September 2003 Archives

In an age of big church debt and big church programs that tend to divide parents and children and invest the hearts of our youth more with their peers than their families, what’s a family to do? In an age of uncommitted families and rabid individualism, what’s a local church to do? How do we rescue our children from the youth group culture and build family-friendly local churches? These issues and more are the subject of Vision Forum Ministries’ first regional Uniting Church and Family Conference. A follow-up on the 2002 National Conference to Unite Church and Home, this regional conference sponsored by the Five Lakes Fellowship, will be held this year on October 17-18 in Flint, Michigan and will feature myself, Scott Brown, and Phil Lancaster as keynotes. For more information, please visit http://www.fivelakesfellowship.org.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 30, 2003 | Permalink

My son Justice and I join the Chief Justice and his attorney Steve Melchior at the Broadmoor in Colorado for lunch.

Bob Renaud, my friend and personal assistant, discusses executive security with Chief Justice Moore’s bodyguard, Dr. Leonard Holyfield (cousin to Evander).

Newlyweds Josh and Sarah Wean enjoy a beautiful Colorado day. Josh helps keep Vision Forum in financial ship shape.

My brother Samuel Phillips (21 years younger than me), relaxes for a moment with Bob Renaud and Josh Wean.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 30, 2003 | Permalink

Chief Justice Roy Moore has filed a historic petition before the United States Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari. The petition is historic because the arguments proferred challenge long held Supreme Court errors like the “Lemon Test.” If the Supreme Court “grants cert” we will see the first time in our nation’s history in which a state Supreme Court Chief Justice has raised and defended the right of the government to acknowledge God.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 26, 2003 | Permalink

“If you can not read all your books, at any rate handle, or as it were, fondle them—peer into them, let them fall open where they will, read from the first sentence that arrests the eye, set them back on the shelves with your own hands, arrange them on your own plan so you at least know where they are. Let them be your friends; let them be your aquiantences.” Sir Winston Churchill

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 25, 2003 | Permalink

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 19, 2003 | Permalink

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 15, 2003 | Permalink

Vision Forum is pleased to carry a number of books by Gary DeMar, one of the greatest stalwarts in the defense of liberty. Gary wrote the following letter to the editor in response to the World Magazine cover story puff piece glorifying Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor:

Nothing Radical Here

Alabama State Attorney General William Pryor wonders whether Christians have fully thought through what he describes as a “radical states-rights stance.” There’s nothing radical about it. Pryor claims that if “the nonestablishment clause cannot be enforced on the states, then neither can other clauses in the First Amendment, including guarantees of free religious exercise or free speech.” Exactly! If the states wanted these protections for themselves, they would have to write them into their own constitutions, which they did. In Alabama’s 1819 constitution, we find the following: “Every citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty” (I:8) Sections 3-7 deal with state religious freedoms. These examples, which could be multiplied state by state, show that the states understood that the Bill of Rights was their constitutional protection from a Federal government that might impose its will on them. Mr. Pryor does not seem to be aware of his own state’s constitutional history. Without violating his oath, in complete compliance with constitutional theory, and maintaining the rule of law, he could have rejected the jurisdictional usurpation of the federal courts.

Gary DeMar
President of American Vision and author of
America’s Christian History and America’s Christian Heritage

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 10, 2003 | Permalink

We are enjoying one of the finest classes of interns in the history of our work. These fellows are simply terrific. Last night I took them out for sushi and their first experiment eating raw fish. We took the occasion to have a class on the history of Japan. We discussed the establishment of the Chrysanthemum empire, the rise of Buddhism, the conversion of one third of the nation to Roman Catholicism in the 15th century, the mass crucifixion of Catholics in the early 16th century, the closing of the island to outside trade, the historic jingoism of the Japanese, and the events leading up to the Second World War. I expressed the love for the Japanese people which Beall and I experienced during our visit to the great nation, and our desire to return should God open that door again.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 10, 2003 | Permalink

After the enormously disappointing behavior of World Magazine, Richard Land and others, who continue to communicate a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal issues in the case of Judge Moore, I was blessed to see that David Barton has issued an article in which points out the civic illiteracy of those who falsely accuse the Chief Justice of disregarding the rule of law. The following is a brief excerpt:

