Sergeant Ketanji Brown Jackson Schultz
Whilst the Senate questioning of Scotus (Supreme Court of the United States) nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson may hold little interest for my countrymen, I hope to pique some interest by pointing out a few details that should be of great concern to all, regardless of nationality.
To be sure, the whole process is circusesque and the behaviour of many should be the first clue that we are in serious trouble. However, the process did serve a few useful purposes. Primarily, it showed how several fell creatures, of the philosophical variety, have been nurtured to the age of sexual maturity by our Godless society. These were then not only allowed, but actively encouraged, to mate. They were protected as they gave birth to their evil spawn, and now we have monstrosities running hither and yon screaming inanities at the top of their lungs. To help visualise the resultant mess, think Gremlins!
The highlight of this particular show came when Senator Blackburn asked a question about womanhood and whether the Scotus nominee could define “a woman”. Now, many on the Left have raised eyebrows at this question, but, given all the talk on sexuality and transgenederism that has filled the airwaves of late, it is hard to see it as an utter irrelevancy. Moreover, the question strikes at the heart of the candidate’s nomination, but more on that later.
Ketanji Brown Jackson’s answer, if one can call it that, came in two avoidance measures. First, she states, “I am not a biologist”. Second, she hides behind the “Oh, that matter is before the courts, so I cannot comment” line (or thereabouts) – something she seemed to do on numerous other occasions.
When faced with this type of reply from a senior member of the judiciary, it is easy to smirk, shake your head, and pass it off as a bad joke, all whilst mouthing, “What on earth is the world coming to?” or you can follow our lead and label this nominee as a “Sergeant Shultz” clone who, like the man in the tin hat, confronts the obvious and unspeakable with a wide eyed, “I know nothing!”
The shenanigans before us are no joke and they most certainly are not a laughing matter that should be dismissed with a smirk and the mere shake of the head. What we have witnessed is the very serious consequence of monstrous ideas spawning evil offspring, which are then not only permitted, but actively encouraged, to run amuck.
Okay, what of Schultzy? Are we not guilty of a little humour on this serious subject? Well, yes, but just a little. You see, in our mind, Old Schultzy aptly represents that scene of the nominee responding to a legitimate question. This is not hilarity, it is travesty. Think about it for a moment, if you will. Old Schultzy barges into the barracks and finds one Colonel Hogan or one of his fellow prisoners in possession of an escape map, a secret plan, a gorgeous woman, a downed airman, a radio, or some other object that would normally see these prisoners locked up, interrogated, or shot. Old Schultzy ain’t so dumb. He knows exactly what he is looking at! That is why his response always begins with a wide eyed “Colonel Hogan!” in that drawn out German accent, followed by a heartfelt, “I know nothing; I see nothing!” – which is code for, and please understand this well, ‘I do not want to see anything! I do not want to know anything! Such knowledge is dangerous and has serious ramifications. Such knowledge calls for decision, commitment and response, and I would prefer to stay neutral for reasons implied not stated!’
Now, the one thing Sergeant Schultz has going for him is that of his motivation. Although not fully explored in the series, the good Sergeant reminds me of another German soldier, this time from the movie, The Battle of the Bulge. In that movie, there is an exchange between one Corporal Conrad and his commanding officer (Oberst) Colonel Martin Hessler. In a very much cut-down, race version, the exchange has Conrad displaying his despondence at war and the prospect of his sons being drawn into and killed by the war. Conrad has had enough, this being his second war, and longs for home. Suffice to say, Conrad’s superior has a very different view.
The point here is that Conrad reminds me of Old Schultzy. He has seen all this before. He just wants to go home and cuddle his wife. This is his second war, and he is tired of it in every respect. As such, when he stumbles upon Hogan and his schemes, his loyalty means that he protests with all the gusto of a whimper, but he lets things slide because of all the other factors – he prefers life, he is afraid of the Russian front, he hates the threats, he is tired of war, etc. When we consider the Sergeant in his role, we have a laugh and put the seriousness and ludicrous nature of things aside. The irony is what makes it funny, even if it is predictable.
Returning to our theme of Sergeant KBJ Schultz, we must see that the difference between her and the man in the tin hat lies not in the response, but in character and motive. Like her namesake, the nominee, when asked the question, responded with a wide eyed, “Senator, I am not a biologist!” (“Colonel Hogan!”) and acted all surprised and fumbled for the apt response. However, the noise was the candidate merely moving into code mode: ‘I hear the question, Senator. I understand the question and indeed am capable of answering the question. However, to do so would be to expose myself to danger (politically and vocationally) and to risk a series of negative ramifications, which would seriously compromise my effort to appear as both neutral and moderate!’
Herein, we encounter one of the real evils revealed through this process, namely, the fact that the nominee was willing to obfuscate on an important, basic, relevant, and current issue in order to appease a certain sector to whom she obviously feels beholden, to some degree. The question then, obviously, must be, “If this is the type of obfuscation undertaken to lay hold of the position, what lies ahead in order to keep the position and repay the debts?”
