Transcript: The Briefing 06-26-14

The Briefing

 

June 26, 2014

This is a rush transcript. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

 

It’s Thursday, June 26, 2014. I’m Albert Mohler and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.

1) Supreme Court’s liberals and conservatives united on right to privacy

Many of the most famous decisions handed down by the United States Supreme Court have reflected a deeply divided court. Decisions handed down with a 7-2 decision or 6-3 or sometimes even 5-4. But yesterday something very interesting happened before the court and it’s not new. This year before the court approximately one-half of all the decisions the court has rendered have been unanimous: 9-0 decisions. So as many people talk about a deeply-divided nation, when it comes to at least some issues, we do not have a deeply-divided court or, in one sense, even a divided court at all.

 

In yesterday’s decisions, at least one was handed down that covered two cases: Riley v. California and U.S. v. Worley. And in this case, the nation’s highest court said that citizens of the United States have the right to expect privacy when it comes to their smart phones. Being arrested by the police does not give the police, without a search warrant, the right to search your smart phone. This was a 9-0 decision.

 

There’s something else that’s really important here. There have been, thus far, three huge cases about personal surveillance and personal privacy that have come before the United States Supreme Court and they have come in the last three years. And in every one of these decisions, the court has ruled unanimously. And if you’re taking count, that means 27 votes for personal privacy and not one Supreme Court justice voting even one time for the government’s claim that it has the right to violate your personal privacy for the cause of national security or law enforcement.

 

Now from a Christian worldview perspective, this is really interesting because one of the most basic human rights is the right to the integrity of your person and the integrity of your own personal privacy. There is, according to the Christian worldview, a zone of privacy that is covered at least by the biblical understanding of modesty and also by the right to private property, and the right, as British common law made very clear, to be left alone unless you’re doing something that damages the society or breaks the culture’s laws. And in this case, the federal government was exposed as having collected material—and not only the federal government, we should say, but also local and state law enforcement authorities—to which the government had no right of access without a search warrant. Many people see search warrants referenced on television or on the movies without understanding why they are so important. That means that law enforcement has to go before a judge and make the case for why personal privacy must be violated. There must be some do cause for the court to grant that permission. If that is not extended to the smart phone in your pocket or your purse, then there is access to the most intimate details of your lives that would then be available to anyone who might arrest you or detain you for any reason.

 

In this case, the court’s Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., wrote the decisive opinion. He said that when it comes to the cell phone, in terms of contemporary life, they are “such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude that they were an important feature of human anatomy.” That’s an interesting insight in itself, but the key insight by the United States Supreme Court in this unanimous decision, following two previous unanimous decisions, is that there is a basic human right to privacy, and the United States Constitution was intentionally written, as it was ratified in 1789, to reflect, to honor, and to protect that right. And when we see a case like this, we are reminded of the fact that government has the perpetual responsibility to balance, on the one hand, the right to personal privacy and, on the other hand, the responsibility of the government to protect the entire nation. And these sometimes come into conflict. But as the Supreme Court made very clear, if they are in conflict, some independent judge needs to give authorization for the government to violate your privacy.

 

If this seems like something that might apply to someone far away, not to yourself or to someone you know and love, just consider the fact that if personal privacy is violated for one, it can be very quickly violated for all. And in the context of such deep division in this country over moral and cultural issues, it tells us something very significant that on the issue personal privacy the liberals and the conservatives on the US Supreme Court stand together. That in itself is a very clear signal.

 

Meanwhile, of course, today we are expecting the United States Supreme Court to hand down the decision in the cases of Conestoga Woods and Hobby Lobby. Key cases that will determine, in large part, whether or not this government is going to respect the Christian consciences of those in the corporate world and, in particular, in privately held corporations when it comes to the violations of conscience required under present law and statutes by the Obama Administration’s contraception mandate. We’ll be watching today as the Supreme Court hands down that decision.

2) 10th Circuit Court upholds same-sex marriage, paves way for Supreme Court decision on issue

Meanwhile, we need to note that yesterday the Tenth US Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Utah’s state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. This is the same US Circuit Court of Appeals that heard the case in Oklahoma and that decision is expected very quickly. In the case of the Tenth Circuit’s decision on the Utah constitutional amendment, it came down to a three-judge panel that devoted 2-1. But the most significant aspect of yesterday’s decision at the Tenth Circuit is this: this is the first US circuit Court of Appeals that has yet rendered a verdict on the question of a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage since the United States Supreme Court handed down the Windsor decision exactly one year ago. And as we move to other pressing concerns, we simply note this: the decision handed down yesterday at the Tenth Circuit sets the stage for the United States Supreme Court to take up that question in its new term beginning as early as October.

