Lynn v. Sekulow

I NEED A CONSTITUTIONAL

Tuesday August 26, 2008

Categories: Abortion, Courts, Election '08
OK, this had to happen sometime in the first few weeks.  I have to concede a point to you, Jay.Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito did defend the First Amendment free speech claims of a non-profit in the Wisconsin Right To Life case you cited.  I didn't like all the reasoning in it, but I don't like over-regulation of political ideas in the name of "good government". Campaign finance "reform" got us PACs and then 527s and hasn't noticeably improved the caliber of government.

Just a reminder: telling churches and charities with tax exemptions they can't endorse candidates is fully appropriate regulation.

On the broader issue, you know that we can't only use the Constitution to protect things the framers talked about, at least insofar as we even have complete records of that.  They didn't discuss television, but surely the principle of free speech applies to televised images too.  Also, they made it clear in the Ninth Amendment that just because a right isn't articulated specifically in the first eight amendments doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  Moreover, it might be held by "the people" or by "the states"--two different locales.  What you do about a fetus in my view is a right "we the people" as individuals make.

 I would remind a few of my critical commentators that abortion is never discussed in the Bible.  We do know that Jewish law didn't even treat striking a woman and causing her to have a miscarriage as "murder".  We also know that the early Christian Church did not believe that life begins at conception.  So this religious issue is one glommed onto by the Right today for its ideological purposes, not for theological ones.
Advertisement
Comments
Ann L.
August 27, 2008 1:09 AM


OK.... I still disagree with your interpretation, Rev Lynn. Here's why:
my New King James Version (NKLV) translation says:
“If men fight (struggle) and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely (her children come out), yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”

My New International Version (NIV) words it this way:
“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye....”

I can understand how you’re interpreting this BUT I’m still not convinced that your conclusions are correct. How can you be so sure that when it says ‘if ANY harm follows’ / ‘if there is serious injury’ that this phrasing ONLY refers to the woman? What is said to show that it does not also refer to the child? - Nothing that I can find. You’re talking about a society where children were seen as the blessing of God on a couple. If a man hit your pregnant wife and your baby died because of that...wouldn’t you consider that a serious injury...harm? Why would they be any different?

I’m also not so sure about your ‘sermon on the mount’ statement. When Jesus spoke He was not teaching on how the government was to govern and keep order & peace in the land. He was teaching individual followers how to conduct their individual lives. When He says ‘You have heard that it was said...”, He isn’t saying “It is written” like He did at other times. Therefore, He was not rewriting Judaic Law... He was addressing issues in which what was commonly understood (based on what people said...as opposed to what God’s Word said) was not right and then teaching His followers how to behave in their interactions with other individuals. Actually, I remember that He also said that He had not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it in another conversation. In the example that followed, He wasn’t saying that the Law demanded that you love your neighbor and hate your enemy...He was once again referring to erroneous notions of the day based on people who’d misquoted OT law. Back to the ‘eye for an eye’ quote in OT Law... people are still trying to take that out of context and use it to justify their desire for personal vengeance. This is what Jesus was addressing. Basically, vigilante justice is not correct...we are not to take the law into our own individual hands but allow God to be in control and He has established government with a purpose - part of which is to maintain law and order. In order to effectively do that, there must be specific consequences to specific crimes.

Ann L.
August 27, 2008 1:48 AM

to Glen....
1.)Q> " where do you get your information? From the Laura Ingram or Ann Coulter cookbook?"
A> From my study of the Bible and various other sources...I've heard of one of those people and read no books by either.

2. Q> "Hebrew Law?? There is no such thing. It is called Jewish Law or Talmudic Law (rabbinic discussions pertaining to Jewish law). Hebrew is a language, like English or French."
A> I'm referring to the same thing, Old Testament Laws...You're splitting hairs with the comment. It's my understanding that, yes - of course, Hebrew is a language...but it was also the name of the ethnic group of people and that the name of the religion was Judaism - therefore they were Jewish. Sort of like the English speak English; the French speak French.

3.) I also believe that many times the original has not been translated as well as it should have. It is for this reason that I have several translations and a huge concordance to study with. It did not help with this particular verse, but your explanation does agree with the conclusion I was able to draw. Thank you for that.

4.) "Ann, you really need to get off your religious high horse, stop calling people liars, and study your facts a bit better."
I'm sorry if you really think that is my attitude. It isn't and the only time I 'called anyone a liar' here was in response to the blanket statement made about all Christian conservatives earlier that did not accurately represent me ...& I'd have to call myself both a Christian and a conservative.
My reference about Rev Lynn here was not intended to call him a liar, but to disagree with his statements. I have not specifically studied the Jewish historical perspective on abortion and so made the point that I was not willing to blindly believe his statement on it when I disagree with his other statement. That does not mean I think he's a liar...it means I think that we're probably going to come to different conclusions.

GEE, it would be nice to be able to discuss things without misunderstandings of motives and attitudes, wouldn't it? Then maybe the conversatins would at least allow us to have a more true understanding of our different perspectives.


