Jul 16

THE ZIMMERMAN VERDICT

The first thought that struck me, even as I sat down to write this article, is the fact that my first impulse was to title this piece “The Trayvon Martin verdict.” It’s interesting how the media has so effectively communicated the idea that this trial was primarily about Trayvon Martin. It wasn’t. It was about the guilt or innocence of George Zimmerman. Trayvon Martin was the individual who was killed, and this naturally calls for our compassion and sympathy, but the trial wasn’t about him. It wasn’t about “avenging” his death. It was about ascertaining the guilt or innocence of George Zimmerman. I was encouraged when the jury came down with a “not guilty” verdict. I was encouraged because I saw that there is still some semblance of objective justice in some corners of our nation. The jurors didn’t give in to mob pressure. They ruled according to the evidence and the law. It was clear. The first act of violence came from the deceased. Mr. Zimmerman acted clearly in self-defense. This encounter was the very reason Mr. Zimmerman and other law-abiding citizens appreciate their Constitutional right to bear arms. While he was being assaulted, and pummeled on the ground, he had no choice but to use his weapon for the very purpose it was carried—to defend himself against an attacker. Had he not fired in self-defense it is likely that Trayvon Martin may have used the gun against him, particularly since Trayvon expressed that intention when he told Mr. Zimmerman, “Tonight you die.” In which case, Mr. Zimmerman would have been the deceased.

It’s tragic that this young man had violence in his heart against Mr. Zimmerman, and the expression of that violence is what ultimately caused his own death.

Those who are now demonstrating and demanding “Justice for Trayvon” are simply using this tragedy to fuel the fires of division and racial tension. The race hucksters, particularly those in positions of leadership have found another worthy cause to advance their racial agendas.

As “people of the book” however, we shouldn’t be surprised at the ginned up mobs that yell “Crucify Him, Crucify Him.”  We’ve seen that before. Human nature hasn’t changed. As a nation, however, we must never give in to the rule of “mobocracy.” We must continue to stand for “blind” justice under the rule of law.

Jul 13

THE END OF EXCEPTIONALISM?

There are those who believe The United States of America never was an exceptional country, and they act in ways that are consistent with that un-exceptionalism, thus contributing to self-fulfilling prophecy, because those individuals happen to be in places of national and state leadership. Let me explain.

When the Attorney General of our nation, or a state, can choose which laws they will enforce, and which they will not, we are no longer a nation ruled by law—one of the traits that have made us exceptional on the world stage. We are, instead, ruled by people where “might makes right.” This is standard operating procedure for un-exceptional third world countries, not a Constitutional Republic for which we have set the gold standard, at least until now.

Eric Holder’s choice not to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision signaling that they will not challenge states redefinition of marriage gave permission to the Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Kathleen Kane to choose not to defend Pennsylvania’s ban on same-sex marriage which is the law. This is not about “prosecutorial discretion.” It’s about refusing to uphold the Constitutions and the laws of the state and nation. In effect, the law becomes whatever those in power say it is. The King is the Law. Isn’t that what we supposedly “progressed” from in the sixteenth century? Whatever happened to “Lex Rex,” the Law is King?

If we continue down this path not only will we continue to regress legally, but we will also regress socially and culturally. Authentic marriage was a step up in world civilization that contributed to order, peace and prosperity of nations. When it is abandoned, even in the name of “progress,” it actually moves us backward. When those in power can choose which laws to defend, our legal system also takes a step backward.

World history is replete with accounts of tyrants who started out by changing laws unilaterally. God forbid we abandon the rule of law, or we will surely be exceptional no more.

Jul 09

DID THE U.S SUPREME COURT SOW SEEDS OF DISSENSION?

The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision legitimizing the idea of considering same-sex marriage to be within the scope of civil liberties will have unintended consequences that very few could even imagine. In fact, I believe the seeds for another war between the states have just been sown. Let me explain.

Those who ascribe to the idea that we are “One Nation Under God” believe that there are some basic, fundamental principles established by God that can never be negotiated away;  three in particular are expressed in the Manhattan Declaration: the Sanctity of Life, the historical definition of Marriage, and Religious Liberties.

