Editorial - The Bible is God's word

Tony San Miguel responded to my last letter, “Attacks against Bible unfounded” on October 21st in the North Country Times. I sent a letter in response which appeared in the Faith & Values letters on November 4th. Here are both Mr. Miguel’s and my response:


“Beliefs inspired by writers”
Mr. Paul Bishop (Faith & Values Letters, Oct. 14, home-schooled student) apparently is convinced that the writers of the Bible (all men?) of his Bible were inspired by his God. This is not surprising in that various people profess the same belief about writings supporting their various religions/cults. I believe in Santa Claus, even if the authors were not inspired by some God. In any event, I am not sure if Mr. Bishop’s God is that of Moses or of Paul, or a variation of them (trinity). If Mr. Bishop was a Catholic, he might also believe that the Virgin Mary also inspired the writers.
Anyhow, when I was much younger than Mr. Bishop, I tried to make sense of the prophecy in “the Revelation” that Paul claims supports his beliefs. I deduced that the writer of St. John (or whomever) must have been on drugs, or was drunk, or maybe both. Of course Mr. Bishop is entitled to his beliefs. If he can find time in his home-school education, I recommend that he master the Britannica’s Syntopicon (Index of Great Ideas). He might appreciate the complexity of Western civilization, with and without religious beliefs.
It’s not nice to attack people (homosexuals, Mormons, etc.) because they have different beliefs than you. What goes around comes around.
- Tony San Miguel, Vista

Here is my article in response:

“The Bible is God’s Word”

In Response to Tony San Miguel (Faith & Values letters, Oct. 21st): that the Bible is inspired by God is more than my personal opinion. The Bible itself claims, “All Scripture is inspired by God” (2Timothy 3:16). However, other religions, such as Muslims and Mormons, think their own books are from God. How do we know who is right?

The Bible is unique among other religious books in that it’s historically verifiable. Ancient extra-biblical documents and archaeological finds have confirmed many of the facts and stories in the Bible with such great accuracy, that most historians and archaeologists regard the Bible as a trustworthy guide in their fields.

Also, unlike other books, the Bible makes hundreds of specific, unambiguous prophecies accurately predicting events that happened one thousand years later. Only God is omniscient, accurately foretelling future events.

The Bible records numerous supernatural occurrences that only God can perform. Jesus healed the lepers, the maimed, the blind, and ultimately, He rose from the dead. This is provable using the same legal methods used in courts of law today. Other religions have no such documentation, but are based solely on the subjective philosophies of their founders. Visit www.christiantruthanditsdefense.org/ for more information.
- Paul Bishop, home schooled student, Valley Center



If I may, I would like to say these additional comments on Tony San Miguel’s letter: Notice that Tony San Miguel makes mostly condescending remarks, with no real depth to them. The Bible is so profound that any logical reader would find the idea that a man penned it while drunk preposterous and impossible, even if he didn’t believe in Biblical inspiration. Mr. San Miguel implies that I attacked homosexuals and Mormons because they had different beliefs than me. If you look back in my letter, you see I did not even mention Mormons, and I did not “attack” homosexuals, but pointed out the lifestyle of homosexuality is wrong. Neither did I deny that homosexuals and Mormons should have basic rights as other Americans do in this country; they have the right to have their beliefs, I have the right to criticize those beliefs and vice versa. Liberals constantly try to turn homosexuality into a civil rights issue – it isn’t. They already have the same rights as other Americans do, but are within – or should be within – certain limits and laws, such as not marrying the same sex.

Samuel Alito nominated

Today we have three articles. Sorry to use so many, but I couldn't find one having all of this information combined.

FoxNews: Fast facts: Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
CNN: Bush’s new nominee: not always on the same page as Scalia
FoxNews: Alito supported Gay, privacy rights in college

President Bush has named another supreme court nominee to replace Sandra Day O’Connor after the botched nomination of Harriet Miers. His name is Samuel A. Alito, a judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. He has been advertised as a “Conservative pick” and it does seem most Conservatives and Evangelicals are happy with him, while the democrats are against him – making the Conservatives even more confident in Alito.

