Battling Against Five Dumb Reasons for Female Preachers - BY NEWS DIVISION

Found here. Our comments in bold.

------------------

The author has his agenda, and alternately abandons or misrepresents what Scripture has to say about the issues he raises. In addition, we are extremely disappointed in the author for not documenting his statements. In fact, he barely manages to quote Scripture at all.

Most disconcerting, however, is his penchant for making unbiblical statements.

------------------

The Bible Is Rational Truth - by John MacArthur

Found here. Our comments in bold.

------------------------

Dr. MacArthur tries to make the case for understanding Scripture rationally and logically. Ironically, his presentation is not terribly rational.

-----------------

Constitution must be saved from Trump’s lawlessness -letter by Bruce Gourley

Found here. Our comments in bold
-------------------

You can be sure that when a leftist talks about the Constitution, it is only for the purpose of furthering his agenda. Because leftists don't like the Constitution. They don't like the 2nd Amendment. They don't like the Electoral College. They don't believe in separation of powers. They don't believe in the 1st Amendment for anyone but themselves. They don't believe in the 9th or 10th Amendment at all. 

And, we once again need to invoke Mountain Man's Law (tagged at the bottom of this post), because the letter writer complains that the Constitution is under assault. Yes, indeed. The Constitution, written by white European racists, has been under attack from the Left for decades.  Obama himself decried the Constitution as a charter of negative liberties, that is, government was forbidden to do things.

Mountain Man's Law is, "Everything a Leftist Democrat accuses someone of doing is actually being done by Leftist Democrats." 
----------------------

What is Penal Substitutionary Atonement?

Recently we've been reconsidering many of the things we thought we understood regarding doctrine and faith. We have begun to question certain beliefs, church structures, and practices of the western church. Too often we have discovered unbiblical doctrines and activities. This causes us concern. We have deemed this our “rethink.”

Our questions include, how did we arrive at our doctrines? Does the Bible really teach what we think it teaches? Why do churches do what they do? What is the biblical basis of church leadership structure? Why do certain traditions get entrenched?

It's easy to be spoon fed the conventional wisdom, but it's an entirely separate thing to search these things out for one's self. In the past we have read the Bible with these unexamined understandings and interpreted what we read through those lenses. We were lazy about our Bible study, assuming that pastors and theologians were telling us the truth, but we rarely checked it out for ourselves.

Therefore, these Rethinks are our attempt to remedy the situation.

We should note that we are not Bible scholars, but we believe that one doesn't need to be in order to understand the Word of God.

------------------------

PREACHING IS WORSHIP, NOT PERFORMANCE - by MATT HENSLEE

Found here. Our comments in bold.
--------------------

The author's thesis is in the title. However, we disagree that preaching is worship and agree that it's not performance. And the author never documents or explains how preaching is worship. He simply re-asserts it and moves on.

The author suggests that he should be preaching to an Audience of One. However, we're pretty sure God doesn't need to be preached to. Preaching is for the edification of the saints:

Ro. 12:6 We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man’s gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith. Ro. 12:7 If it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach; Ro. 12:8 if it is encouraging, let him encourage; if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; if it is leadership, let him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully.

1Co. 12:27-28 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues.

Teaching (or preaching) is actually a separate practice from worship:

Col. 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.

"Worship" is προσκυνέω (proskuneó), which means I go down on my knees to, do obeisance to, worship. It comes from the root word 4314 /prós, "towards" and kyneo, "to kiss") – properly, to kiss the ground when prostrating before a superior; to worship, ready "to fall down/prostrate oneself to adore on one's knees..."

Now, we have heard worship described in terms of singing, the offering, or as service unto the Lord, but we would suggest these things are not worship. Worship is a state of the heart, coming as a result of a revelation of His glory, which brings one's self low in the presence of the King of kings. 

We think it cheapens worship by naming things that are supposedly worship, while leaving untouched better explanations of it.
-------------------

Good business acumen doesn’t mean good politics - letter by Jay Moor

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------

The author writes a letter replete with non sequiturs, undocumented assertions, and leaps of logic. The blizzard pace of these makes for some very difficult analysis. But we shall try.

----------------

Many politicians tout their business acumen as a sufficient and superior credential for public office. (First problem, right out of the chute: The descriptors "sufficient" and "superior." This artificially narrows the issue to two supposed reasons, excluding other, perhaps more valid reasons for having a business person in public office.