The history of the United States has been, until recently, the history of achieving a more perfect union by improving our institutions and standards to provide greater opportunities for everyone.  All our advances for equality have been initiated by people of faith motivated by their understanding of God’s will as reflected in the Bible.  Abolition of Slavery, Women’s Suffrage, the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s, these were all fueled by the Biblical understanding of God’s plan for a peaceful and orderly society. Though all these initiatives experienced resistance at their outset, they were eventually assimilated into our culture and now seen as legitimate progressive steps in our journey toward that “more perfect union,” because they were consistent with Biblical ideals and also reflected in natural law.

There have been some missteps along the way. The Dred Scott decision of 1857 which dehumanized blacks, declaring slaves to be “property” not entitled to citizenship or recognition as human beings, launched a long Civil Rights struggle that led to the eventual overturning  of that decision,  because the Bible clearly establishes the equality of all regardless of skin color. As the electorate became more educated concerning this issue it eventually absorbed this “truth” into the fabric of our culture though we paid a great price in blood and treasure, coming close to committing national suicide in our first War Between the States, in which we lost more than 500,000 citizens.

The Roe. V. Wade decision of 1972 likewise spawned a “pro-life” movement led, again, by the Church, because the Bible, and natural law clearly speaks to the sanctity of every human life, and the need to protect the most defenseless among us. As society has become educated on this issue popular opinion has been steadily becoming more “pro-life.” As the U.S. Supreme Court reflects culture, it will eventually overturn another “bad” decision, this time at a cost of the lives of more than 50 million babies.

Now the U.S. Supreme Court has, in effect, given the green light for homosexual rights groups to pursue a universal redefinition of marriage. As they attempt to impose their morality on America, some “progressive” states will acquiesce to their sense of equality based on the religious view of Secular Humanism that declares that there is no higher standard of morality than that which is established by human reasoning. States whose people and institutions still subscribe to the Judeo-Christian standard of morality will never acquiesce to an imposed anti-biblical standard of morality, even if imposed by the U.S. Supreme Court or federal regulatory authorities.

What will make this conflict different than the abortion issue is that no American is being compelled by law to abort a baby, however the same-sex marriage movement is moving toward compelling Americans to recognize homosexual unions as a legitimate moral union, even calling it “marriage”. This will present a clear conflict where people of faith will have to choose to obey God rather than man. State governments that recognize that “It is the duty of nations as well as of men to acknowledge their dependence upon the overruling power of God”  will never bow down to dictates contrary to the standards set by God. One of the mottos from our first war for independence  “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God” will ring out once again.

I can foresee the day when  people of faith will begin to move toward “faith-friendly” states while humanists will continue to build power in their “progressive” states, thus polarizing the country even more than it has been polarized by the current left and right ideologies, until there will be two standards of morality. This will prove to be untenable in these “United” States of America. We will be, in effect,  as one writer called it, “The Divided States of America.”

There are certain truths that must be agreed upon by all Americans if we are to continue to live with the peace and prosperity that we have known since our founding. The most fundamental truth is that our rights come to us not from the generosity of the state but by the hand of God. Yes, we can debate the meaning of those rights in our various state and federal legislatures, but we must never depart from the laws of nature and nature’s God, or we will surely experience civil discord, chaos, and yes, possibly even war.

Either we will be one nation under God, or many nations under man. Let us pray for the former to avert the conflict and chaos that will result from the latter. Let the seeds sown by the U.S Supreme Court not sprout a harvest of discord and strife, and yes, possibly war between the states. Let us pray and continue to work toward realizing that more perfect union—One Nation Under God.

Jun 27

PRESS RELEASE: Coalition’s Response to Supreme Court Rulings

IMMEDIATE RELEASE

DATE:   June 26, 2013   TIME: 12:00pm

SUBJECT:U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Marriage

FROM: Rev. Bill Banuchi, Executive Director

CONTACT: Phone:  (845) 597-9142 Email: bill@nyfaithandfreedom.com

 

The New York Faith & Freedom Coalition is not surprised, but disappointed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s split decision striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act and recognizing the legitimacy of same-sex unions if individual states equate them with “marriage.”

We are further disappointed that Californians were denied the right to reaffirm the definition of marriage in their own state as the union of one man and one woman.”

Our founders taught us that our Constitution is effective only for a moral society, “it is wholly inadequate for the governing of any other.”

We see this as an opportunity to double our efforts to teach about the sanctity of authentic marriage, and the need to make God’s design for marriage and family, once again, the primary order for a peaceful and prosperous society. The next generation of Americans is depending on us.