3) VP Biden declares same-sex marriage should trump cultural values

Shifting now to observe, once again, the velocity of the moral revolution on the issue of same-sex marriage and homosexuality, we note that Tuesday night the Associated Press ran a story by Jim Coonan, indicating that Vice President Joe Biden had declared, on that day, that protecting gay rights is a defining mark of a civilized nation and must trump national cultures and social traditions. This is a very important story. What it tells us is that the Obama Administration is now sending a signal in terms of American foreign-policy. It doesn’t matter what your beliefs are. It doesn’t matter what your society demands. You’re going to have to affirm same-sex marriage and the full range of gay rights or you’re going to find yourself facing the active opposition of the United States government.

 

Speaking to about a hundred guests at the National Observatory’s vice presidential mansion, the Vice President said, “I don’t care what your culture is. Inhumanity is inhumanity is inhumanity. Prejudice is prejudice is prejudice.” And common sense is common sense is common sense. And this is exactly the way a moral revolution is driven, and is driven in this case by the executive authority of the Obama Administration with Vice President Joe Biden now serving as the point man for the argument that every nation in the world now has to get behind the United States in pressing this agenda. Of course, the great obstacle of this is the inviolate fact that most nations around the world are going to disregard, if not to reject entirely, the mandate of the vice president of the United States of America. Instead, what we need to understand is that the vice president was in part sending a signal in terms of foreign policy, but to a far greater extent, he was sending an internal signal to those within this country who are demanding that the administration do more by stating, “I don’t care what your culture is.” That’s an amazing statement to be made by anyone in any position of authority. It’s fairly astounding that a statement like that would be made by the sitting Vice President of the United States, and it’s even more interesting that this statement hasn’t elicited an international conversation. Either the Vice President wasn’t heard or, more likely, he was ignored.

4) Canadian party leader rules all members must vote pro-choice, regardless of conviction

Shifting to the larger international scene, many Americans understand that even as the United States is the dominant nation in North America, we’re not the sole nation. To our north is Canada and to the south Mexico. And when we think of North America, we often think of this continent in radical distinction in terms of cultural and moral issues with that of Europe, and yet when it comes to many issues, Canada is far more associated with Europe than it is with its North American neighbor, that is, the United States of America. And when it comes to the intersection of religion and politics, Canada is decidedly and increasingly European—that is to say, radically secular.

 

Evidence of that comes from one of the major Canadian newspapers, The National Post, in an article that ran last weekend. The article is by Rex Murphy and it has to do with the current leader of the Liberal party in Canada. He is the son of the former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. The young man’s name is Justin Trudeau, and he reflects that kind of European secular agenda in a most quintessential and undeniable way. He has now informed his party members that, regardless of their own convictions—and specifically their Christian convictions—they have to vote to support abortion for any reason, for any cause, in any context, or resign from the party. As Rex Murphy writes:

 

Elected Liberal MPs are under Justin Trudeau’s direct order that, in any legislation that touches on the abortion issue, they must — mindless of their faith, their previous professions on the subject, or their conscience — vote the “pro-choice” dogma. Pro-abortion is the party line. And it is the only line allowed.

 

And in this case, the argument made by Justin Trudeau is an argument that mirrors similar kinds of arguments that are now commonplace in countries such as Belgium or France or Switzerland. But this is Canada—right across our northern border. And as Rex Murphy writes:

 

What kind of politics are they which require an MP to renounce his deepest moral commitments; indeed, to go beyond renunciation and declare himself positively in favour of ideas and actions that his faith condemns, his Church forbids, and his conscience cannot abide?

 

Murphy goes on to write:

 

Religion, under these conditions, cannot survive political engagement. An understanding of politics based on an exclusion of thoughtful and engaged religious people — on the rejection of ideas and understandings offered by the great religious teachers and the massive legacy of thought our churches have to offer — is radically incomplete.

 

He concludes:

 

As things now are, a truly religious person must actually stay out of politics — must forgo an active role in democratic government — because in our brazen and new age, he or she will be faced with irreconcilable moral choices. If elected, he or she will be required to betray their faith and themselves, and on those very issues that matter most: issues of life, family, autonomy and the dignity of persons.