Indeed, we are in our present swamp because of career politicians who are mostly lawyers, and leftists at that. But the author apparently wants these types to maintain their stranglehold over our political processes by excluding people who actually know how to run successful organizations like businesses.)

Their experience making money, they claim, will help government run more efficiently. ("Business acumen" is not synonymous with "making money." And of course, no one has claimed that their experience making money is the reason for someone's suitability for running for office. 

In addition, the author tacitly admits that government is not efficient, but for some reason objects to electing people who have some skill in running efficient organizations.)

Unfortunately, many business folks enter politics primarily to re-purpose (i.e., corrupt) the powers of government. (Re-purpose" is not synonymous with "corrupt." 

Nearly everyone who enters politics does so to make a difference in government in some fashion. All of them are intent on re-purposing government. Everyone has an agenda. Everyone has an objective. And everyone has perceptions of their skills. 

But apparently only politicians with a business background are a problem, despite the fact that the Left has created our present situation by putting their people in government for the last 80 years.)

Hank Hanegraaff’s Son Says His Dad Is Still A Christian (Even Though He Left Christianity) BY NEWS DIVISION

Found here.

------------------

We find it extremely unseemly for someone to speculate on another's salvation. However, this author is happy to accuse Hanegraaff of apostasy, not because of sin, but because he joined with another denomination. Let's say that again: This is not a matter of sin, but a matter of choice of church.

In addition, the author will never quote a single Scripture in support of his position. He will quote Scriptures that he thinks characterizes Hanegraaff, but as far as making a scriptural case against him, it is absent.
------------------

Hank Hanegraaff left the Christian faith in April of 2017. (As a reformist, the author must believe in the Perseverance of the Saints. Thus, Hanegraaff cannot have "left the Christian faith." He either was never saved, or the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints is wrong.)

In joining the Eastern Orthodox cult, Hanegraaff began to worship idols, denied Penal Substitution, no longer believing that Jesus died to pay for his sins. (Let's see if the author documents these charges. Hint: He won't.

Hanegraaff himself said, I stand shoulder-to-shoulder with evangelicals, with Roman Catholics, with Orthodoxy around the essentials of the Christian faith — meaning the main and plain things..." 

In an interview with NPR's Charlotte affiliate WFAE earlier in July that for the most part, his theological beliefs have not changed.

So the author needs to demonstrate that Hanegraaff is either lying or mistaken. In fact, the author needs to provide some evidence, any evidence at all, that Hanegraaff believes something so errant that his salvation is at stake. 

This of course will not happen.)

Most egregiously, as an Eastern Orthodox idolater, Hanegraaff deneis (sic) Sola Fide, and now believes that he’ll be justified by his own good works. (Again we wait for the documentation of these charges.)

No Protestant believer could rationally call Hanegraaff a Christian believer. (No real Christian should be comfortable setting himself up as a judge of a man's heart.)

Contemplative Prayer - By Amy Spreeman

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------

We do not intend to defend contemplative prayer as represented by the author. Rather, we shall evaluate the author's statements, and then we shall develop our own case for a biblical "contemplative" prayer.

We note sadly that the author will never quote a single Scripture in defense of her position, probably because many of the referenced Scriptures do not support her assertions.

--------------------

Is healthcare a privilege or a right? FB conversation

I posted this on FB:

Healthcare in Britain: "A National Health Service (NHS) trust has announced that it will withdraw treatment from patients it deems to be racist or sexist.

"The policy would cover not just 'Threatening and offensive language' but also 'Racist or sexist language, gestures or behaviour' more generally, as well as 'malicious allegations...'”

Comments

• Evan: I can’t say i’ve made up my mind on how I feel about this, but I’m curious as to your perspective on if health care is a right or a privilege?

  1

  • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 4h
  • Me: It is neither, in my opinion. This is an interesting explanation I read recently of why healthcare is not a right: https://thefederalist.com/.../why-you-have-no-right-to.../
    
    In addition, Since acquiring healthcare is a transaction that requires the exchange of value (money for services), this cannot be an exercise of a right. Someone else is compelled to participate, and/or give up value. Rights cannot involve extracting value from others.

    

    THEFEDERALIST.COM

    Why You Have No Right To Marriage, Health Care, Or An…

    Why You Have No Right To Marriage, Health Care, Or An Education

    • Like
    •  · Reply
    •  · Remove Preview
    •  · 4h
  • Evan: if you express/support that it is not a right, do you not, then, believe it is relegated to being a privilege?

