Law and legal issues are of course a vital component of life. And for good parts of human history the laws of God stood over, and greatly influenced, the laws of men. But in the secular West today this is becoming more and more rare, and increasingly we find the rise of ungodly, if not anti-God, law.
This comes in many forms, including so-called anti-discrimination, equal opportunity, and anti-vilification laws. These are being used to stifle Christians from sharing the gospel, forcing them to violate their own consciences, and keeping them from speaking out publicly about important social and moral issues. We see examples of this happening all the time.
Today law in the West is largely in the hands of those who adhere to the worldview of secular humanism. This is reflected on a daily basis in a whole host of areas: laws and legislation passed, court and judicial decisions, sentencing for crime, activist agendas promoted through law, and so on.
Let me focus on that last area I just mentioned: judicial activism. This is where judges who are pushing radical agendas effectively take the law into their own hands, and promote militant social engineering causes. The most recent example of this was when the High Court ruled on a NSW case, actually claiming that there are no longer two genders, but people can now have a “non-specific” third gender! I discuss that bizarre case in detail here: Aussie Court Rules Against Biology — and Redefines Reality.
The sad truth is, all over the Western world we are witnessing the rise of judicial activism. We find the active political involvement of judges in contentious social issues. The problem is, judges — often unelected and unaccountable — instead of legislators, are making and repealing laws, and internationalising law as well.
Judges have overstepped their bounds, and their agendas are often at odds with the majority of those they claim to serve. In fact, far too often the rule of law has been replaced by the rule of judges. This usurpation of the democratic process should be of concern to all of us.
The rule of law is of utmost importance, and judges are to be neutral in its application, and not seek to push their own political and social agendas. Judges are meant to serve the people and the laws the people helped to make, and not rewrite the law books and promote Political Correctness and social radicalism. But that sadly has been exactly the case for a number of decades now.
Judicial activism can take many forms: it may simply mean that judges are speaking out on controversial ethical and political issues when such pronouncements are not really proper to the role of a judge. Or worse, it can mean using one’s position as a judge to not just apply the law but to radically reinterpret and rewrite the law, to suit trendy political changes or to enforce a stifling Political Correctness.
This has certainly been the case in the US, where in the past half century a whole raft of radical judicial decisions have been made on such controversial issues as abortion, euthanasia and homosexual rights. As Robert Bork has commented, we are beginning to understand “what it means to be ruled by an oligarchy. The most important moral, political, and cultural decisions affecting our lives are steadily being removed from democratic control” and put into the hands of a few radical judges.
Phyllis Schlafly minces no words when she laments “the judicial supremacists who have been systematically dismantling the architecture of our unique, three-branch constitutional republic, and replacing it with an Imperial Judiciary.”