Gnosticism and Today’s Politics

Gnosticism, Lost Gospels, and today’s Politics

In 1945, near the town of Nag Hammadi, a farmer found a red jar containing 12 papyrus books bound in leather. The writers of these codices were followers of an ancient movement called Gnosticism. The tales in the texts claim to be written by Jesus’ first disciples. Five of the Nag Hammadi words call themselves Gospels. Some scholars believe that these documents rewrite the story of Christianity.

The Jesus Seminar wrote a new translation of the Gospels using the Gnostic influence. Writers like Elaine Pagels have written extensively on the “lost Gospels.” Before long, the lost Gospels began to be used as a way to undermine Christianity, using a linguistic shell game that has created confusion and doubt among some in society. However, Gnosticism didn’t receive center stage until Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code hit the book shelves in 2003.

Fifty million readers of Dan Brown’s best selling novel read in The Da Vinci Code that the Nag Hammadi writings are “unaltered Gospels” which present Jesus Christ in “human terms.” Dan Brown’s book claims that the lost Gospels were rejected by The Church for political reasons, and that the story of Jesus is a much different tale than what is portrayed by Christianity. And with the popularity of Dan Brown’s novel, in addition to a number of Hollywood releases using Gnosticism for the stories, the Gnostic Rennaissance is in full bloom.

In 2007, David Marshall published his book, The Truth About Jesus and the “Lost Gospels.” The book delves deep into the “Lost Gospels” to answer what they are, where they came from, if they are trustworthy, if they are on par with the Holy Bible, and whether or not we have had wrong perceptions about Jesus all along.

Tonight, during the first hour of Political Pistachio Radio, David Marshall is my guest. In tonight’s interview, we will go through a careful comparison of the “Lost Gospels” to the Bible, as well as investigate how Gnosticism has infected our society, and political system.

The Episode Airs Live at 7:00 pm Pacific Time on Political Pistachio Radio – catch it live, or the archive later, HERE.

During the second hour of the show, we will be joined by Augie Sodaro of Special Guests to discuss how agencies like Special Guests work, and how internet radio is influencing todays entertainment industry.

Published in: on March 21, 2009 at 10:49 pm  Leave a Comment  

Gay Marriage and the Equal Protection Clause

Proposition 8, The Equal Protection Clause, and the Coming Wave of Lawsuits

I guess Proposition 8, the State Constitutional Amendment in California defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, angered a few people. Lawsuits against the choice of the people are emerging.

The opponents of the amendment claim that it violates the “Equal Protection Clause” of the U.S. Constitution, as set out in the fourteenth amendment. Since rights apply to individuals, the Equal Protection clause applies to potential state violations of the rights of an individual, based on the individual’s status. A law or Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman means “any” man and “any” woman. This applies to any man or woman who wish to marry, and are of legal age or have parental consent. So, the law does not prohibit the rights of gays to marry. A homosexual male and a homosexual female are free to marry one another if they so desire.

The right to marry has not been eliminated from anybody. However, marriage is not necessarily a “right” anyways. If I wanted to marry a supermodel, I don’t have a “right” to that marriage. Nor would I have a “right” to marry my car, dog, or neighbor’s horse.

Not allowing people to marry someone of the same sex is not a violation of the Equal Protection clause. Besides, a state constitution is designed to address “state issues” and cannot be considered in contradiction with the U.S. Constitution if the federal constitution does not address those particular issues in the first place.

The opponents of Prop. 8 claim the Equal Protection Clause was designed for exactly that – to stop the states from violating someones rights based on . . .

Based on what? A behavior? The Equal Protection Clause was a direct result of the abolition of slavery in the United States. The 14th amendment was designed to protect blacks, or any racial group, against unfair treatment. The Equal Protection Clause was written to protect ethnicity and race – not behavior! Since behavior, such as homosexuality, is not specifically addressed in the U.S. Constitution, that means it is not a federal issue, and it is up to the individual states to address the issue – and if a state wishes to ban gay marriage in its state constitution, it is entitled to do so. The federal government cannot (though it has unlawfully in the past) overturn state law or amendments. It is unlawful for the federal government to do so according to the U.S. Constitution!

This very application, in turn, makes the Roe v. Wade decision unconstitutional (Roe v. Wade overturned a Texas State Law). It also makes the practice of the federal government shutting down medical marijuana facilities in California (as long as the drug does not cross state lines the issue remains a state issue) illegal as well. I don’t agree with the legalization of medical marijuana, but from a legal and Constitutional point of view, the state has a right to make such law without federal interference.

In reality, like Roe v. Wade did for abortion, the courts legalizing gay marriage with a court decision (and overturning state law) was unconstitutional in the first place. It is not for the courts to “make” law. Making law is the responsibility of the legislature. The courts were tasked by our founding fathers to provide an “opinion,” and then it is up to the legislature to act upon that opinion by the courts “if” they choose to.

The U.S. Constitution was written to limit the federal government from dictating law to the states, and the branches were set up as they were to limit the judiciary from having too much power. “States Rights” and “The People” are the central themes of the founding documents. Contrary to the lawsuits coming against Proposition 8, the voters have a right to interpret the Constitution, and change it, with their vote.

The Constitution belongs to “The People.” The U.S. Constitution was written for the people, of the people, and by the people. Besides, one does not have to have a law degree to recognize the original intent. However, if the U.S. Supreme Court gets involved, and decides to overturn California’s Proposition 8, there is going to be some serious issues rising from it regarding federal intrusion into state issues.

Star Spangled Banner Anniversary

Today is the Anniversary of the writing of the Star Spangled Banner

On the morning of September 13, 1814 Francis Scott Key wrote the Star Spangled Banner at Fort McHenry. Below are the words to our National Anthem.

O say, can you see, by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hail’d at the twilight’s last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thro’ the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watch’d, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof thro’ the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore dimly seen thro’ the mists of the deep,
Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o’er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam,
In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream:
‘Tis the star-spangled banner: O, long may it wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash’d out their foul footsteps’ pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

O thus be it ever when free-men shall stand
Between their lov’d home and the war’s desolation;
Blest with vict’ry and peace, may the heav’n-rescued land
Praise the Pow’r that hath made and preserv’d us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust!”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Published in: on September 14, 2008 at 6:30 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , ,