DETHRONING THE SMUT GODS
By Dr. Patrick Johnston
August 23, 2014
I never thought I would see a police officer stand idly on the steps of a church while topless women on the sidewalk chase the eyes of departing church-goers. My wife and mother of our nine children walked alongside the strippers, holding up a poster board to try to cover their naked torsos, trying to protect her husband and children from the uninvited nudity of these brazen, lewd women.
I wonder if the police officer chuckled at the sight.
“Can’t you do something?” my wife asked the police officer. “Can’t you enforce the local ordinance against public nudity?”
The officer shook his head side to side. “Nope. You’ve got to call the police department to file a complaint.”
She called the police department, and heard, “Don’t we have an officer on site? Tell him.”
Classic bumbling, slap-stick, cop comedy material. It might be humorous if smut did not destroy so many lives, leaving a graveyard of broken marriages, abusive relationships, consuming addictions, fatherless children, shame and regret. Smut is worse than crack cocaine. You can’t think of smoking crack and get high simply off the thought. Not so with smut.
“It’s legal under Ohio law,” the officer insisted.
Oh, is it?
Ohio Revised Code 2907.07 – the public indecency statute – declares, “No person shall recklessly do any of the following, under circumstances in which the person’s conduct is likely to be viewed by and affront others who are in the person’s physical proximity and who are not members of the person’s household: (1). Expose the person’s private parts…”
Public nudity is not legal and never has been legal under Ohio law.
Five women who called themselves the “Lesbian Avengers” took off their shirts in a Columbus gay pride parade in 2005 and were lawfully arrested and lawfully charged with indecent exposure. A city prosecutor dropped the charges, refusing to enforce the law. The next year a Hamilton County court ruled that “breasts are not private parts.”
Women’s breasts are not private parts? What universe is this judge living in? Such is the conclusion of a moral anarchist foolishly tolerated behind a courtroom bench instead of a jail cell or a padded cell where he belongs.
No, public nudity is not legal in Ohio. Pornography is not legal. Paying women to subject their nude, gyrating bodies to a meat grinder to satisfy the basest of men is not legal.
Why is it illegal? First of all, the courts cannot make law or overturn law. Judges interpret the law in a given case, but they are not lawmakers. Their sovereignty is limited. They cannot violate their lawful boundaries any more than they can murder, rape, or cheat on their taxes. The representatives are the law-making body and the executive branch is the law-enforcement body in our system of government. Besides rendering decisions in the cases before them, the courts cannot make or alter the law without the permission of the law-making body and the enforcement body, whether through their apathetic tolerance of the judicial usurpations or through their consent in actively legislating in accordance with the wishes of the judiciary.
For example, twice the Supreme Court has ruled that states may not violate federal policy with regard to medical marijuana – in 2001 and 2005. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia have done it anyway. What has the High Court done about this open defiance of their rulings? Nothing. Have the representatives who legalized marijuana in those states violated the law in disregarding this Supreme Court decision? No. Medical marijuana may be bad medicine, but it is clearly in the jurisdiction of state authority, according to Articles IX and X of the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution, and thus, the Supreme Court’s decision usurps what does not lawfully belong to it and is as invalid as if they were to rule on a case in another country. Violating the Constitution does not amend it; if a state’s stupidity is so harmful to the public good that it demands federal intervention, there is a lawful way of modifying the U.S. Constitution to expand the federal government’s jurisdiction over the matter. In the case of smut, it is the federal judiciary that has led the charge in spewing the shameless videos and images of pornography across the country in the name of First Amendment free speech – of course, this is outside the lawful jurisdiction of the federal government! Duh! Lesser magistrates have no more duty to respect judicial tyranny with regards to smut than they do to medical marijuana. Would to God they would be so courageous, and that God’s people would be as ambitious in defying tyranny as the pot-heads.
Another example: Has the 1857 Dred Scott Supreme Court decision that called a runaway slave “property” without the God-given right to life and liberty ever been overturned? No. It was ignored. States such as Ohio and Wisconsin ignored it in actively protecting runaway slaves in defiance of it. Abraham Lincoln and the U.S. Congress ignored it with the passage of the 16th Amendment protecting the right to life and liberty of slaves. Did Abraham Lincoln do something wrong in defying the Supreme Court in banning slavery? No. On the contrary, he did something wrong in taking so long.