    • Like
    •  · Reply
    •  · 3h
    •  · Edited
  • Me: No. It is a transaction that exchanges value between parties.

    • Like
    •  · Reply
    •  · 1h
  • Evan: ie: privilege? It’s a privilege to purchase goods and services, no? I guess it’s semantics, but just wondering how you’d classify it. It’s pretty much one or the other...? We’re privileged to live in a country where we can go to a grocery store and have a huge variety of produce. Do you feel the same with health care?
    
    Secondary item to ponder: I’m wondering where the balance is when privatized medicine and insurance becomes so expensive that most people can no longer afford it, like medical procedures that cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars. You nor I would be able to pay that out of pocket, correct? So where does that leave ya when a privilege becomes a necessity? Or do we just die then, if we can’t afford it?

    • Like
    •  · Reply
    •  · 26m
  • Me: Neither. A privilege is an ability granted by a power structure. A right is an intrinsic feature of natural human existence.
    
    Both are outside the realm of free exchange. A person who agrees with someone else to exchange value is not exercising a privilege.
    
    In fact, we would better define the "right to healthcare" as a privilege, created by law. This, then, is a legal right that could be amended or rescinded by government.
    
    Any "right" created by government is subject to government's future whims. However, unalienable rights, that is, the rights a free people possess, are not granted by government, because they possess them by being endowed with them. Government can only secure them (safeguard them) or infringe upon them.

NAR Charismaniacal False Teaching about Walking in the Blessings of Our Promised Land - By Rev. Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------

Our typically bombastic and cocksure author offers another barely coherent diatribe.

We should note we are not here to defend Mark Virkler's beliefs, our purpose is to examine the author's presentation.

-------------
For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why it is through him that we utter our Amen to God for his glory. -- 2Corinthians 1:20 (ESV)

https://charismamag.com/spirit/spiritual-growth/43241-god-has-a-promised-land-of-blessing-for-you-here-s-how-to-walk-in-it

"God has a promised land of blessing for you and here is how to walk in it" the headline screamed. Gee, what can go wrong from there? Beloved, the NAR Charismaniacal landscape is littered with such poor teaching about experiential Christianity outweighing the verity of Scripture. We need to be vigilant in these last days lest we become deceived. God speaks to us clearly through His written word if we would have ears to hear. His voice is not discerned by goose bumps and liver shivers. It is not confirmed through pagan beliefs and happenstance. The above linked article is from NAR charismaniac Mark Virkler. It is important to pay attention so that we can learn to spot these mangled teachings in our own church and lives, mark them and then avoid them. So come and let us reason together once more.

"We all want to achieve the goals and receive the blessings God has prepared and ordained for us. I believe God has a promised land of blessing for each and every one of us. Some of these promised land blessings are delineated in Deuteronomy 28:1-18, and as you read them, they will take your breath away. They touch every area of our lives! If you haven't read them recently, do so now! All these promises are reaffirmed to us in Christ Jesus (2 Cor. 1:20). Let's make sure we arrive at our promised lands." -- Mark Virkler

Sigh. One of the most prolific false teachings that is central to so many others is this warped sense of Christian purpose. (Will the author present us the "correct" sense of Christian purpose, citing Bible references? Nope.)

This started in the mid 1990's with Rick Warren publishing the Purpose Driven Church, which has become a manual for up and coming pastors for how to build mega-churches devoid of the Gospel. The "purpose" pastors sell sheep is now based on providing free labor to the growing church. (This is new?? Churches have relied on their congregations' volunteer labor for hundreds of years! Or does the Reverend's church have 100% paid staff?)

Maybe your purpose can be found in the Parking Lot Ministry or Kidz Church. Whether a security guard, camera man, or choir member, God always has a "purpose" for you. (The author, without documentation, conflates the idea of purpose with volunteer service given to the church. But we don't know if either Mark Virkler or the "purpose driven" church believes this. 

For the author, it is sufficient to simply make blanket unattributed statements.

So, what does the Bible have to say about purpose? Well, we wouldn't know if we rely on the author, whose only Scripture quote is at the top. So it is left to us to document this:

Lk. 7:29-30 All the people, even the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus’ words, acknowledged that God’s way was right, because they had been baptized by John. 30 But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God’s purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John.

Ro. 8:28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

Ro. 9:21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

Ph. 2:13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.

Ep. 2:10 For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. 

2Ti. 2:20 In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for noble purposes and some for ignoble.

He. 10:24 And let us consider how we may spur one another on towards love and good deeds.