This type of conduct is evil and deception and we should be very afraid! Are we really to think that the nominee, after so many years in jurisprudence, has no concept of how to define a woman? Are we truly to think that after these many years, the many opinions she has written, and cases studied that the nominee has never once formed a thought or ventured an opinion on the definition of a woman? Are we to really think that after these many years as a woman, the nominee has no clue as to what defines a woman? Of course she has. Thus, we reiterate that the above obfuscating was all about playing the political game and had nothing to do with truth. This was once called deceit and the Bible warns about the deceiver.[1]
Here there be Monsters:
Alright! Mansplaining time. Why all the kerfuffle over this one little response? Are we just on a witch-hunt; are we simply unhappy that our party’s candidate has been overlooked, etc? Nope! The problem with this hearing is not one simple answer or non-answer. Our concern is with the complete, tiresome, mess, from start to finish. This event masquerades as the pinnacle of objectivity and equality in the pursuit of justice and fair-minded inquiry, with the expectant result that the best candidate for the position is appointed. Nothing could be, or in fact is, further from the truth!
This whole process shows what is wrong with America (may my brethren forgive me) and, for that matter, what is inherently wrong with the West, if not the world.
We are all acting as though the law, rules, standards, mores, concepts, and definitions of our former worldview are still relevant and applicable. We act as though the Christian consensus is still the glue that holds us together and enables things like rational discussion and objective enquiry to take place. We act as though we have a grasp on reality and a certain understanding of our world because we look back upon the maps (worldview) of yore, take false confidence in the fact that we think we know where we are, upon what we stand, and the dangers to be faced, based on the things therein defined. Yet, it is all a ruse, a delusion, a deception; subterfuge of the highest order!
We play the game as though in the scenario above, where all the aspects of the Christian worldview and consensus are fully intact and operational, but the reality is best summed up in Barbossa’s words to CJS: “You’re off the map here, Mate. Here there be monsters!”
Having left the safety of the Christian worldview and consensus, all – literally everything: knowledge, existence, time, space, your gender – by necessity, must be up for grabs. We have entered the uncertain realm of the Existentialist, where truth is subjective and the mere effort to design an experiment that proves the truth is exhausting and unattainable. We are led to believe that we stand upon solid ground, but it is an illusion. The maps of yore (Christian worldview) would show us that we are ‘off the map’. It would explain, ‘why there be monsters’ and it would indeed show us how to remedy the situation. However, those maps are no longer consulted. We may talk about them and we may do so at times with hushed tones of reverence. Yet, the reality is that the Atheistic-Humanism of Modernism pushed those maps into the back corner of the map room to become dust covered relics of myth and legend many moons ago.
Enter, the charade! The Atheistic-Humanists of Modernism have come up with new maps. They proclaim that they are better than the old maps – not as wordy; not as restrictive; giving more room for movement; giving more room for human consensus etc. However, the only way to achieve this was to copy the maps of yore, then systematically erase the outer boundaries that delineated safe zones from dangerous ones; remove all the accompanying defences; delete any restrictive definitions like, well, something akin to removing the old cartoon signs with a skull and cross bone which meant, ‘Danger, Keep out!”; and take away any descriptors of the monsters that warned of their habitats, predilections, strengths, and weaknesses – after all, such descriptors are discriminatory and bigoted, given that they cast the monster’s monsterliness in a negative light. The end result of this process is a map without key or legend and, therefore, a map that is virtually of no benefit to the user. It most certainly appeals to his sense of freedom and maybe his sense of adventure, but it is near on useless as a map precisely because it does not define the world around the user; in fact, given the presuppositions underpinning the commissioning and design of the new map, it can hardly define anything with any certainty or accuracy because it really amounts to a blank sheet.
The pretence continues when the good folks of the State of Nihilism in the County of Godlessville, are set free to journey about the world armed with these new maps. Most remember the old maps, cumbersome and even wordy. They were restrictive with their multiplicity of warning and danger signs. They were also buzzkills because they told you that there was a steep grade, no fuel, or that monsters roamed these here parts, which, of course, took all the fun and excitement of discovery away from the individual who had an autonomous right to discover such things for themselves. Then, there was the printed compass and legend which seemed unnecessary and took up a lot of room. Thus, they were happy to be trialling the new map.
In comparison to the old, these new maps are great. Half the size and half the weight. No restrictions! The only limit is your imagination. A journey of discovery guaranteed. A magnificent improvement … until the complaints start filtering into headquarters. The people of Godlessville are being decimated. A man perished because he did not know which direction was what or how to orient the map, for the new map has no compass. Another perished from a heart attack walking up an unexpectedly steep grade; another when his car ran out of fuel in a remote area; and yet others were eaten by monsters. Then there are the stories of those maimed when falling into briar patches and tar pits.
The problem here is obvious to the residents, some anyway, in the County of Christlikeness in the great State of Theokingdom. Our neighbours have drawn a map based on what they earnestly desire the world to look like and be, but in doing so they have ignored the realities and constructs of the world itself. Those in the State of Nihilism have condemned themselves to death precisely because they are attempting an exercise in futility, namely, they are trying to fashion the world and its order after themselves. God made Man in His image and placed him in a world that glorified its Creator. Now, rebellious Man wants to be the creator and remake the world in his image … and he is drawing up the maps to suit. The only problem is that these maps are useless. Why? Well, in a paraphrase of Romans 1:32, these people see their fellows dying – attempting to swim through quicksand; fly off cliffs; and bungee into active volcanoes – and instead of raising the alarm, they cheer them on with great gusto, precisely because the alternative is repulsive to them.