The courts cannot make law. A judge’s decision in one case need not be applied to other cases via law and penalty unless the law-making branch and the penalty-enforcing branch so wish. Stare decisis – the notion that court precedent in previous cases has valid authority in the application of the law to future cases – may be helpful for judges evaluating future court cases, but court precedent has no binding to federal or state representatives or executive leaders. Federal and state legislatures, by virtue of their authority to impeach judges or withhold their salaries, have the trump card over the courts. When a court does something as insane and godless as call women removing their shirts in public a matter of “free speech,” label videos of orgies “art,” denigrate Ten Commandments monuments and teacher-directed prayer in school as unconstitutional, declare killing your unborn child a “right to privacy,” and identify sodomy to be a constitutionally-protected right and same-sex marriage to be a natural relationship, our leaders are obligated before God to right the injustice and restore lawfulness.
The primary reason that smut is criminally unlawful is completely independent of state and federal law. It is criminally unlawful simply because God’s law declares it to be so. The basis of right and wrong must transcend the laws and opinions of man, otherwise one would have no basis to require obedience to human authority or laws, or respect for others rights. To insist that we must honor judicial decisions, for example, because the judges say so, is circular reasoning and a logical fallacy. The basis of morality must transcend man, or there can be no such thing as universally applicable laws and human rights in the first place.
Well, what does divine law say? According to the Bible, lusting after someone to whom you are not married is a violation of the Ten Commandment, but not a crime. Even in the New Testament, it is a sin that will cause one to “not inherit the kingdom of God,” but it is not a crime (Gal.5:19-21; I Cor.6:9-11). Nevertheless,promoting lust is a grave threat to the family unit and therefore the public good. Adultery, homosexual acts, bestiality, rape, and “playing the whore” (Deuteronomy 22) are capital crimes according to God,not just sins. Lust was annexed to all kinds of idolatry in Bible, and naturally so, as abandoning control over our God-given sexual desires draws us away from the worship of the Creator who is love, to the worship of the created. Any government that defies God’s law to tolerate such harmful behaviors is an enemy to the public good. Moreover, these sexual acts have been crimes for most of American history because they are such a grave threat to the healthy family. However, do you know what the penalty is for fornication with an unmarried woman, according to God’s Word? Marriage – that’s the penalty! Also, you could never divorce the woman for any reason, and you had to pay the father of the woman a fine for the shame you brought on the family. Considering the above, what does this reveal about His will for sexual relationships? God wants sex to remain in marriage – one man, one woman, forever. That’s God’s best, and every alternative is a demonic counterfeit, a piece of forbidden fruit on the forbidden tree, and to take thereof is to spurn God’s blessing and invite misery and death (Prov. 2, 5, 6, and 7).
In conclusion, if a judge has the audacity to think that women disrobing in public is free speech, he hasn’t opined lawfully, but unlawfully. Ohio law forbids it. God’s law forbids it. If our governor, our state representatives, our mayors and sheriffs respect that unlawful judicial decision,they are not acting lawfully, but rather are acting as accomplices in that unlawful act of tyranny that protects and promotes public indecency, fornication, adultery, sodomy, divorce, child abuse, rape, and every other social ill that follows smut as surely as stench follows a trash truck.
When any king, president, governor, or judge acts unlawfully, violates the Constitution or the law of nature and nature’s God, it is the duty of lesser civil authorities to obey God first, to interpose themselves between the offending tyrant and the people they are obligated to serve with justice and integrity.
We are at a point in American history where our leaders and judges have usurped their way so far past the boundaries of divine law and the U.S. Constitution into such folly and tyranny that lesser magistrates must repent for acting as accomplices in the lawlessness and they must begin to resist and assert their sovereign right over their own lawful jurisdiction. The future of freedom depends on it. The elected representatives of the sovereign state of Ohio must courageously hold tyrants in disdain, boot them and their precious smut-god of humanism out of the throne of government, and uphold the sovereign rule of the King of kings and Lord of lords first and foremost. If God be for us, who can be against us?
1. Demonstrating how the Christian worldview satisfies the preconditions necessary to make sense of things such as human rights and universal, immaterial laws is beyond the scope of this article, but may be studied more thoroughly by clicking:.