 

That is a massively important argument and it’s a very important development coming right to our north because one of the things we need to note is that even as Canada is our neighbor, it also reflects a kind of cultural and social and even legal revolution that often migrates to the south much more quickly than we might imagine.

 

But if that article is interesting and important on its own, so are the letters that were elicited by the article that appeared in subsequent editions of The National Post. One writer, Kevin Bougher of Vancouver, wrote:

 

Religion should be respected for sure, but its role in our society should also be properly countered, so as not to allow it to determine government policy. A person’s religion should be something that is celebrated in their home and in their personal lives. It is not something to be forced upon others or lorded over them.

 

Now just consider the recent fracas within the United Kingdom over David Cameron simply saying that Britain is a Christian country with a Christian culture. You would’ve thought that David Cameron had decided that the Bible had to be substituted for the law of England, but, of course, he’s a very secular leader and Britain is a very secular nation. But Britain, after all, at least has a state church, so it’s rather nonsensical to argue that it’s a totally secular nation. But perhaps what Britain proves is that having a state church doesn’t prevent you from your worldview becoming pervasively secularized in almost every aspect of national life.

 

But in Canada, the situation reflected in this letter to the editor is very clear: religion is allowable in this secular age, so long as you keep it in your home and in your heart, so long as you never speak about it in public, so long as it never intrudes into the public square, so long as your Christian convictions stay, according the secular mind, where they belong—in your Christian closet. Let them out of the closet and you become a danger. Americans considering the rapid secularization of our own country don’t just need to look to Europe to see where that might be headed. All we have to do is look just to the north.

5) Hollywood “fever” over contagions reveals human fixation on end of the world

Shifting the issue to the intersection of worldview and our entertainment culture, something’s going on in terms of Hollywood, both in terms of television and the big screen, and it has to do with contagion or, more specifically, with fever. As many have noted, there seems to be a rash of summer movies and television series having to do with outbreaks of fever. They include programs such as “The Last Ship” on TNT, “The Strain” on FX, and “Helix” on Sci-Fi. And it’s not just that, several books related to young adult literature and others are coming out warning of a post-apocalyptic future in which humanity is threatened by a dread disease, the outbreak of a fever or of a virus. Alessandra Stanley, writing for The New York Times, writes about one of these television series, “The Last Ship.” She writes:

 

Premium cable hasn’t just influenced television, it has mated with it and spawned hybrids. “The Last Ship,” a maritime drama that begins on Sunday on TNT, is one of the better results of crossbreeding. It’s a dystopian thriller for optimists.

 

That’s an interesting statement in itself. It seems to be an absolute contradiction: “a dystopian thriller for optimism.” But Stanley goes on to write:

 

A virus has wiped out most of the world population, and civilization has collapsed. On the brighter side, a selection of good-looking peppy people are still alive. These men and women were in the Arctic aboard a Navy destroyer during the outbreak and avoided contagion.

 

“The Last Ship” has the fashionably post-apocalyptic framework of cable shows like that, but its characters and can-do spirit echo those of more conventional [television].

 

So there’s the union of dystopia, which is the opposite of utopia, and optimism. In other words, the world may be coming to an end because of fever, but we can still salvage human values and establish some kind of small civilization on this last ship.

 

But it’s not just the crew of those on a Navy ship. As Alexandra Alter writes for The Wall Street Journal, in terms of young adult literature, there are new similarities between books known as The Fever, a suspense novel from rising-crime fiction star Megan Abbott, and Conversion, a coming young adult novel from Katherine Howe. She writes:

 

In both books, a cluster of teenage girls develops mysterious symptoms, including uncontrollable facial tics, stuttering and seizures. The strange outbreak begins with a popular girl and spreads to her circle of friends, eventually drawing national media attention [as the symptom mutates].

 

USA Today simply declares that TV is going viral in a big way. Bill Keveney writes:

 

Viruses have long played a dramatic role in film, appearing in such movies as The Andromeda Strain (1971), Twelve Monkeys (1995), Outbreak (1995) and Contagion (2011), whose producers consulted with the Centers for Disease Control and shot part of the film at its offices.

 

He goes to Hank Steinberg, the executive producer of “The Last Ship,” who writes:

 

It’s an invisible monster that could run rampant and kill all of us. When we conceived of the show that’s what we thought could be a really interesting starting place for an end to the world.