We must realise that in the State of Nihilism, some of its sages have breed monsters thinking that it is a perfectly legitimate thought experiment (i.e., questioning the Christian consensus and calling for other worldviews to be enacted). However, inevitably (and please think Jurassic Park), amongst the veggiesauruses there is always a raging T-rex wanting to chew you up and defecate you out in small, fibrous pieces. Indeed, when it comes to worldviews, Christianity is the veggiesaurus. Everything else is the T-rex. That is why, in our day, there is so much disquiet amongst the people. To understand this (keep considering Jurassic Park), think of Dr Ian Malcolm’s comment. When a novice in the film views a dinosaur for the first time, he exclaims, “Magnificent!” Malcolm, responds, “Oh! Ah! That’s how it always starts; but then, later, there is running and screaming!” To this, we could also add, dying – horribly! The concept of jettisoning the Christian consensus seemed very pleasing to some – Magnificent! However, once the monsters were out and beyond the control of their inventors, there was, inevitably, running, screaming, and dying, because we are ‘off the map and here, there be monsters!’
We are in a transitional phase as to worldviews. We are moving from the Christian consensus to that which is Atheistic and Humanistic – a move that has passed the half-way mark and sees, humanly speaking, the balance of power shifting. Hence, the game playing and confusion at the Senate hearing. The constructs for appointing a judge to Scotus come from the old worldview. A time in which there was governmental accountability; a belief in absolute, objective truth; a belief in right and wrong; a belief in the idea that man was free until he transgressed the Law; a time when a straight question gained a straight answer – not a dance move akin to the Quickstep; of course, a time when a man and a woman were very easily defined; and a time when monsters were hunted for the sake of public safety.
The shenanigans on display belong to the new worldview; a time when none of the aforementioned hold true, but the process continues within the previously defined constructs, giving the illusion that things remain the same. The simple reality is this: Scotus, and indeed all judicial systems, is a useless, anachronistic, obsolescent concept. Why? Simple. Without the Christian worldview – based as it is in God, His Son, His Law, by His Spirit – the ability of any society to institute and maintain any semblance of true justice is remote at best (keeping monsters caged). Scotus, at present, is standing on quicksand. It has no substantial underpinning or foundation, with the result that it cannot find a place from which to fight and subdue monsters—to swing an effective punch, one must have balance and a firm footing; if not, when your punch connects, the force drives you further into the mire, rather than knocking your opponent off his feet. You can already see that Scotus has become an interpreter and reinterpreter of law, rather than a body that understands and applies the law (the monsters are out of their cages!). Then we have the nominee’s answer or non-answer, which proves that the monsters are on the prowl, seeking whom they may devour.
Let’s unpack this some more to try and illustrate the absurdities.
Potus, Scotus, and Hocus Pocus:
As we examine the nominee’s answer to the question, ‘Can you define a woman?’ we must, of necessity, revisit the very criteria that Potus (the President of the United States) stated would be used in arriving at a suitable candidate: 1. Excessive melanin, 2. Woman! (Hereafter, Uterine Equipped[2])
When Potus stated these criteria, he knew, despite his seeming senility,[3] that he meant something specific by them. He knew that he meant that the candidate must display an exceptional supply of melanin and be uterine equipped. Thus, if you have a stem on your apple and your melanin quotient leaves you looking pink in daylight, then you need not apply.
If this were not the case, Potus’ criteria were absolutely meaningless and nobody could have taken any message from their dissemination at all. If it were meaningless, then all the groups that cheered the announcement merely did so as part of a group delusion – or they cheered because the words were intelligible and they understood the words as well as the implication thereof!
Let us then be charitable and conclude that Potus was not speaking gibberish, but actual, intelligible words. This being the case, the nominee’s non-answer or obfuscation has some fairly important ramifications.
Please consider the following.
In order to be considered for the position, you must:
- Understand that the criteria are definable.
- Have an ability to demonstrate how you comply with the criteria.
Simple! Right? No. Panadol on standby, for here there be monsters, mate!—and people wonder why the rum is gone!
Ketanji Brown Jackson sits at a table fronting a panel of scrutineers. She, please note the pronoun, is there because she says, in essence, “I have the appropriate level of melanin and I am uterine equipped. I therefore meet the criteria that Potus has set forth and present myself as a legitimate candidate. Furthermore, I am able to say this with confidence because I understand the terms Potus used and am able to define each term adequately so as to know that I conform to the prescribed criteria.”
So far, so good? Nooooo!
What we have seen from Schultzy the second is an absolute wonderment. From her own mouth, she acknowledges that she is incapable of meeting the first standard (define) – ‘I know nothing! I am not a biologist!’ However, she then, in a feat of illusion rivalling the greatest magicians of all time, announces that she can comply with the second standard (conform) – “Yes ma’am, I am a melanin charged and uterine equipped! I fit the criteria!” How?
This is a logical fallacy or, better, a violation of the ‘Law of non-Contradiction’. The Law of non-Contradiction states that A can never be non-A in the same sense at the same time. A silly oversimplified analogy: if you are playing Monopoly, you cannot be the battleship and the car, just as you cannot be the winner and the loser at the same time.
Here, we will substitute W for A and equate it with womanhood, particularly the ability to define womanhood. In the case before us, we have two extraordinary contradictions. First, the nominee says that she is applying as a candidate based on the explicit concept that W is a definable term. Then, when interviewed, she states that W is undefinable. Thus, we have a massive contradiction. W cannot be both definable and undefinable at the same time in the same space, e.g., on your job application! Second, having told us that W is undefinable, the nominee purports to conform to a definable definition of W. This, then, is also a contradiction, albeit a reversal of the first.
This then leaves us with only one criterion having been met, namely, that of being melanin charged. Of course, this then begs the question, ‘Why did Potus announce two criteria for Scotus or was that all just hocus pocus?’ Was there only one criterion from the outset, but Potus did not want to seem too obvious in pushing an agenda? If there were two criteria, then why was there not a candidate put forward who could not only understand and define each criterion in turn, but, having done so, could then objectify those within her person?
Apologies if this makes your brain hurt, but it is essential to grapple with understanding these points, if we are to take our stand and seek, by God’s grace, to turn the ship around. Too many cannot or will not see the descent into absurdity and madness which is upon us, and which is so clearly exemplified in this little exchange. For the sake of comprehension, let us depoliticise and simplify the situation. Advert: Brain surgeon wanted! Interviewer: Can you define a brain and a surgeon? Candidate’s response: Umm! Well. Let’s see. Whoa. Not really. In regard to the first, I am not a biologist or an anatomist. In regard to the second, I am not a linguist nor an etymologist; maybe you should call Webster or Roget! Our question: Would you go under the knife if this candidate had control of the scalpel?
Moving on.
To really underscore the nonsense and Politically Correctness absurdities on display at this interview, let us think about the practical ramifications of these discussions. Well, okay, ramification, singular. There is one elephant in our room – huge, rapier-like tusks, evil red eyes, and gnarled nails that drip with the blood of its victims – and it must be pointed out: When the nominee takes their seat on Scotus, will she opt out of any cases on transgenderism, abortion, sexual harassment, discrimination, family, and hundreds of other similar topics precisely because such cases would require her to make rulings that are associated with the definition of a woman, a definition she cannot give? Of course not! Once seated, she will weigh in on any number of these issues, despite the fact that she does not know what a woman is or how she, herself, is to be defined.
Put simply: A. If you cannot define it, then the law cannot be applied to it; or B. If the one who is applying the law does not know what they are looking at or with what they are dealing, then they cannot tell which law, if any, is applicable to the case.
Think about these common, juridical terms for a moment – homicide, suicide, patricide, filicide, fratricide, parricide. They all mean ‘to kill’, but the prefix points the finger of blame or defines an important aspect that, if ignored or misunderstood, would see a miscarriage of justice. For example, if a puppy is killed, one cannot be charged with homicide – the killing of Man.[4] If the coroner rules a death to be suicide, the police do not keep looking for the culprit, do they? They have him in the coroner’s office already. If one is an only child, one could not be charged with fratricide.
Thus, it is essential to the very nature of jurisprudence to be able to define something accurately so as to determine; A. Which body of law is applicable; or B. What law, if any, was transgressed. A judge who cannot define, will not define, or willing obfuscates, for whatever reason, is not fit to be a judge. Full stop! Period!
Here, there be indeed a monster!
Gazing through the window, one realises that another elephant, as grotesques as the first, is also in need of a good finger-pointing. This elephantine monster is the bastard offspring of the former and is dangerous indeed. Wander from the old paths and off the map and this little beastie will be waiting to “chow down”.
Enter Scotus, a desire for an object to ‘rule them all’, let’s say, a ring – just to pick a random object – and a quest.
As the merry band of Scotusites weave their way through the forests of Mirkwood, upon the confused, overgrown, and bewildering path of Obfuscation – having left the old sure paths – the miasma of delusion takes hold. This once merry judicial band, who had previously been satisfied with their role as keepers of an objective law given to them by legislators and God, now, under the miasmic curse of delusion, come to see themselves as the writers and interpreters of law – not simply keepers.[5] The juridical now gives way to the judicial. It is no longer about administering the law; no, rather, it is about the mechanisms of the system and the people of power within that system. The quest is to become the king – think Genesis, the garden and the tower – the one, true authority that is able of its own right and power to define and give law.[6]
These deluded ones began their monstrous acts of infidelity and sedition with current codes by saying things like, “The words say, but what they really meant to say was … (reinterpret to suit agenda)!”[7] An Australian example. Some years ago, the High Court ruled on the Federal Government’s sole right to define marriage. In their ruling, these deluded ones stated that there was no normative definition for marriage[8] and then arbitrarily picked a date from which to begin their discussion. No normative definition of marriage! Really. Methinks every man who has ever read the Bible would tend to disagree, vehemently! Yet, there you have it.
