The idea of judicial precedent, known formally as “stare decisis,” receives a lot of mistreatment from liberals, who routinely revere precedent when it suits them and seek to overturn it when it doesn’t.

The first thing to know is that the Supreme Court is allowed to rule against its past decisions; nowhere in our Constitution or laws is this prohibited. This, of course, can work for or against conservatives, liberals or any other group, for it means that no judicial ruling, no legal victory (or defeat), is untouchable for the rest of time. Liberals know this (though you’ll never hear them admit to it), which is why they get so worked up when one of their precious precedents gets attacked.

This is especially true of Roe v. Wade. Whenever the issue of abortion is raised, liberals speak of Roe as thought it were an absolute truth embedded in the fabric of the universe – this despite the fact that the so-called “right to an abortion” wasn’t “found” in the Constitution until a mere three decades ago … and despite the fact that liberals otherwise do not believe in absolute truth. They hold up Roe as though it were written in stone, all the while ignoring most of the truths that actually were written in stone. “Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land!” they shout (as if anything in this country is ever “settled”).

Okay, Mr. Settled-law-of-the-land-absolute-truth-written-in-stone: How did you somehow find it in your heart, then, to break your precedential sacrament and go against “settled law” when you fought for the pro-homosexual lobby in Lawrence v. Texas (2003)? It was in that case that the Supreme Court reversed direction from a decision 17 years earlier in which it had ruled that states had a right to outlaw sodomy. With its decision in Lawrence, however, the liberal majority of the court suddenly discovered that there really was a right to sodomy written in the Constitution, after all. I must need new glasses, then, because I still can’t find such a right written anywhere.

Listen, everybody dislikes it when decisions don’t go their way. But whereas conservatives try to overturn precedent only when they seek to right real wrongs committed by the Supreme Court (such as “finding” a constitutional right to an abortion), liberals manipulate the idea of precedent in order to gain legal protection for the immoral lifestyles they stand for (e.g., homosexuality, abortion, racial preferences). I have to give credit to liberals for one thing, though: They recognize the importance of precedent and the merits of manipulating it to suit their own interests. In operating this way, however, they show their true motive, which is not the preservation of the legal integrity of our Constitution, or of the personal integrity of Americans, but the right to live free from the law and do whatever the heck they please.

In today's Los Angeles Times, Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzook, in classic Palestinian form, rails against Israel's violent acts while neglecting to mention all the gratuitous violence that his people have committed against Israelis. Let’s face it, both sides have committed terrible acts, but focusing on “Who’s the worst offender?” is to miss the larger point: Israel is the only Jewish state in the world – and a tiny one at that – but Muslims and Arabs can’t be content with letting it exist. Think about it: The Palestinians are trying to wrestle two small patches of ground from an already-diminutive Israel when any of the large Muslim countries surrounding Israel could simply give a chunk of land to their Palestinian brothers: “Here you go, Abu,” says the leadership of Iran (or Jordan, or Egypt, or Syria, or Iraq, or Saudi Arabia). “A hundred thousand acres for your people, on us. Live now in peace, and let Israel live in peace.”

But no. Because as much as the Palestinians want their own state, they – and many of the Arabs and Muslims surrounding Israel – desire most of all to see Israel wiped off the map. This has been and always will be their truest motive.

It appears that we prefer the illusion of safety over real safety.

“Always wear a condom: That way you’ll never have to worry about pregnancy, disease, emotional hurt, or the development of bad attitudes about sex and relationships.”

“Ban handguns and the ability to carry concealed weapons: That way, school campuses and other public areas will be safe, and only criminals and the mentally-unstable will be able to get their hands on firearms.”

“When in doubt, always be nice to people who enter the country illegally: That way, they’ll always treat us nice and never do us any harm. … What’s that? What about all those ancient cities that built walls around themselves, you ask? Oh … those walls never actually worked.”

You see, ancient societies, despite their alleged “primitiveness,” knew something that many Americans have failed to recognize: Death can come on any given day, so we must always be on guard -- not "living in fear," but simply keeping an eye out. Living for so long now in an open, democratic society has, unfortunately, allowed many people the illusion that if we are diplomatic and democratic, then no one could possibly want to hurt us, much less actually do just that. The ancients, however, were constantly aware that they were always a mere moment’s lapse in concentration from being on the low end of someone else’s food chain. Animals, too, are always sensitive to this; that’s why they continuously look up between sips when they’re drinking from the local watering hole.

But we Americans? “Just be kind, and don’t be such a stickler,” we say, “and everything will be alright. … Walls? Guns? Personal accountability? Who needs that?”

One of the current trends in nonfiction publishing is that of anti-God manifestos by militant atheists, most notably god is not Great by Christopher Hitchens and The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Considering the small number of atheists in the world, it would seem that these publishers are taking quite a risk, but thankfully, for them, the thoughts expressed in these books are inflammatory enough to generate sales.

As for those thoughts: Their basic premise is that God not only doesn’t exist, but that belief in Him is actually a bad thing. If Hitchens and the like were doctors, however, they’d have to be considered bad ones, because they’re treating a symptom instead of the disease.

While it is beyond dispute that many bad things have been done in the name of God or religion, it is something else that’s the real cause of trouble in this world: a flaw in the human heart. This flaw, which usually meets with little or no resistance from us, is the desire to be in control, the desire to be in power – the desire, in fact, to be God. And religion is merely one way to acquire this power. Consider radical Muslims. They claim to be acting in the name of Allah (their god) – and I’ve no doubt that they truly believe that they are – but they have publicly stated that their ultimate goal is not the conversion of the masses to their religion, but world domination. They don’t actually care whether you believe as they do – if you do, they let you live; if you don’t, they simply kill you – they just want to be in charge. The root problem, then, is not religion; it is the desire for power, the desire to be in control, the desire to be God. Their religion is merely one means of accomplishing this.

Which leads to my second point of contention: Hitchens et al. have singled out one symptom (misuse of religion) – the one that aligns with their cause (the annihilation of God) – while neglecting all other symptoms, most notably greed (the love of money) and materialism (the love of possessions). For it is indisputable that money and possessions are effective in acquiring the power that humans crave. Consider, for example, how much damage has been done by the love of money (which, by the way, the Bible tells us is the root of all kinds of evil) – the corporate financial scandals at Enron, WorldCom and other large companies being some recent notable examples: Jobs were lost, pensions depleted and lives destroyed – and religion had nothing to do with it.

The third primary flaw that I see in the arguments of militant atheists is that they ignore all the good that religion has produced in the world. Religion, after all – like most everything else in life – is not an end in itself, but a means to an end (in this case, the means of discovering God and the truth about Him). Religion, money, sex, public office, lawyering – none of these are inherently bad; we simply often choose to make bad use of them – which is our fault, not the fault of the things themselves. And when I consider, for example, just the small sphere of life that I inhabit, I see much good (and no bad) done in the name of God and religion (particularly in the name of Jesus): In my hometown alone I see a food bank run by the town’s two churches – a food bank that gave away more than 10,000 meals last year; I see an annual Walk for Hunger put on by those same churches to raise money for the aforementioned food bank; I see food baskets from my church given to the needy at Thanksgiving; I see fruit baskets and other gifts (including the singing of Christmas carols) given from my church at Christmastime; I see emergency heating-fuel aid given out in the winter; I see people paying visits to, and running errands for, the sick and the elderly; I see gifts of cash given to those in financial need; I see people praying for others; I see aid given to the homeless and to the local soup kitchens; I see kindness shown to those whom society has cast aside; I see once-hopeless people given hope; I see the growth of smiles on people’s faces and confidence in their hearts as they experience the love of God shown by His true followers. Now atheists will say that you don’t need religion in order to do good works, but that isn’t the issue here; the issue is whether, as Hitchens claims, religion poisons everything, and as you should be able to see just from my short list above, it assuredly does not.

It has been my experience that you can curse a cough as loudly, as viciously and as often as you want, but that won’t cure you of the cold. Likewise, the complaints of atheists against religion will do nothing to solve the world’s problems, because those complaints are not directed at the source of those problems.

The fuss over Ann Coulter’s remarks about John Edwards highlights two major problems: the free pass given to liberal commentators, and the sheer wimpiness of liberals.

As an Associated Press article pointed out, nobody went nuts when liberal Bill Maher suggested that Dick Cheney’s death in a terrorist attack would be no loss. And as I recall, Rosie O’Donnell’s ridiculous comments equating American soldiers with terrorists would never have gotten any criticism had the liberal mainstream media not attacked conservative Elisabeth Hasselbeck for her response to Rosie – at which point the MSM were compelled to air Rosie’s comments because they were the words that started the whole thing. It’s clear that the mainstream media, for the most part, are liberal sympathizers, stooges for the Democratic Party who view criticism of commentators as a one-way street. And the cherry on top of all this looniness? The fact that some people thought Coulter was serious about wanting Edwards killed by terrorists, when anyone with any sense and any experience observing Coulter knows that biting sarcasm is her sharpest weapon.

As for liberals’ level of toughness, I suggest they start eating spinach by the bucketful. Rosie, for example, can sure dish it out, but melts down when the opposition fires a return volley in her direction. But in all fairness, I’m sure that neither she nor any other liberals are used to playing defense, since the MSM have always been their willing soapbox and biggest enabler.

Barack Obama believes that some right-wing evangelists have “hijacked” Christianity. Maybe so – every group in every area of life has a few bad apples who do the wrong thing. But in focusing on the social-justice issues of the Bible, Obama and other Liberal Christians are themselves missing the point of our faith.

Paul wrote to the young Timothy that “this is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (I Tim. 1:15). That one verse is the Bible – and Jesus’s mission – in a nutshell: The primary reason that Jesus came to Earth was to redeem us from our sin and thus restore us to a right relationship with God. This is the whole aim of the Bible, which is a love letter from God telling us that we’ve fallen but that He’s willing to help us up, and telling us how He does that.

