Disclaimer: Worldview Weekend, Worldview Tube and its writers do not necessarily endorse or agree with every opinion expressed in every video posted on this site. We do however, encourage a healthy and friendly debate on the issues of our day. Whether you agree or disagree, we encourage you to post your feedback by using the feedback button.
Viewer Feedback
misleading
Posted On: 06/27/08 04:14:18 PM
Age 18, WA
Isn't the title of this article misleading? Isn't allowing abortion and Gay Marriage expanding our rights, not taking them away? Click here to reply to this post
How Judges Are Breaking The Law and Stealing Our Freedoms
Posted On: 05/22/07 11:46:05 PM
Age 57, VA
Mr. Howse says the Constitution must have EXACTLY the same meaning today in the 21st century as when it was written more than 200 years ago. He has very harsh words for former Chief Justice Earl Warren--who said that "evolving standards of decency" are important in interpreting the 8th Amendment. He also says that looking to the "original intent" is the ONLY way to interpret the Constitution.
Mr. Howse may be an expert on the Bible, but he is arrogant in setting himself up as an expert on Constitutional law. I believe that "evolving standards of decency" are EXACTLY what is needed to interpret the Constitution. The Constitution is a very short document and the people who wrote the Constitution could not possibly anticipate modern problems such as electronic searches of telephone records. For most issues, we do not even know what their "original intent" was. And whose original intent should matter? James Madison? Ben Franklin? Thomas Jefferson? Suppose they disagreed?
1. When the Constitution was written, there was no such thing as zoning of land for certain uses. Zoning had not yet been invented. The very first zoning law was challenged as UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Why? Because it was considered to be a "taking of property without just compensation." It is certainly true that if property is zoned for residential purposes, it can no longer be used for a business. So zoning could drastically reduce the value of a person's property. But does that make it unconstitutional? No. And how do we know this? We CANNOT look to "original intent" to resolve this issue because there is absolutely none on the issue of zoning. The only thing we can consider are "evolving standards of right and wrong" and common sense.
2. Suppose Massachusetts enacts a law making the practice of witchcraft punishable by death. That would be COMPLETELY in accordance with the Bible--Exodus 22:18 says witches must die. Witches in Massachusetts were PUT TO DEATH several hundred years ago simply for being witches and for nothing else. But now we know better. It is our "evolving standards of decency" that make us realize that people who call themselves witches should NOT be put to death simply for being witches. We apply common sense, not Exodus 22:18. Modern law IS based on "evolving standards of decency." If this were not the case, we would STILL be putting witches to death. Is that what you would like?
3. You may think you have a right to have children--and as many as you wish. But where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to have children? THE CONSTITUTION IS TOTALLY SILENT on the issue of how many kids you can have. Because the Constitution is completely silent, Mr. Howse must believe that a state could restrict the number of children a married couple can have. Would it be O.K. for Virginia to limit a family to one child? I say that such a limit on family size would be unconstitutional. But where do I get that conclusion from? I get it from "evolving standards of decency" and more specifically the "right of privacy." But you think there is no right to privacy because it is not mentioned in the Constitution. I think the Supreme Court did the PROPER thing in inventing that right when it issued the Griswold decision, concluding that a state cannot bar contraceptives. And I think you will agree that without such a right, a state might restrict a family to one child. And a state might also require that retarded people be sterilized against their will--in the famous Buck v. Bell case, the Supreme Court held that it was perfectly O.K. for retarded people to be sterilized because "three generations of imbeciles are enough." I am sure you object to Buck. But what is your objection based on? Certainly not the Constitution--which says nothing about a right to procreate or a right to privacy. The only way to reject Buck v. Bell is to recognize that "evolving standards of decency" ARE IMPORTANT. Without them, we would have no right of privacy in matters relating to procreation. Click here to reply to this post
No, Howse IS correct about the constitution
Posted On: 06/27/08 10:52:41 AM
Age 35, TX
The constitution is purposefully very short, becasue it is supposed to be shackles on the hands of the federal government, to prevent it from becoming tyranical. It poses limitations on the federal government and leaves ALL other responsibilities to the States. ALL laws and judicial activism that violates State's sovereignty is unconstitutional. States do have the right to set up whatever zoning laws they want and other such things. If you don't like one state's laws, then you move to another state. This is how it was designed. If a state passes an unpopular law, then they will loose out by people going to better states. But when bad laws and judicial descisions are passed at the national level, people have no where to go to get out from under the tyranical oppression. This is the original intention of the founders, to prevent the very tyranical government we have today. Unfortunately, we the people, have let the government steamroll right over us with out so much as a complaint. Those who give up personal liberty for safety deserve neither. Click here to reply to this post
mwlpatriot
Posted On: 06/27/08 12:45:07 AM
Age 60, IL
The notion of "evolving standards of decency" in respect to the Constitution is like watching as one drop and then another and another are dropped into a bucket of white paint. Before long the paint is pink, then pinker, then red, and completely indiscernible from the original white (which represents the original Constitution). It is obvious that in order to respect the original intent, we must compare each new proposed "change" (law) to the original "pure white paint" of the Constitution and not the color of paint existing after one then another and another distorted drops of a little red, then a little more and a little more. Click here to reply to this post
Re: How Judges Are Breaking The Law and Stealing Our Freedoms
Posted On: 07/30/07 06:19:03 PM
Age 56, OR
I am sorry to say that you appear to have evolved so far... that I do not understand a single basis for any of your 'arguments?'.
PGW. Click here to reply to this post
Re: How Judges Are Breaking The Law and Stealing Our Freedoms
Posted On: 05/04/07 11:03:05 AM
Age 59, IL
Brannon... truly, truly well said. My most heartfelt prayer for you, my friend... that the Good Lord would bless your work and your message to SUCH an extent - that your audience would eventually number in the millions... as opposed to that miniscule gathering you spoke to on that day. This nation desperately needs to hear the truth and to become aware of what is going on. In Him, scott. Click here to reply to this post
Re: How Judges Are Breaking The Law and Stealing Our Freedoms
Posted On: 05/03/07 07:44:15 AM
Age 58, NY
The theme of the message is accurate and desperately need for our young people in particular. However, I would urge the speaker (I don't know him) to read book by Dr. Francis Schaffer titled "How Should We Then Live". An evangelical from the 50's through the 80's, he stated it with perspective.
As a former Bible College founder and President, I implemented a required 10 week course using the 10 films of Dr. Schaffer that are based on the book.
Congregations who hear the speaker after he reads the book will be touched in an even greater way.
blessings to you all
ML Click here to reply to this post
