a small fortune, and then reverse his decision and go back to making babies if he so desires. It’s insane and it’s cheating. I am happy to address a transgender woman in whatever form she prefers, but I would not be happy to compete against her. It would not be fair.”

Navratilova based her arguments on the nature of hormones and biology. She writes, “Simply reducing hormone levels—the prescription most sports have adopted—does not solve the problem. A man builds up muscle and bone density, as well as a greater number of oxygen-carrying red blood cells, from childhood. Training increases the discrepancy. Indeed, if a male were to change gender in such a way as to eliminate any accumulated advantage, he would have to begin hormone treatment before puberty. For me, that is unthinkable.”

What is unthinkable for Navratilova is exactly the direction of the transgender revolutionaries—they actively advocate the use of puberty blocking hormone treatments and allowing children and teenagers to “transition.” The dizzying speed of the LGBTQ revolution blazed ahead of Navratilova, leaving her behind in its dust of moral chaos and confusion.

Navratilova’s argument is quite simple: a transgender woman, rightly understood, is not a woman. A transgender woman, regardless of feeling and medical treatment, does not possess the biological structure of a female body. This presents an unfair advantage for transgender women who, despite hormone treatments, still possess at least some of the physical qualities and attributes of a male body. A transgender woman athlete benefits from the bone density, muscle mass, skeletal structure, and circulatory system of a man, even if hormones are adjusted. According to Navratilova, hundreds of trans-athletes, specifically transgender women, ride the waves of the moral revolution into the realm of competitive sports and, through their unfair advantage, win sporting contests against women

As Navratilova stood her ground, the backlash from the moral revolutionaries only increased. The LGBTQ elites have unseated Navratilova as a spokesperson for gay rights. This divergence marks a collision between traditional gay rights activists and the new transgender activists. Navratilova finds herself caught in the chaos of the moral revolution as the winds have now turned against her and her outdated, antiquated gay-rights morality. This story is not about the secular worldview colliding with a biblical worldview, but a collision within the secularist mindset itself—the logical outcome of the moral revolution leads to the kind of confusion in which the new activists turn on the old activists because people like Navratilova are not pressing the new agenda far enough.

This collision sparks controversy in every sphere of public life. For example, historic women’s colleges, which hold to a radical feminist ideology, now find themselves on the wrong side of history as the tremors of the sexual revolution reach their campuses. The LGBTQ agenda takes the objective distinctions “male” and “female” and reorients it around subjective, individual choice. This presents an enormous problem even for liberal, feminist, women’s schools who receive applications for admission from transgender women. Make no mistake, you cannot have a historic woman’s college and join the transgender revolution.

This is a complete meltdown of moral order, and this is exactly what the revolutionaries desired. The headlines will continue down this trend—we will not see liberals vs. conservatives but revolutionaries vs. revolutionaries; feminist ideology vs. transgender ideology; gay and lesbian activism against transgender activism. This recent controversy surrounding Navratilova shows the utter inconsistencies inherent in the sexual revolution ideology.

Martina Navratilova once served as an activist and symbol for the gay-rights movement. Now, the moral revolution ran right past her and declared her the problem. That’s the way radical revolutions work. They eventually turn on their own.

This article draws from the February 21st edition of The Briefing. To listen to the full episode, click here. To subscribe to The Briefing–Dr. Mohler’s daily podcast that serves as an analysis of news and events–click here. 

The post How Martina Navratilova Found Herself ‘On the Wrong Side of History’ in a Hurry appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Can I Lose My Salvation?