 

So let’s ask from the perspective of a Christian worldview: why would there be such an interest in the end of civilization by means of some kind of radical contagion by virus as most Americans are thinking about summer vacation and heading for the lake or the beach? The reason for this is actually closer at hand than you might imagine. The reason why we find these stories entertaining is because we think about these things. It is because, as God made us, as the writer of the book of Ecclesiastes tells us, God but eternity into the hearts of every single human being, we cannot help but thinking about not only our own deaths, but the end of civilization. The reason why not only young adults, but older adults as well, and even younger children, think about the dystopian storyline is because we think about the end of the earth. There seems to be a meaning to history that cries out, “This will not long last. It will not forever endure. There’s going to be some kind of end.” And even the secular worldview has to ask the question, “How might it end?” And if you’re coming up with a secular answer, there’s perhaps no better answer or closer at hand than an end by means of the outbreak of a horrifying fever. As Nancy DeWolf Smith writes for The Wall Street Journal, one thing to note about these dystopian storylines is that, at least for some time, they tend to displace violence and sex from television. Meaning, perhaps, that at the very least when it comes to the end of the world that may be the one thing that puts violence and sex outside the entertainment imagination.

 

But Christians need to keep in mind that there’s another reason we find these storylines so captivating, and that is this: these viruses really do exist. This is not just something that might be relegated to science fiction. When it comes to these kinds of viral outbreaks, they are indeed possible. As a matter of fact, even as the mainstream media were giving more attention to the media’s depiction by means of entertainment of these viral outbreaks, there were two headlines that evidently escaped the attention of most Americans. For instance, last Friday’s edition of The New York Times included the headlines, “C.D.C. Details Anthrax Scare for Scientists at Facilities.” As reporter Sabrina Tavernise and Donald McNeil report:

 

As many as 75 scientists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [in Atlanta] may have been exposed to live anthrax bacteria after potentially infectious samples were sent to laboratories unequipped to handle dangerous pathogens, a spokesman for the federal health agency said Thursday.

 

Now get this; the next line is especially indicative of human fallibility: “The agency was testing a new way to kill anthrax, which it discovered did not work as well as expected.” The reporters tell us the lapse occurred sometime between June 6 to June 13. Workers in three labs, who were not wearing protective gear, moved and experimented with samples of the highly infectious bacteria that were supposed to have been deactivated, the agency said. They were supposed to have been deactivated, but they weren’t.

 

Meanwhile on June 24th—that’s just two days ago on Tuesday—The Times of India reported a headline, “West Africa’s Ebola Epidemic is ‘Out of Control,’ the Death Toll Now Rises to 337.” Datelined from Dakar, we read:

 

An epidemic of the deadly Ebola virus in West Africa is now “out of control” with more than 60 outbreak hotspots, the medical charity Doctors without Borders (MSF) said.

“The scale of the current Ebola epidemic is unprecedented in terms of geographical distribution, people infected and deaths.”

 

The rapid spread of the disease, which is deadly in up to 90 per cent of cases, has overwhelmed aid agencies and health workers and terrified local communities.

 

Bart Janssens, the director of operations for Doctors Without Borders, said, “The epidemic is now out of control. With the appearance of new sites in Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia, there’s a real risk of it spreading to other areas.”

 

Christians reading headlines like these are reminded of what it means by the biblical worldview to keep ever in mind that we’re living in a Genesis 3 world; a world that is marked by human sinfulness and all the effects on the entire cosmos of human sin and God’s judgment upon it. We’re living in a fallen world in which there are not only termites and tumors, there are also very dangerous viruses. We should be very thankful that we live in a world in which we have at the very least a Center for Disease Control and Prevention and where we are protected by a modern civilization that has learned, at least in part, how to counter these viral dangers. But as headlines like these and entertainment phenomenon like what are now occurring this summer remind us, we have conquered these things in part and only in part, and so shall it be until Christ’s kingdom comes.

 

Thanks for listening to The Briefing. For more information, go to my website at albertmohler.com. You can follow me on Twitter by going to twitter.com/albertmohler. For information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu. For information on Boyce College, just go to boycecollege.com. Remember that right now we’re taking questions for the new season of Ask Anything: Weekend Edition that will begin in late summer. Just call with your question in your voice to 877-505-2058. That’s 877-505-2058. I’ll meet you again tomorrow for The Briefing.