Now, to the point of understanding. This move from keepers of the law to writers and re-interpreters of the law is by no means an accident. Put bluntly, you cannot fiddle with something that is carved in stone. If God says, “Man and woman!” that means ‘man and woman’. It leaves no room for movement and all grey areas are eliminated. However, if there is no concrete foundation, then marriage is merely a cultural construct that can and will shift over time. One man and one woman was acceptable to the Victorian senses, but we, the enlightened, now know better. Thus, we shall construct marriage after our image and, essentially, render it meaningless.
It must be pointed out that keepers of the law cannot be involved in such shenanigans. Writers and re-interpreters of the law, however, are hindered by no pangs of conscience in these matters – for they are the gods doing as they will. Therefore, we do need to take extremely seriously this little interaction witnessed at this inquiry, for it shows, ultimately, the death of absolutes, the death of law, the death of reason, the death of a Biblical worldview as a North Star, and the complete irrelevance of Scotus itself.
Big call? Yes, but a true one, nonetheless. To understand, let us contemplate Asaph and his dilemma. When Asaph looked about his world, he came close to giving up on his faith. Obeying God was right. He knew it was right. Yet, looking about, he was concerned that it prospered a man nought. This was his perspective, until he stood in God’s sanctuaries. Bathed in the light that only God can give, Asaph saw that the end of all these well-to-do powermongers was a slippery one. God would cast them down in an instant and they would be swept away by “sudden terrors”. Yet, there was one more insight Asaph gained. An important one. When Asaph had thought that God’s law and righteousness availed nought and that those who had abandoned God were in a better condition, he was shown that he had become a beast, a dumb animal, without sense or reason.[9]
Those who cannot define a woman or refuse to do so in order to further a genuinely foolish agenda are the very people that Asaph had studied and upon whom Asaph had pronounced judgement. They seemed to have much. They had abandoned God and His law and seemed, at least for a time, to prosper and to make their way in the world. Yet, Asaph tells us that the seeming prosperity was an ephemeral delusion that hid a dire reality. Likewise, to believe that life without God and His law is in anyway prosperous, beneficial, or in any way sensical was an act of pure folly; the act of an unreasoned beast, not a faithful image-bearing man!
Monsters indeed!
Tergiversation or Faith:
Whilst the above Sgt Schultzness caught the eye of most, there was a second little interaction that was also noteworthy and which must be discussed as a concomitant point, if not as the actual catalyst for the above obfuscation.
During the interview, the topic of faith was raised. The nominee responded by saying, “I must pause to reaffirm my thanks to God, for it is faith that sustains me at this moment.” This seems wonderful, yet this writer would like a bit of Jamesness thrown into the mix – show me this faith in a concrete way!
When one takes on topics like this, the road is fraught with danger as the accusations of being judgemental, loveless, etc, are always hiding behind the hedgerows waiting the appropriate moment to strike in ambush. Nonetheless, anyone who considers themselves to be a watchman, even in the slightest degree, must raise the alarm when confronted with and by the alarming. Such alarm is necessary because of the growing use of meaningless “God” words, and this is particularly so for our American brethren—because that culture had a fairly thorough saturating with all things Biblical, even in a post-Christian age, ‘God words’ can have currency.
Thus, we are once more back to the point where a good definition is requisite. Of what “god” do you speak? Is this god one made after your image, the image of man, or is He the God Who made you in His image. Is this god one you direct and who bows to your every whim or is it the God, Who directs all by His Law-Word? Is this god one that is happy when you ignore it, disobey it, because this god has a cloying neediness for human companionship or is it the God, Who has rules, standards, and definitions, and shows displeasure toward disobedience as He does joy to obedience?
Without prolonging the discussion unnecessarily, we must note that the same definitions must be sought in regard to the term “faith”. Are we talking of a genuinely Biblical faith – that which is given as a gift by the God or are we speaking of the mere exercise of the human will in which the individual’s choice to believe something is considered to be faith?
Schultzy the Second here informs us that she has faith in God. However, there seems to be more, “I know nothings!” in store for those of us who are listening intently for some serious content. The question that is most obvious is this: If you believe in the God and have true faith – believing as truth that which the God has spoken – then why can you not define a “woman”? After all, the Biblical statement is that the “God created Man, male and female He created them!” Thus, a faith-full follower of the God would not or should not equivocate on a definition of womanhood.
The answer for Schultzy’s obfuscation is made a little more understandable, though no less forgivable, when we consider another aspect of this conversation in the light of America’s Christian heritage. Senator Lindsey Graham asked this question of the nominee: “On a scale of 1 to 10, how faithful would you say you are, in terms of religion?”
‘Tricksy! Nasty senators asking tricksy questions about religionses, hey precious? Yes, my love, tricksy and false every one of them.’ Sorry, back on topic. Again, not really a hard question. For this writer, the number is not important. It is the qualifier that comes with it that is of interest. What do we mean? Well, we would be surprised if anyone but a Pharisee would give themselves a ten, yet a mark that showed integrity would be good. Of more importance would be the qualification that: “As a one saved by grace and still working out the kinks by the grace of the Holy Spirit, I, in humility, seek to obey God’s every word and seek constantly to know true obedience to Jesus despite my shortcomings” – or words of a similar vain. Rather, what we heard was: “I am reluctant to talk about my faith in this way, just because I want to be mindful of the need for the public to have confidence in my ability to separate out my personal views.”