The Bible has plenty to say about our purpose.  

There is no such thing as chance, even when casting lots - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------------

We go into this article with questions we hope will be answered. Is the casting of lots divination? What is the context and explanation for the casting of lots in the Bible? Is it something we should do today? 

These are not questions the author will answer.

Let's consider the biblical usage of the phrase. In the OT, it appears that only one word is used, גּוֹרָל (goral), which means a lot (for casting)... allotted (2), allotted portion (1), choice (1), land (1), lot (53), lots (15), lots and the lot (1), territory allotted (2)... a lot cast for the decision of questions... So it is quite literally a method used for making decisions. 

But there is a specific sense in the casting of lots. The future is not being foretold, neither is a fortune being discerned, nor is divine will being ascertained. Rather, it is more like, "I have two coats. Which one should I wear today?" Or, "Whose turn is it to go get the pizza?" Or, "You two, stop fighting. We're going to settle this." Pr. 18:18 Casting the lot settles disputes and keeps strong opponents apart. Perhaps akin to rock-paper-scissors, or closing our eyes and picking one. It's simply a way to make decisions.

By contrast, there are two Greek words used in the NT. The first is λαγχάνω (lagchanó), which is (a) I obtain (receive) by lot, my lot (turn) is, (b) I draw lots. The word is found in

Lk. 1:8-9 Once when Zechariah’s division was on duty and he was serving as priest before God, 9 he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to go into the temple of the Lord and burn incense.

This is much like the Hebrew word, in that one thing is being chosen over another. The word seems to be used in the context of seeing whose turn it is, or who gets a thing when the lot is cast. It's a case of determining who is coming up next, or who gets what. 

This is how the men chose who got to receive Jesus' cloak.

The second Greek word is as found in 

Ac. 1:26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles. 

Here the word is κλῆρος, ου, ὁ (kléros), which means, a portion assigned; hence: a portion of the people of God assigned to one's care, a congregation... properly, a lot, cast to distribute ("apportion").

This word speaks to an allotment of something assigned to someone. It's almost like the selection of a business partner, or how to divide up an inheritance among your children, or who to include when you want to share a candy bar.  It is to determine who should partake of the thing, or who is to be included in the thing being done. 

This the word that describes how the apostles chose Matthias, done we believe with presumption. We discuss this here. 

As we can see, the two words have different shades of meaning. The author will not make this distinction. Nor will she explain her implied approval of casting lots ("There is no such thing as chance.")

So, would we want to cast lots today? We have a simple and short answer, No. We are led by the Holy Spirit (Ro. 8:9, Ga. 5:18), by the Word of God (2Ti. 3:16, Col. 3:16), and by the wise counsel of the brethren (He. 10:24, He. 3:13). 

Casting lots is not necessarily bad. It's simply moot.

---------------------

Why Your Church Should Sing New Songs (Not Only Old Songs) - By Tim Challies

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------
We agree with the author. There is a rich treasure trove of old and new available to us, and neither should be neglected.

Mt. 13:52 He said to them, “Therefore every teacher of the law who has been instructed about the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old.”

The old was at one time the new. Every hymn was contemporary Christian music at the time. And the best of our contemporary songs will become part of the hymnody 100 years from now. 

The author is correct that time and usage weeds out the bad or superficial in favor of the great and powerful hymns. This will also happen for contemporary worship songs.

And there are great and powerful contemporary songs of faith. Some that have arisen within the last few decades (in no particular order) are

• Revelation Song
• In Christ Alone
• Shout to the Lord
• How Deep the Father's Love for Us
• This is Amazing Grace
• God of Wonders
• So Will I
• Lord I Lift Your Name on High
• Majesty
• Seek Ye First
• I Exalt Thee
• Agnus Dei

This is only scratching the surface of a wide and deep ocean of great contemporary worship songs. 

--------------------

We all must stand against supremacy, supremacists - letter by Sara Rushing

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------

Contrary to the author's statements, it is not ok to be white, and someone saying that it is ok to be white is not automatically being a white supremacist. But of course, the author is content to simply make her assertions as if they were self-evident. This is how the typical leftist functions.

We, however, will document our claims. A quick Google search "white people evil" yields these top results:

• Why are white people so evil and barbaric?
• Teen Vogue Writer: "All White People are Evil"
• Whites are the Source of All Evil
• Why are White People the Most Evil
• Almost All White People are Inherently Racist
• White Men Must be Stopped

She claims, White people have never been told that whiteness is anything other than superior. This is spectacularly false. Whites are typically blamed for every problem in the world today. Whites are routinely shouted down, they are told they are exercising "white privilege," and they are expected to pay reparations. Clearly whites are being told it is not ok to be white.