The post Can I Lose My Salvation? appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Thursday, Feb. 21, 2019

The intersection of transgender theory and modern sport: Gay athlete speaks out against ‘cheating’ trans athletesThe Sunday Times (Martina Navratilova) — The rules on trans athletes reward cheats and punish the innocentThe Sunday Times (Andrew Gilligan) — Martina Navratilova blasts ‘cheating’ transgender women in sportCity Journal (Abigail Shrier) — When Feminists Abandon Girls

So much for LGBTQ: How transgenderism undermines the gay rights movementNew York Magazine (Andrew Sullivan) — The Nature of Sex

Reinvention of sport? What argument for creation of new, female-focused sports reveals about our cultureUSA Today (Roger Pielke Jr.) — On Super Bowl weekend, it's worth considering whether male-focused sports are out of step

The post Thursday, Feb. 21, 2019 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

An Unexpected (and Largely Unnoticed) Testimony to the Sanctity of Life

The pro-abortion movement basis its arguments on it’s fundamental claim of  “a woman’s right to choose.” Laws, according to this ideology, should guarantee the woman’s freedom of choice and autonomy over her own body. If a woman decides for any reason, at any time, that she does not want to keep the baby, she should have the right to abort. The pro-abortion lobby aims to create as many channels as possible to ensure a woman’s right to choose and to even have tax-payers pay for abortions.

Then came a story printed in Sunday’s edition of The New York Times. The headline read, “Doctors rethink advice for women unsure about pregnancy.” As the article unfolds, it turns out that women are often not so definitive in seeing their own pregnancy as either desired or undesired. The essential argument of the pro-abortion movement hinges upon a woman’s definite choice to either keep or abort a pregnancy—but this story makes clear that women are not as certain as we might think. In fact, the research presented in this article shows that as pregnancy progresses, many women who might not desire a baby in early weeks of pregnancy become happier about their pregnancy.

Margot Sanger-Katz and Claire Cain Miller report for The New York Times, writing that “for decades, researchers and physicians tended to think about pregnancies as either planned or unplanned. But new data reveals that for a significant group of women, their feelings don’t neatly fit into one category or another. As many as one-fifth of women who become pregnant aren’t sure whether they want a baby. This fact may reshape how doctors and policy makers think about family planning. For women who are unsure, it doesn’t seem enough for physicians to counsel them on pregnancy prevention or prenatal care.”

The Times acknowledges that for many women, the question of pregnancy is at first an ambivalent one. Uncertainty and doubt flood the minds of women who contemplate the nature of pregnancy and the reality of children. The article cites research from the Guttmacher Institute, which states that up to 19% of pregnant women are unsure even when they contemplated an abortion—they had mixed feelings and even avoided making a definitive decision about their pregnancy.

The article goes on to make a blockbuster statement when it cites research that “confirms that many unplanned pregnancies can nevertheless become wanted as women’s feelings about pregnancy evolve.”

This stunning admission has deep worldview significance. Indeed, Maria Isabel Rodriguez, an obstetrician/gynecologist, says in the article, “In the past we thought of [family planning] as binary, you want to be pregnant or not, so you need contraception or a prenatal vitamin… But it’s more of a continuum.”  The sole, moral issue for the pro-abortion agenda centered around what a woman wanted. Now, however, The New York Times reveals the rising tides of doubt among pregnant women—one moment they wanted an abortion but, as the pregnancy progressed, they became happy about being pregnant and their desire for the child increased. A binary choice, we are told, has evolved into a continuum.

From a biblical worldview, Christians fully understand why a woman becomes happier as pregnancy progresses. As the baby grows in her womb, the mother becomes more conscious of her pregnancy and a relationship develops between the mother and the unborn child. As she feels the baby inside of her, she experiences in a very real way the life that lives in her. She begins to imagine her holding the child in her arms for the first time. She begins to dream about the little life residing in her womb. The longer the pregnancy progresses, the less likely a woman wants to abort because her happiness has increased as she envisions life with her child—even if it is a child she did not intend to have.

The article presents a first-person story of this experience: “When Carly Tuggle, 19, found out she was pregnant, ‘I was really surprised, and I didn’t quite know how to feel about it.’” Carly no longer had a relationship with the baby’s father and lived on friends’ couches. Carly said, “I didn’t not want to have her. I just didn’t want to not be able to give her everything she needed.” The article then states, “Finding out the baby’s sex made it seem more imaginable… So did finding a program, Mountain Home Montana, in her town, Missoula, Mont., that gives her housing, health care, baby items and other services. She has a job at Goodwill and is about to get her high school diploma.”