The problems with this answer are manifold:
- It stands upon the myth of neutrality;[10]
- It stands upon the myth that a government or the judiciary can make all the people happy all of the time – i.e., giving them the outcome that they desire.
- It denies God, the One under discussion here, the right to speak in public;
- It denies the possibility of societal absolutes, even when given by God, the One under discussion here.
- Confidence is to be based in a person’s ability to maintain neutrality[11], not upon their ability to maintain righteousness.[12]
So how do we explain these extra Shultzisms? Another commentator offered these insightful comments:
“In American civil religion, it is good to be faithful, but not too faithful. It is good to have religion, but not to have any specific beliefs that might get in the way of your ability to make good judgments. Belief is the answer to everything and has purpose for nothing. It is fundamentally necessary and, at the same time, untrustworthy.
“In the theater in which civil religion is performed, some people probe others in an attempt to reveal if there is anything unusual about their religion. It can feel like theater of the absurd.
Do you believe? Yes.
Do you believe anything in particular? No.
Does belief make a difference in your life or work? Certainly not.
How important is your purported faith to you? Very important, indeed.”[13]
At the outset of this article, we used the term “circusesque” to describe these happening. What this other commentator exposes, labelling it as “theatre”, is, sadly, exactly the same thing. The nonsensical game on display is on display precisely because we have excluded true Biblical faith and true Biblical norms on an a priori basis. In the American culture, contentless “God” words are a must. Here, in Australia, “God” words are a “No, No!” straight up and are vehemently attacked if they come to the fore.
The consequence of this game-playing is that we end up with both the juridical and the judicial being bogged down in a quagmire of meaninglessness and indeterminateness. The wheels of the machine still turn. Decisions and laws are still made. The re-interpreters and authors of law fill their libraries with tome after tome of their own creation. Yet, society is not bettered. Peace and justice are not brought to the fore. The Wild West is not calmed, but rather thrown into a greater state of anarchy – and all because these tomes are filled with the content equivalency of Erik Sykes short movie, Rhubarb![14]
Returning to the safety of the Reservation:
The only hope for America, the West, and the World, is to stop the game-playing and return to the safety that was afforded by the Christian worldview and consensus. Off course, autonomous Man in his rebellion against God would rather be monster fodder than ever willingly assent to such a move. However, this alone is the course to, and direction of, safety.
The problem exposed by the recent Potus, Scotus, Hocus Pocus conundrum can be best illustrated by a reference to the varying forms of Lady Justice, the anthropomorphising of justice, that can be found in the US and throughout the world. In the US, there are statues called the Spirit of Justice and the Majesty of Justice. The former, a bare-breasted female with hands raised. The latter, a bare-chested male with a single hand raised. How these are meant to convey any aspect of justice is a little vague. Then there are the twin statues that sit outside Scotus. The first, a female, entitled, Contemplation of Justice. The second, a male, entitled Authority of Law.[15] Interpretation is more possible here, but there remains much ambiguity. Authority of Law holds a sword, but his statue book is simply a tablet inscribed with, “Lex”, the Latin term for law. In essence, then, he is saying that he is here to punish any and every transgression of the law regardless of that law’s merits or rightness. Contemplation of Justice is in a similar position. No doubt a thinking woman, for sure, but whilst we are told she has law codes, what are these codes? Notably, she does not seem as though she is poised for action once consideration has been given and the matter decided.
Of course, the most common depiction of Lady Justice, especially in the US, is that of an erect woman, blindfolded, carrying a sword in one hand and a set of scales in the other. Various explanations are given for the blindfold. Some suggest it was to shield her eyes from the injustices around her. Others suggest that it is, or came to be, a depiction her impartiality.
When we look at these common representations of justice, we should be given an insight into the very reason that Schultzy the Second gave us the “I know nothings”, whilst entertaining us with her version of the quickstep— these statues are without an absolute, guiding principle that binds justice to the path of righteousness. The Spirit of Justice could be any Greek sculpture found in any garden. The same could be said concerning the Majesty of Justice. The best that could be said, once we are told that these statues are meant to have something to do with justice, is that they are the Humanist’s celebration of the uber mensch – the supremacy of Man and his reason.
Moving to the Contemplation of Justice and the Authority of Law, as noted above, these come closer to the mark, but there is still quite a bit of arbitrariness, leaving far too much to the imagination and too much that is not explained. What book is Contemplation resting her foot upon? Is this an absolute code on which she is about to stand or, maybe, kick away? Why the statuette in her hand? Maybe Contemplation has nothing to do with justice, but is rather an elderly woman pining for a lost youth, a youth represented by the doll?
Given these supposed statues of justice that define little or nothing, is it not to be expected that our courts would become filled with those who, ‘know nothing’ and cannot define adequately or reasonably fifty percent of humanity? (Really, 100%. If you cannot define half, your chances at defining the rest are not so good!) Is it any wonder that these deluded ones lock up people because they will not bake a cake for a homosexual wedding, but stand by and cheer those who tear babies from their mothers’ wombs?