Ann L.
August 27, 2008 10:25 AM

Just wanted to thank you, Rev. Lynn, for finally posting my last reponse (to Glen L.'s comments made to me)...I'm assuming here, that it was you who had it witheld last night...as it was on your blog. Anyway, thanks for coming to the same conclusion I had in this...that when I honestly state my firmly held convictions, I wasn't doing anything that should be unwelcome on a forum set up for that purpose.

Also, I'd really like the chance to clarify my response to #4. (above) I probably shouldn't have quoted the phrase from the statement that I was responding to in my response...because I actually didn't even call that person a liar. I did make the comment that the statement I was referring to was a lie...that does not necessarily mean I think the person who made it is a liar. A liar is someone who habitually lies and I have no way of knowing the character/actions of anyone here. Any person can be mistaken or misled and make a statement that is a lie and still not be a liar.

mercedes diaz
September 4, 2008 3:28 AM

i know some information about a situation in california where a individuals civilliberties have been a continued to be violated by a federal goverment employee. from what i knowthis has been happenning for serveral years now. this individual has used his position with the federalgoverment for hispersonal bandetta against this individual. i don't knowif you are familiar with the executive order president bush signed back in 2002-2004 establishing a program called the gsa. well under this programs guideline after the 911 incident the intentions were to established a system of communication between the fderal goverment and sate and local goverment including the general population. you can look-up the details i believed they executive order 1389&1390 plus some other ones. a lot of monies have been expent on establishing the program in california especially in the riverside county area more especifically in the city of corona where this individual lives. but the problem is that this fed employee or what its called the director of the program aded the extra twiss of using it for the last almost five years to persecute this person with the complete knowledge of local and county goverment this persons has been stocked what i mean is constantly follow everywhere he goes day or night telephone conversation, internet, cell phones, automobile all being tapped. this person has notbeing abletomake a moved or contact any outside agency for assistance that its the reasons it has gone on for so long if you asked me what was the perpouseor what he was hoping to achieve with what i called physoclogical warfare maybe drive the individual insane i don't really know what. the over all concept of the program is leginimate. but what it has being used for its not. it is a complete violation of the constitutional rights of this person. i know that every six months or so this director of the the program whom i believe at the moment to be a Mr. Alexander has to submitt a report to congress and the president of the us thru the secretary of homeland security. right now the programs has received a budget thru 2013. what i hope but i am not sure of is if the federal goverment is aware of what has being taking place. thru the program what has taken place is a cospiracy by local city and county goverment and also the civilian population who participate it. of course no one does anything for free so there is where all the benefits come to play. i have obtain all of the details of this situation including names, web site links, the program participants names and pictures all of the details. if your are willing to help this por soul out of this atrocity he/she has being subject to i will provide you all necessary documentatio that ihave attained. this is not a joke an i am not a pramkster. you may contact me at 951-454-5845 or my emailaddress dmhomes@gmail.com or even better come to see me in person at 1414 wigeon drive corona, ca 92882. i hope someone outthere does take notice of this situation and do something about it or help mehelp this person. thanks

N. Lindzee Lindholm
July 7, 2009 11:03 PM

I'd have to disagree with you, Rev. Barry, on your claim that the Bible does not address abortion. Many verses in the Bible talk about holding life sacred. I invite you to look at these verses in this article titled The Bible's Teaching Against Abortion:

http://www.priestsforlife.org/brochures/thebible.html

In addition, I have a presentation which includes many Scriptures which I will post once my web site is up and running again.

The Bible does not mention abortion per se, but has the intent that life is valid from conception and should not be taken away through abortion or embryonic cell research.

Read All Comments

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Please type the text you see in the box below to verify your post and help us prevent spam. You have a limited time to type - you may wish to compose your comment in a separate document and paste it here upon completion.

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Advertisement

Search This Blog

feed icon Subscribe

RSS Feed

Receive updates from Lynn v. Sekulow

About Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow is an ongoing debate blog--a blogalogue--about how big (or little) a role faith and religion should play in American politics and government, featuring the two leading voices of the church/state battle: American Center for Law & Justice Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow and Americans United for Separation of Church and State Executive Director Rev. Barry W. Lynn.

Please note that in discussing political issues, candidates’ positions and political party statements, the Rev. Barry Lynn and Jay Sekulow are offering analysis in their individual capacities as lawyers and commentators. They are not speaking on behalf of Americans United for Separation for Church and State or for the American Center for Law & Justice. Those organizations do not endorse or oppose candidates for public office. Nothing contained in this dialogue should be construed as the positions of the respective organizations.

About the Authors

Rev. Barry W. Lynn
Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a nonprofit educational organization that defends religious liberty by opposing government interference in religion
» Posts by Rev. Barry W. Lynn
Jay Sekulow
Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ), a law firm and educational organization focused on protecting religious freedom, American families, and human life.
» Posts by Jay Sekulow
More »

Advertisement

Advertisement


About Beliefnet

Our mission is to help people like you find, and walk, a spiritual path that will bring comfort, hope, clarity, strength, and happiness. More about Beliefnet.

Legal

Copyright © Beliefnet, Inc. and/or its licensors. All rights reserved. Use of this site is subject to Terms of Service and to our Privacy Policy. Constructed by Beliefnet.

Advertisement

Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.