Then, Carly told the newspaper, “I’m very grateful now. I love my daughter and I couldn’t imagine my life any other way.” She spoke of her six-month-old daughter Emerson as a pillar of her present life—what began as uncertainty morphed into gratefulness as Carly experienced the glory of motherhood and the incalculable joy of parenthood.

This article for The New York Times never intended to present an opinion or an editorial. The article is an analysis of news and research. Even still, Carly’s story offers a beautiful narrative and pro-life testimony.

Christians should be grateful when stories like Carly’s end up in the headlines. This young mom’s story reveals hope and joy. What began as mystery turned into unquenchable happiness as a mother chose to keep her baby rather than abort. We must be thankful every time there is a crack in the pro-abortion mentality of this age. This article reveals narratives of a significant portion of women who did not plan on being pregnant and who did not at first even want a child, but did not abort because, as the pregnancy progressed, they grew happier. They became happy as they considered the life within them.

I doubt many people will notice this story embedded in the thick Sunday edition of The New York Times. This article, however, should grip our attention as a story of hope. It casts a light into the dark and tragic reality of abortion and the culture of death promoted by the secular ideology. The research presented in this article, and Carly’s personal story reveal the God-given joy of children—even when those children are unexpected. Life, every single life, is a precious gift of God meant to be celebrated, cherished, and protected at all costs.  Don’t keep this truth to yourself.

The post An Unexpected (and Largely Unnoticed) Testimony to the Sanctity of Life appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Wednesday, Feb. 20, 2019

How France's National Assembly is changing the way its citizens talk about parenthood, and is redefining the family in the processNewsweek (Calum Paton) — ‘Mother’ and ‘Father’ replaces with ‘Parent 1’ and ‘Parent 2’ in French Schools Under Same-Sex Amendment

“A person’s a person, no matter how small” even when that person is a frozen human embryoNew York Times (Caroline Lester) — Embryo ‘Adoption’ Is Growing, but It’s Getting Tangled in the Abortion Debate

Congress wants to keep ‘God’ in daily prayers: What this tells us about politics, atheism, and American historyWashington Examiner (Paul Bedard) — Amen: Congress moves to keep 'God' in daily prayer, thwart atheist movement

The post Wednesday, Feb. 20, 2019 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Tuesday, Feb. 19, 2019

What starts in California does not stay in California: Understanding the trajectory of moral revolutionsUSA Today (Zlati Meyer) — Why California is home to straw bans and mandated meatless Mondays — and Iowa isn't

Why radical inclusivity won’t work when it comes to girls joining the Boy ScoutsLouisville Courier-Journal (Allison Ross) — 'It's a historic moment': First Louisville-area girls joining Boy Scouts

Recovering civility in the age of toxicityWashington Post (Dan Rodricks) — P.M. Forni, scholar of civility in an age of harsh discourse, dies at 67Washington Post (Katie Zezima) — Is it possible to resurrect civility amid a tsunami of toxicity? This group is trying.Wall Street Journal (Paula Marantz Cohen) — Kant in Kindergarten Could Ease the Civility Crisis

The post Tuesday, Feb. 19, 2019 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Monday, Feb. 18, 2019

As pregnancy progresses, women become happier: A powerful pro-life statement in the pages of the New York TimesNew York Times (Margot Sanger-Katz and Claire Cain Miller) — Do You Want to Be Pregnant? It’s Not Always a Yes-or-No Answer

What happens when the LGBTQ agenda collides with the United States prison system?New York Times (John Leland) — How a Trans Soldier Took On the Jail That Denied Her Medication, and Won

Transgenderism takes flight: Airlines scramble to meet the demands of the gender revolutionariesAssociated Press (David Koenig) — Airlines to give customers ‘nonbinary’ choice under gender

The post Monday, Feb. 18, 2019 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

John 5:46-6:21

The post John 5:46-6:21 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.