The social-justice form of Christianity, with its focus on feeding the hungry, helping the needy, etc., does many a good work, but it makes the fundamental error of putting the focus on a response to Christian faith instead of on the saving faith itself. For that is what Christianity is truly about – a personal, redeeming, transforming relationship with Jesus, the God and Creator of the universe. Feeding the hungry and helping the poor is certainly a right response to such a relationship – but it is nevertheless simply a response to the relationship, not the relationship itself; and only one of many possible responses, at that. For the Bible also teaches that making wise use of our time, money and other resources is a proper response to knowing Christ, but does that make resource-management the chief aim of Christianity? Of course not.

Matthew chapter 26 contains the story of a woman who uses a whole bottle of expensive perfume to anoint the feet of Jesus. The disciples are aghast, saying the perfume could have been sold for much money, which, in turn, could have been given to help many poor people. How does Jesus respond? By saying, “Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a good work for Me. For you have the poor with you always, but Me you do not have always.”

Note that the “good work” mentioned here isn’t simply a good deed, but an act of worship toward Jesus. In other words, Jesus is telling us that although simple “good deeds” are good, and befitting a follower of Christ, we must keep our priorities in the proper order, and that means making Jesus, and our relationship with Him, No. 1. Everything else should then flow out of that.

Lastly, and at the risk of sounding judgmental, I must also give voice to my educated guess that there are a fair number who are Liberal Christians because it’s convenient for them. Liberal Christianity enables them to “be religious” without having to take a stand against those unbiblical things that secular mainstream society finds so appealing: abortion on demand, same-sex relationships, religion-free schools, the “do what feels good” mentality. To each his own, right? Liberal Christianity also allows them to believe that they can do the “proper” number of good deeds that will “satisfy” God while living the rest of their lives (and making many major decisions) against the clear word of Scripture.

In the end, Liberal Christianity serves only to emasculate the Bible – turning it into nothing more than a secular-humanist manifesto – and give people a watered-down Gospel that’s easy to swallow – all the humanitarianism of Christ, none of His troublesome theology.

If being willing to stand for Biblical truth makes me a Pharisee …

If believing in God (though I also believe in logic) makes me a reason-hater …

If believing that there’s only one set of spiritual truth (just as there’s only one set of physical truth) makes me a narrow-minded bigot …

If all of these things are true …

Then in the spirit of “supercalifragilisticexpialidocious,” I hereby confirm that I’m a “homophobicphariseeicreasonhatingbigot.”

And if you say it loud enough you’ll sound like a leaky spigot.

I understand where Hitchens is coming from here. Looking at Mary’s situation logically, Hitchens is basically saying (with all the incredulity required by any good militant atheist), “Woman, your son is God; how can you be surprised at anything he does?” His argument here makes fine sense … until I compare it with my own experience.

Having been a Christian for many years now, I’ve long known that God has the power to do anything, and the willingness to help me out in any and all situations. Logically, therefore, I should never be surprised by anything that God does in my life.

And yet I sometimes am. Why is that? Do I still have doubts about His power, His love for me, or His willingness to help me? Perhaps I do. Yet I think that there’s something else to it, as well.

As a human, I’m limited, finite. My experience has shown me that I cannot solve my every problem or provide for my every need, and neither can any other person, because they too are limited and finite. Everything about my human experience says that I am always going to be thrown up against some sort of roadblock. That I am always going to meet with difficulty along my road through life. That nothing worth having is going to come easily. That I will fail many times in the trying, and also be disappointed by others a good deal.

God, on the other hand, is unlimited and infinite. He can do anything, and He can do it anytime, anywhere, and in whatever way seems best to Him. I know this. So when, for the millionth time, He provides for me what no one else can provide, or does for me what no one else can do, I simply accept His help with every possible bit of gratitude and without even the slightest hint of wonder or surprise … right?

Wrong. Even though I know God and understand that He can do anything, His nature is different than that of man’s, different than what I experience daily as a human, and His mode of operation is entirely different than what I’m used to as a human being – so even though I’ve seen Him act in His unique, supernatural way many times, it still often gives me a jolt, because it goes against what I experience every moment of every day as a limited human surrounded by other equally-limited humans, living in a limited world. Not only may I be told in advance of the amazing talents of porpoises and yet still be amazed and surprised when I see them in person for the first time, but the human trainer of those porpoises may see them perform in person every day for a decade and yet be surprised anew every so often at what they are capable of. And a creature that lives most of its life in a dark cave, venturing outside into the light only once in a blue moon, will yet receive a shock every time he does see the light, even though he knows of its existence and has seen it before.

Christopher Hitchens appears to be severely stunted not only in his knowledge and understanding of God, but also in his understanding of human nature. He fails to see that we can be continually surprised by something that we are already familiar with (how many times were basketball fans surprised by a Michael Jordan game-winner despite the fact that he’d done it a dozen times before?), and that this periodic surprise turns out to be (in one way at least) a good thing, increasing our gratitude and reinforcing within us a sense of wonder and awe that we were meant to live with – and without which we would wither and die, as seems to be happening with Hitchens and Hari.