The Supreme Court got it wrong on Roe v. Wade, and as restoration of truth has turned the hearts and minds of Americans to the pro-life position, so will it be with authentic marriage. We are committed to the process.

Rev. Bill Banuchi

Executive Director

Jun 11

WHY SO MANY SCANDALS?

Why so many scandals?

Simple. Religion! What? Yes, you heard me, “Religion.” The present administration is too religious! Let me explain. They appear to be radical fundamentalists in their practice of the religion of Secular Humanism. One of Secular Humanism’s basic tenets is that the highest and the most authoritative entity is the human being who has been evolving over the years to reach greater heights of intelligence and virtue.

The humanist does not believe in a superior written law like the Constitution and the Bible, because after all, we have now “evolved.” The written Constitution must now conform to our enlightened intelligence. That’s why they call it a “living document.” It is not authoritative over modern man but rather subservient to him.

Contemporary judgment of man is the superior authority, so if modern man makes a judgment that is contrary to some written law established at a previous time, then the law must be changed to accommodate the judgment of the man “in charge.” Do you remember the words of Richard Nixon?

“When the President does it that means it’s not illegal.”

That is basic humanist philosophy. That’s the religion—the belief system—that drives this present administration.

Seen through the lens of the religion of Secular Humanism, our Constitution and written laws are obstacles to progress. In their minds, it is a noble challenge to find ways to work around the very principles and laws that we believe have provided stability, peace and prosperity for more than 200 years, unmatched by any other nation in world history.

Just as the fundamentalist Islamofacist sees total logic in killing infidels to meet 72 virgins in heaven, so too, does the fundamentalist Humanist see total logic in undermining the Constitution for social “progress”.

In effect, we are in a three-way war: Islamofacism, Secular Humanism and Christianity. As previous presidents have described wars in their time, so too is this a conflict for our religion, our liberty and our way of life.

So let’s not be surprised when enemies of the God of the Bible act in ways that are consistent with their anti-Christian religions whether it be radical Islam or radical Secular Humanism. They both move toward the same end: the rule of man instead of the rule of law. Another name for that is “tyranny”.

Each scandal brought into the light represents a failed attempt at subverting American liberty, liberty founded on biblical principles. That’s why they do it; that’s why we continue to fight.

Feb 26

Do We Need a Constitution?

There has been much talk lately about whether we even need a Constitution or whether the Constitution just “gets in the way of progress” as posited by Georgetown Law Professor, Michael Seidman, in his essay recently published by the New York Times called “Let’s Give Up on the Constitution.”
It’s important for people of faith, and people who love liberty, to understand the unseen force driving Seidman’s line of thinking.

Seidman argues that our Constitution was written by privileged white men of another era whose thoughts and opinions have little to do with contemporary American life, therefore we should discard their work, and make up our own as we go.

His argument highlights a basic perspective typical of the secular left, rooted in Darwinian evolution. The thinking is, “We have evolved to a higher order, so we no longer need, or are well served by the thoughts of an inferior generation.”

Seidman and his ilk believe the highest authority is the contemporary mind of man. Therefore any document, rule or principle must submit to the interpretive authority of the modern man who reads it, and then It means whatever he says it means. This was clearly demonstrated by Chief Justice, Charles Evan Hughes, who said the Constitution means whatever the judge says it means. He couldn’t be more clear.

The conservative mind is a bit more humble, believing that there is a wisdom in the mind and heart of God that is superior to that of any man of any era. Our Constitution was an attempt to codify unchanging Biblical principles to establish a sense of “ordered liberty.” The principles set forth in the Constitution serve as an objective standard, an anchor keeping us moored to unchanging Judeo-Christian principles to guarantee continued peace, liberty and prosperity through generations. Our Constitution is the “how” to secure those inalienable rights put forward in our Declaration of Independence.

If we break away from the moorings of the Constitution we become susceptible to the whims of human nature which history has proven is capable of justifying unimaginable cruelty and even genocide in the name of “progress.”

If the Constitution can mean anything, whatever an “evolved” man thinks it should mean, then it will mean nothing, and we will regress to totalitarianism and barbarism already evidenced in baby-killing abortion, and the acceptance of hedonistic homosexuality. World history indicates that these are not progressive but rather regressive in human culture.

Do we need a Constitution? Absolutely, or be set adrift and ultimately condemn future generations to experience man’s inhumanity to man and social regression.