“Interestingly, voices of condemnation against Judge Moore have been raised around the nation, alleging that he refuses to follow ‘the rule of law.’ Such claims constitute some of the more civically-illiterate statements made in recent years. Consider: in every student civics or government book in America is a page on ‘How a Bill Becomes a Law.’ Anyone who examines those pages will notice that the judiciary has no role in making law; laws come from bills passed by the legislature and signed by the president or governor. Since no such law has been passed in this case, what ‘rule of law’ is Judge Moore not upholding? Can it actually be that these critics talking about ‘the rule of law’ believe that an order by a single unelected federal judge is actually the equivalent of a law? Apparently so. Don’t misunderstand: this is not to suggest that judicial rulings should be ignored based on the personal predilections of an individual in a case; however, this ruling goes against every deeply embedded legal standard in America’s common law, and Judge Moore’s refusal is not based solely on his selfish or personal inclinations. (To learn how deeply the Ten Commandments have been implanted into American law and traditions, read our legal brief on this issue that has been filed on this issue. Go to www.wallbuilders.com and click on the link for the Ten Commandments Brief, located on the front page.)

“Following Judge Myron Thompson’s edict, the other eight justices on the Alabama Supreme Court announced their unanimous opposition to Judge Moore’s position and agreed to cooperate in the removal of the monument. Judge Moore was subsequently suspended from his judgeship by the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission for his refusal to comply with the federal judge’s order. Importantly, Judge Moore is elected (as are the other eight State Supreme Court judges) and therefore ultimately accounts directly to the people of Alabama, who can have the final say on this issue. When that time comes, the decision of the voters likely will not agree with the State’s other Supreme Court judges or the State’s Judicial Inquiry Commission. Moore was already well-known for his stand for the Ten Commandments before he was elected to the Supreme Court (he had already won three legal decisions on the Ten Commandments at the time of his election) and recent polls show that 77 percent of the State supports the display.”

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 9, 2003 | Permalink

The German magazine Bunte is reporting today that Leni Reifenstahl is dead at the age of 101. The award winning director of Triumph of the Will and Olympia, Reifenstahl was known around the world as Hitler’s personal filmmaker. Many believed their relationship was far more than professional, a charge Reifenstahl always denied. Some years ago, I became interested in the story of this woman who helped to shape the rise of the Third Reich when I watched the lengthy, but utterly captivating 1993 documentary “The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl.” One can see the origin of Reifenstahl’s fascination with Hitler and his nietzschean vision of the ubermensch because early in her life and until her death Reifenstahl’s personal vision was the futile search for physical perfection and artistic beauty divorced of Christianity. In that respect, she also drew philosophically from the Greek ideal of worship of body and form. It was Reifenstahl’s haunting, brilliantly directed footage of the Nuremburg Rally, complete with flawless timing, innovative angle shots and stunning choreography which did more to glorify Nazism than anything of that era. In fact, Reifenstahl was the only woman to directly shape the rise of the Third Reich. Utterly unapologetic about her films or their treatment of Nazism, Reifenstahl remained a woman of inexaustable energy, returning during the 1960’s from an exile of post-war scorn with her acclaimed film on the Nuba tribesmen of Africa, surviving a helicopter crash in the Sudan at the age of 100 and that same year strapping on scuba gear to film and release an underwater documentary entitled “Impressions Under Water.” Reifenstahl’s death marks an end of an era. She was probably the last living link to Hitler’s inner circle.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 9, 2003 | Permalink

The staff and families of Vision Forum enjoyed a nice day in San Antonio for a photo shoot last Friday. We are preparing for our 2004 “Landmarks and Liberty” catalog. Above is an image of the guys on a bridge by the River Walk.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 8, 2003 | Permalink

Over the last week, the two most mocking voices to emerge in opposition to the Chief Justice came not from the Left, but from two professing Christians: John Whitehead and reporter Cal Thomas. (I intend to address the issue of Mr. Whitehead in a future blog.) Especially sad has been the commentary of Cal Thomas whose news column and television broadcast has reached all-time lows in misguided name calling. On his television broadcast, Mr. Thomas accused the Chief Justice of breaking his oath for not following the federal judges edict, accused the protestors gathered in front of the Supreme Court building of theatrics, and worse.