Let us then address this blindfold and make some further comments about those books.
The first thing to note is that there are depictions of Lady Justice in which she is not blindfolded. She has her eyes wide open. She is aware of what is going on all around her. One such statue stands outside London’s Old Bailey. Here, Lady J stands upon the globe, sword and scales in hand, eyes wide open. Indeed, the origins of Lady J would suggest that she never wore a blindfold and that it is an addition of latter years.
Why is this important? Well, it lies at the heart of everything discussed in this paper. The Bible tells us that if a “blind man follows a blind man, both will fall into the pit”[16]. It is an inevitability, as surely as night follows day, that following a blind guide must end in disaster, eventually. How is it then that we think that “justice” can arrive at a positive outcome or lead us anywhere, if she is effectively blinded (I know nothing)? Pray tell, how does she know what her scales read? Guilty or not guilty? Pray tell, how does she know exactly who is to be struck with her sword?
Then there are those pesky, unnamed law books. They tell us that justice should, indeed must, have a standard, but they nowhere tell us the standard. It is of great concern that Authority of Law has a sword, but a nondescript set of instructions on how and against whom to use that instrument of justice. Probably just as well that his sword is sheathed.
Where to from here? Good question. The answer is in history. Not everyone worshipped the idea of Man’s unbridled reason. Not everyone saw justice as needing a blindfold. Not everyone left the stern lady contemplating for want of an authoritative direction.
One such nonconformer was Leo-Paul Robert who painted the mural, Justice Lifts the Nations. Of this gentleman and his work, Francis Schaeffer writes:
The basis for freedom without chaos is exhibited by Paul Robert’s mural. To make his point so that it could not be missed, he painted the title on the mural itself. It is on the stairway in the old Supreme Court Building in Lausanne where the judges had to pass each time before going up to try a case. Robert wanted to remind them that the place which the Reformation gave to the Bible provided a basis not only for morals but for law. Robert pictured many types of legal cases in the foreground and the judges in their black robes standing behind the judges’ bench. The problem is neatly posed: How shall the judges judge? On what basis shall they proceed so that their judgement will not be arbitrary? Above them Robert painted Justice standing unblindfolded, with her sword pointed not vertically upward but downward toward a book, and on this book is written “The Law of God”. This painting expressed the sociological base, the legal base, in northern Europe after the Reformation. Paul Robert understood what the Reformation was about in the area of law. It is the Bible which gives base to law.[17]
When the common depictions of justice are put alongside that of Robert’s, we can note some significant differences. Whilst most depict a lady standing, holding scales and a sword, and some reference a book, Robert’s Lady J is not lost in ambiguity as are the others. Robert’s Justice is unblinded. She sees perfectly well. She understands what is going on around her. She sees evil. She can read her law Code. If her sword is to be used, she knows who to strike. Further, her sword is not merely standing to attention in her hand, it is a useful tool. It almost seems as though she is using the sword to turn the pages of her law Code or to point to the relevant section of that Code, which underscores the very basis for her authority.
Of course, for the moderns, the most interesting and contentious point of Robert’s Lady is that her Code book is open and it is named. It is not nondescript; it is the Law of God. It is not a holy tome, closed, and hidden under clothing. It is not a sacred text, closed, and lost amongst other texts on a shelf. No. It is named. It is open. It is in use. By comparison, other depictions of Justice have a book, but it is closed, nameless.[18] As noted above, Authority of Law has a tablet with “Lex” written upon it, but again, that is merely championing the ‘concept’ of law and not that of a defined, absolute law that governs all men without exception.
This is the point of contention. This is the point that matters. The differences in Robert’s Lady J, when compared to other depictions of justice, are precise and poignant – for those points of difference both touch upon and explain both the exact reasons and the processes that have led to this circusesque farce, the mutterings of Schultzy the Second, and to the adoption of a destructive body of law.
As the editorial from the Christian Century noted, this is all theatre because “we seem to want public figures with inconsequential beliefs.”[19] Yet, this is the problem in a nutshell. Inconsequential beliefs still have consequences. A decision not to pursue a certain set of beliefs or principles, or to ignore those beliefs and principles, simply means that you adopt a differing set of beliefs or principles. You do not remain without beliefs or principles, you merely operate on an alternative set, which, when applied, will provide their own outcome and consequences. In short, man (or judge) does not, nor can he, operate in a philosophical vacuum of non-belief; especially one which will have no impact upon those around him or upon those he represents. To think that such is possible leads to … well, it leads to the inane ramblings witnessed in the nominee’s interview and highlighted in this and other articles.
Interestingly, the subtitle to Schaeffer’s book is, The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture, and we are very much in decline because we have abandoned everything of meaning and substance that Robert poured into and highlighted as necessary for true justice, and indeed life, through his mural.
The conclusion of the matter: A judge informed by Robert’s worldview would not need to play games, obfuscate, or equivocate on the most simple of definitions. A judge taking his/her seat, with Robert’s mural firmly in mind, would never consider it wise to be affected by public pressure or be swayed by the popularity vote. A judge taking his/her seat, noting to what Lady J points with her sword, would not need to feign neutrality in order to appeal to the masses, for he/she would have memorised the late Greg Bahnsen’s mantra, ‘they [the Atheistic State] are not neutral and you [the Christian] should never be!’