I was the same way, seeing all the headlines of “Conservative pick” and being nicknamed “Scalito”, but I am beginning to have some doubts as to how near he is to Scalia. Justice Antonin Scalia is the most dedicated Conservative, Originalist justice on the court. Conservatives consider Scalia a true hero, and deem him to be the standard by which Justices and judges should be chosen. However, many are saying that “Scalito” is a not a good nickname for Alito, claiming that he is more “fair-minded” than Scalia, as former clerk Katherine K. Huang said, “He doesn't have his head in the clouds. He's not going to be carried away by some legal doctrine or some arcane grammatical rule.” I have noticed, however, that often Scalia is criticized in the process of comparing him to Alito, and this may simply be an effort by liberal people who liked Alito to separate him from the “extreme” (it is interesting that Scalia is considered extreme, since his views are that of the majority of the founding fathers; justices are supposed to use legal doctrines and grammatical rules! How things have changed!).

I am fairly certain that a Justice Alito is conservative, and is personally against abortion, but would he vote down Roe vs. Wade, as Clarence Thomas and Scalia would? Court precedent is important to Alito. Samuel Alito has ruled with the pro-life side from the bench, but he also has had favorable rulings in the past toward pro-choice advocates. This could be explained away by the fact that he had to follow the law, and the Supreme Court made a law that abortion is legal, therefore he had to interpret the law faithfully and rule with the pro-abortion side. However, if given the chance, would he overturn a Supreme Court precedent? Roe vs. Wade was ruled with nothing but a terribly twisted Constitutional support (I hold it was Unconstitutional in the first place) yet since Rove vs. Wade has now been established law for decades, will he dare to overturn it? It is certainly not unheard of for the court to overturn its own precedent, and it is often for a good purpose, such as the overturning of the Dred Scott ruling. However, it is something most justices like to avoid if they can.

We should at least expect Alito to prevent anti-life laws from getting worse, for instance not allowing the murder of newborns and the elderly, but as for whether or not he would overturn a major precedent in Roe vs. Wade, I do not know what to expect.

It is also reported that Samuel Alito spoke out for equal rights for homosexuals while in college. In particular, he was against anti-sodomy laws (By contrast, Harriet Miers supported anti-sodomy laws) and non-discrimination in hiring homosexuals. These two issues cause debate even among Christians, on whether we should support a government mandate against acts of sodomy and discrimination in hiring homosexuals. FoxNews isn’t clear on if Alito wanted government laws requiring non-discrimination against hiring homosexuals, or if he simply wanted businesses and organizations to take some initiative.

Government laws requiring non-discrimination of homosexuals is absolutely unacceptable in my opinion. While I support the idea of Americans having equal rights to the extent feasible, there are some jobs homosexuals should be rightly be barred from. Among them are childcare, Christian/faith-based organizations, churches, and Christian businesses; because 1) parents and childcare should be able to make its own decision on whether to have homosexuals around their children and 2) The Bible is clear that Christians should not be “unequally yoked” or have ungodly men in ministry. And, even if an individual is a Christian, if he is living a homosexual lifestyle, he is living an ungodly shameful life against his Savior, and Christians should not hire wayward Christians if they do not wish to. Christian organizations and churches should have the right to not hire homosexuals, whether they are Christian or non-Christian. As long as Samuel Alito recognizes this, we have nothing to worry about.

We should continue to keep close track of Samuel Alito. As of now, I think he would make a very good Justice, and I hope he will be confirmed. However, I am unsure whether he will be a help in taking back America and reversing her current decay (i.e. overturning Rove vs. Wade, allowing prayer and Bibles back in schools, etc), or if he will just maintain status quo, and simply prevent the US from getting worse (i.e. prevent homosexual marriage, protecting “under God” in the pledge, keeping “in God we trust” on coins, etc).

Throughout this, however, we should remember that it is not in the courts that a nation is won or lost, but it is in the hearts of the people a nation depends.