In response to Mr. Thomas’ out and out ridicule of the Chief Justice, many Christians are questioning whether the television host has lost perspective. The following is an heartfelt letter from Sandy Rios, President of Concerned Women for America to Mr. Thomas:

Dear Cal,

For Christ and His Kingdom!

Sandy R.

Sandy Rios
President
Concerned Women for America

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 5, 2003 | Permalink

We are very grateful for Pat Robertson’s change of heart on the Ten Commandments issue as demonstrated in this Thursday’s CBN interview with the Chief Justice. Please take the time to view the entire broadcast. It is superb, and addresses the issue of why the Chief Justice’s actions were not civil disobedient, but an act of law enforcement.

http://www.cbn.com/700club/previousbroadcasts/

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 5, 2003 | Permalink

Readers of Doug’s Blog may recall that two months ago we featured a series of images and articles about Hilmar von Campe, a youthful octegenarian who visited the Phillips home and shared his perspective as a former Hitler Youth turned Christian preacher, about totalitarianism. We were delighted to see his writings on the Focus on the Family website and to learn of Mr. von Campe’s friendship with Dr. Dobson. Below is an excerpt from the letter published on the Focus on the Family site:

”...Strangely enough, I cannot find any clause in the Constitution that stipulates a separation of church and state; the First Amendment certainly cannot be interpreted this way unless one does not mind lies. But the concept reminds me of the Nazi years in Germany, where I grew up.

In school and in the Hitler Youth — which I was forced to enter like any other youth — we were told that we could pray and sing hymns in our homes and in church as much as we liked. But as far as society was concerned, the national Socialists (i.e., Nazis) let it be known that they decided and declared what was right and what was wrong.
People soon learned that you turned up in a concentration camp if you objected to the Nazi version of what was right. On Sunday mornings, Gestapo agents stood in front of our church to intimidate those who entered. Nazis spoke of separation of church and state, but they meant separation of God and society so that they could twist what was right and have their evil ways. The Ten Commandments were just another obstacle on their road to national and global power.

Everybody knows how it ended. Hitler was unable to achieve what he had promised to do: to eliminate Christianity in Germany once he had won the war. Godlessness was the root of the Nazi evil, and godlessness is at the heart of the attack on Chief Justice Moore.

Judge Moore is upholding not only the U.S. Constitution, but also the Alabama Constitution. His fight is for the American people to honor their roots and be free as a nation and, with God’s guidance, provide moral leadership to humanity. Since when can a federal judge force the chief justice of a state of the union to break his oath of office?”

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 4, 2003 | Permalink

Psalm 119:121-126
I have done judgment and justice: leave me not to mine oppressors. Be surety for thy servant for good: let not the proud oppress me. Mine eyes fail for thy salvation, and for the word of thy righteousness. Deal with thy servant according unto thy mercy, and teach me thy statutes. I am thy servant; give me understanding, that I may know thy testimonies. It is time for thee, LORD, to work: for they have made void thy law.

Psalm 119: 161-165
Princes have persecuted me without a cause: but my heart standeth in awe of thy word. I rejoice at thy word, as one that findeth great spoil. I hate and abhor lying: but thy law do I love. Seven times a day do I praise thee because of thy righteous judgments. Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 4, 2003 | Permalink

Last night convicted abortionist killer Paul Hill was executed by lethal injection. Justice was accomplished. God’s law was upheld.

To the moment of his execution, Paul Hill, a de-frocked Presbyterian minister, husband and father, maintained his innocence, claiming instead that he had only acted in defense of others, and should be acquitted on the grounds of justifiable homicide.

The common law defense of justifiable homicide is derived from the case laws of Exodus which make clear that one may use lethal force if necessary in defense of self or others where imminent life-endangering harm is threatened and lethal force is necessary to prevent the crime. In addition, lethal force may be used in defense of country, or by the state against those criminals lawfully convicted of a capital offense.

So where did Paul Hill go wrong? Practically speaking, Mr. Hill acted as executioner, not rescuer. Having determined that the abortionist in question was guilty of past murders, and would probably commit future murders, Paul Hill stalked, hunted and executed the abortionist. The problem here is that the biblical jurisdiction to execute rests only with the state. There is no provision in Scripture for vigilante justice.