We are in danger of becoming monster fodder and nothing more than defecated piles of fibrous tissue – indeed that process has begun – unless we return to the safety of the Christian worldview and consensus; to the map that shows us the land, which orients us correctly, which points out the dangers and pitfalls, and which, above all, explains that monsters are real and that they will come for you and your children unless the defences are maintained—those defences being God and His Word, both living and written!
Return to the map and leave the monsters behind. Jesus Christ alone is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He is the map to and for life. Elsewhere, there be monsters!
Footnotes:
[1] See: 2 John 7; Psalm 5:6; Psalm 52:2-4; Psalm 26:4; Psalm 10:7; Proverbs 12:17
[2] If you feel the need to rail against the writer for this use and draw some type of crooked line to it being an insult to women who have had a hysterectomy, then, please, do not bother. Just go back to the start of the article and start again, because you are a part of the problem and definitely not part of the solution.
[3] Maybe he is not senile. I watched a video the other day of one Joe Biden threatening a filibuster on a previously nominated, melanin charged, uterine equipped person – and he could not get her name right all those years ago!
[4] Although, in a world where definitions are no longer possible and the “green” agenda is gaining prominence, we may just see the charge become “cide”.
[5] They no longer wish to be librarians alone; they wish to be authors, stocking the shelves of their libraries with their own works.
[6] Note, please, the very strong resemblance, in all facets, of our discussion with that of the parallel discussion of Church / State. In God’s order, various spheres are given the right to exist freely and operate legitimately as spheres of sovereignty, relating to each other as is necessary, but without demeaning, dominating, disrespecting, or disbanding those other realms. In practical matters, this means that the argument concerning the separation of Church and State is one of functionality and not authority. Both the Church and the State are legitimate, God-ordained spheres. Both have the right to exist and both have an existence that is based in a derived authority from Jesus Christ. This means that the Church / State squabble, as it currently exists, is like two siblings fighting in the back yard over which of them has greater pedigree and which, therefore, should have pre-eminence. A foolish question, for sure, as they both have the same progenitor. In other words, the separation of Church and State as spheres of sovereignty entitled to their own space, is one thing; arguing that God should be excluded from government is a different beast altogether—if we were consistent, we would then be compelled to argue that the Church itself could also exist and operate without reference to God. The government derives its authority from God. Period. Power, however, is a different topic, and, sadly, this is what the discussion has focussed upon.
As we have made this discussion about power – “to the victor go the spoils” type rubbish – the State has sought to sideline the Church, even though they are siblings sharing the same pedigree. However, what we are witnessing now, is the same power struggle being replicated within the microcosm of government. Scotus once served as an instrument of government and under God. Now that government has killed God, so to speak, and thrown off the notion of being under an external authority, thus reducing everything to a mere power struggle, Scotus has seized the opportunity to take power to itself and, in essence, do unto the government what the government did to the Church. Scotus is now making the elected legislators of the land bow before it as the new and true sovereign. To be fair, it is not just Scotus, but most court systems around the world that have become emboldened in such matters.
[7] This is similar to what the Liberals have done with Scripture. One commentator was bold enough to say – quoting from memory here – If you read the first chapter of Genesis literally, you would believe that God made the world in six days. However, we know [God statement] that it was never meant to be read literally as it is mere myth!
[8] In point of fact, there language was much more horrific: “The status of marriage, the social institution which that status reflects, and the rights and obligations which attach to that status never have been, and are not now, immutable” (Section 16). https://reformationministries.com.au/2013/12/the-high-court-and-homosexuality.
[9] Please read Psalm 73 and truly take it to heart. It is a great help in keeping focus in a world that often portrays godlessness as the better way.
[10] Every person is religious and has a faith position. This faith position is assumed as the bedrock of all a person believes, does, and expresses, whether the person is consciously aware of this or not. Thus, pretending to be neutral is a fool’s errand. It is an impossibility. That atheists would peddle such nonsense is one thing, but for someone claiming belief in the God, it is an incongruity of the highest order.
[11] A standard that is arbitrary, subjective, and unqualifiable.
[12] Do we want judges who know how to craftily sit on the sidelines and be non-committal or do we want judges who know and do what is right?
[13] https://www.christiancentury.org/article/editors/what-kind-faith-should-ketanji-brown-jackson-have. Accessed 29/04/22.
[14] For the uninitiated, this was a short movie released in 1969 and remade in 1980. The only word spoken is “rhubarb”. Everything is rhubarb!
[15] https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/FraserStatuesInfoSheet.pdf.
[16] Matthew 15:14.
[17] Francis Schaeffer, How Should we then Live, Crossway, 1983, p 106. Italics added.
[18] None of the photos accessed by the author seemed to have any distinctive name written upon or associated with the book when they were included.
[19] We would suggest, “inconsequential Christian beliefs”. Atheists can believe what they want, generally, unless it is really radical, but even then they will get a pass because they will claim to have been misquoted.