And what of Hill’s argument of justifiable homicide?: Under biblical and common law, justifiable homicide in defense of others requires (a) a clearly identifiable victim and (b) an aggressor who is presently engaged in a clear life-threatening act of violence against that specific victim, and (c) a reasonable determination that lethal force is necessary to prevent the specific life threatening act of the willful aggressor against the innocent party.

Paul Hill failed each of these tests: Who was the victim here? We don’t know. In fact, we don’t even know for sure what the abortionist was going to do that day. We may presume he will be about the business of killing babies, but that is not sufficient to make a claim to justifiable homicide. Nor was the abortionist being stopped from a crime in progress. He was simply gunned down in his parking lot. Nor was Paul Hill rescuing a victim from an observable and specific criminal act. Nor must we conclude that executing him was the only way to stop this man from future acts of murder.

Paul Hill lacked the jurisdiction to execute another. He never found himself in a circumstance which warranted justifiable homicide, as defined at biblical and common law. His was an act of premeditated murder, and for that God’s Word required his execution by the state.

But before we walk comfortably away from Mr. Hill, perhaps we should examine ourselves as well. Many Christians today oppose abortion, except in those circumstances where doctors claim that the mother’s life is threatened by the unborn baby. The classic case involves a “tubal” or ectopic pregnancy.

Though most “life of the mother” arguments for killing a baby stem from pure emotionalism, many Christians who seek to offer a rational defense of this type of abortion, usually do so by borrowing the same reinvented justifiable homicide argument embraced by Paul Hill to sanction the assassination of abortionists.

As with Paul Hill’s justification of the murder of abortionists, advocates of killing unborn babies “for the life of the mother” reason that it is o.k. for a mother to kill her child if it is an act of self-defense. But Paul Hill and pro-life exception advocates fail the biblical test. Both are terribly guilty of borrowing from pragmatic, non-biblical arguments, and twisting the Scriptures to justify a desired result.

Several things are worthy of note: First, a baby is not a willful aggressor. This ends the debate on justifiable homicide. A baby neither intends the harm, nor acts aggressively against its mother. (In fact, if “blame” is to be passed, it should rest on the mother, not the baby, since it was the mother’s body which produced the circumstances in which the baby has found himself.) The Bible makes no provision for executing an innocent party (one which lacks intent to harm) in order to help another.

Second, while the unborn baby in the case of an ectopic pregnancy may pose a threat which could materialize into a harm to the mother, the threat is not imminent in the classic sense, nor is it conclusive that the baby’s presence necessarily will cause harm. All that is known is that it might cause harm. Consequently, the murder of the baby takes place in anticipation of a statistical possibility. Here again, the biblical requirements for justifiable homicide are not met.

Conclusion: God’s law is the standard. God’s word speaks not only to vague principles, but to specific methodologies. We are not at liberty to improvise, nor may we substitute our own private interpretations in order to advance a “greater cause.” The greatest cause is obedience to our Lord. Paul Hill was wrong because he misconstrued Scripture. His thinking became off-base and he embraced a form of unbiblical pragmatism—-the ends justifies the means. Consequently, there is blood on his hands. It is my prayer that the Church of Jesus Christ will learn from this error, and self-examine our view of the so-called abortion exceptions, such that we will not be guilty of the same crime.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 4, 2003 | Permalink

The following are exerpts from last night’s interview of the Chief Justice by Paula Zahn:

ZAHN: And how outraged were when you found out that that was the ruling you were going to have to live by?

MOORE: Well, I was extremely disappointed, disappointed in the officials of our state who have let this happen, disappointed that they would let a judge threaten the state of Alabama to remove acknowledgement of God, which is fundamental to our state and our justice system under the Constitution of Alabama.

Without acknowledgement of God, we have no justice system, according to the Constitution. And that, I’m sworn to uphold.

ZAHN: Your own attorney general suggested that perhaps you view yourself as above the law.

MOORE: Well, you’ve got to consider what the law is.

And that’s the problem. Many people think that what a judge says is law. Indeed, judges can’t make the law. Judges, just like anybody else, are under the law. That’s why we have rule of law. That law is the Constitution of the United States. And the Constitution of the United States is very clear in saying that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

When a judge, a federal district judge, says, I don’t know what the words mean, but this is what I think they mean, he’s entering into a lawless order when he enters the fact that you can’t acknowledge God in your Constitution. And that’s what happened. I’m not defying the law. I’m upholding the law.

ZAHN: Well, you also have some 13 other states out there facing potential conflicts that you have just witnessed. Do you have any travel plans?

MOORE: Well, I’m traveling around speaking on this issue because there’s so many that don’t understand it.

They don’t understand what the Constitution says, what the First Amendment’s about. What the Alabama Constitution says is very clear. And I think there’s too many things going on in this country about the removal of God from our life. And it’s fundamental. Actually, the organic law of our country establishes God as the basis for our justice system.

ZAHN: But when your own attorney general, who personally has no problem with the display of the Ten Commandments, comes out and says that you defied a federal court order, that you are not above the law, and that you should have followed through with what the federal court told you to do—

MOORE: Again, the attorney general is under the law, just like I am. And when that law is being violated, when it’s an unlawful order — and I just was brought this information about Morris Dees [of] the Southern Poverty Law Center, who is in the case against us.

This is what he said in The Washington Post about our attorney general and his actions: “The heat of this battle certainly matured this young man,” Dees said of [Bill] Pryor. “His actions behind the scenes to orchestrate the state officials handling these things saved Alabama from constitutional crisis.”

Now, it bothers me that there’s things going on behind the scenes to orchestrate the denial of our right to acknowledge God under the Constitution. That bothers me.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 3, 2003 | Permalink

“Asked about President Bush’s view of the controversy, White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said: ‘It is important that we respect our laws and our courts. In some instances, the courts have ruled that the posting of the Ten Commandments is OK. In other circumstances, they have ruled that it’s not OK. In either case, there is always opportunity for appeal of courts’ decisions.’ ” Source: Kyle Winfield, Associated Press, Washington Times.com, 8/28/03

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 3, 2003 | Permalink

In a world in which blogs (web logs) are growing in influence, we found it most interesting that our own little blog has reached the Alabama Supreme Court building. Over the last month we have received a spate of letters from attorneys working for Justice Gorman Houston and others who have expressed their disapproval with our criticism of the actions of Alabama judicial officials against the Chief Justice. A common denominator in their letters is that the authors are professing Christians who love the Judge, but appear to be more concerned with the reputations of the lawless men who have bowed to compromise and pressure than to the one man who has stood on the Lord’s side and refused to violate his oath. I believe their consciences are pricked, and the best way to live with compromise is to condemn those who say the emperor has no clothes.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 3, 2003 | Permalink

The Bible teaches that the godly in Christ will suffer persecution. One of the most notable examples in our lifetime of an elected official being persecuted for Christ sake is Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court. the facts are not complicated: The Chief Justice believes that he must honor his oath of office to the Constitution which explicitly delcares that the acknowledgement of the Christian God is the foundation for the Alabama legal system. Consistant with that oath and with the mandate of the people of Alabama who elected the Chief Justice in a virtual landslide, he exercised his office of Chief Administrator of the Supreme Court building by placing a monument

For this he has been persecuted and wrongly attacked. Attorney General Bill Pryor, a man closely associated with Karl Rove, has decided to use his office to prosecute the

Not only is this notable, it is extremely rare. When was the last time you saw the highest elected judicial officer of a state (or any ranking official federal or state) be willing to risk everything including his job

take an unqualified stand for Christ

Statement by Herbert W. Titus, attorney for Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy S. Moore, regarding the 11th Circuit Court response to an order regarding attorney’s fees for the plaintiff in the case of Glassroth v. Moore.

“Not only does Judge Carnes’ opinion reflect an outrageous misuse of judicial power, it smacks of an attempt to politically rehabilitate Alabama’s Attorney General. As Judge Story points out in his separate opinion there is no legal or factual basis for Judge Carnes’ faulting the Chief Justice for not challenging the attorney fee application. As Judge Story also observed, Attorney General Bill Pryor had just as much opportunity to contest the reasonableness of the attorney fee request, as did the Chief Justice. However, Judge Carnes did not condemn the Attorney General, but gave him a second chance. Judge Carnes’ opinion is just another gratuitous attack on Chief Justice Moore’s integrity, and an unjustified effort to belittle the Chief Justice’s constitutional oath of office. While Judge Carnes may get away with such antics in the protected confines of his courtroom, his personal attack on the Chief Justice will get nowhere with the people of Alabama.”

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 1, 2003 | Permalink