Ironically, the author herself admits that being white is bad. Whites have the advantage of a system of power and privilege that advantages white people simply for being white, and has shaped up historically in ways that subjugate non-white peoples in more (slavery, genocide) or less (implicit bias) brutal ways.

The overwhelming majority of whites do not fit this description. The overwhelming majority of Americans reject participating in any system that unfairly advantages any race. The overwhelming majority of people simply have no desire to hate or oppress anyone.

Last point. A white person is like any other person. It's ok to be who they are, including their skin color. Their skin color, like any other skin color, does not speak to their character, work ethic, morality, generosity, emotional state, or intelligence. 

Leftists need to have the same attitude about whites as they do for any other race. The fact they don't means, hmm, they're racist.
--------------------

Can Women Be Pastors? - by Denny Burk

Found here. Our comments in bold.
--------------------

We have deleted a long and largely irrelevant explanation of how the author views as synonymous the names "pastor," "shepherd," "elder," and "overseer." 
------------------

Is holy fire a bad thing to pray for?

Introduction

Some commentators, in their criticism of charismatics, complain about those who would want the "fire of the Holy Spirit." These commentators would have us believe that fire from God is always a negative thing, it's always a manifestation of God's judgment or wrath.

We would suggest that the fire of God can be much more than judgment. But this doesn't set well with some. With the preconception that fire must always mean judgment, they prefer that people would not pray for holy fire because to them it represents the excesses of charismaticism. That is, if charismatics do it, it must be wrong.

In fact, if the reader will review the link we provided above, he will find that the author warns that God might give you a disease if you ask for His fire! He writes, Don’t ask for more 'holy fire' in your life; you might get cancer when God answers your prayers. 

This astonishing statement, offered almost in a joking manner, ought to offend any thinking Christian. He thinks that asking God for the wrong thing could lead Him to give you a disease.

Does anyone really believe that God would inflict cancer on someone who has called on His name, believed on His Son, and desires to serve Him with more adequately? Is this the capricious god we serve, one who would pour out curses and pain on those who love him?

This is reminiscent of Linus, Charlie Brown's little friend, who was terrified the Great Pumpkin would notice his slip of the tongue and pass him by. But our God is not like this. He does not punish His redeemed with disease and infirmity simply because we asked for the wrong thing. He does not torture us.

We are therefore spurred on to examine the Scriptures for ourselves. Is the fire of God always a bad thing? Does it always represent wrath or judgment? We don't think so. We think it can also represent  increased passion, purity, or devotion.

So let's examine the the other side of the issue. Is holy fire really judgment?

Let's briefly review God's fire and what it can mean.

The OT

It is certainly true that fire can represent judgment. We read of the fire of God's judgment in many places, like

Isaiah 29:6 From the LORD of hosts you will be punished with thunder and earthquake and loud noise, With whirlwind and tempest and the flame of a consuming fire.

This is a common picture of fire in the OT (Josh. 7:15, 2Kg. 1:10,

But we also read that He appeared as a pillar of fire by night as He led Israel:

Ex. 13:21 By day the LORD went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud to guide them on their way and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so that they could travel by day or night.

He also descended in fire upon Mt. Sinai when Moses ascended to receive the 10 commandments:

Ex. 24:17 To the Israelites the glory of the LORD looked like a consuming fire on top of the mountain. 

Fire in the OT often represents the manifest Glory of God (Ex. 3:2, 2Sa. 22:9), or consuming a sacrifice (1Kg. 18:38, 1Ch. 21:26).

Fire can be deadly, or it can be awe or fear inspiring. Fire is not automatically judgment.

The NT

How Did Jesus Suffer Eternal Punishment in Only 3 Hours? - by Andrew Menkis

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-----------------------

What a strange title. Where did the three hour thing come from? 

***Update*** it appears the reference is to the three hours Jesus hung on the cross. 

***

Our views on the death and resurrection of Jesus might be viewed as controversial, but in our pursuit of biblical truth apart from the preconceptions instilled in us by well-meaning pastors and theologians, we have come to the conclusion that some of the things taught to us are misleading, mistaken, incomplete, or just plain wrong.

We have concluded that Jesus was never punished by the Father. 
---------------------

CLOSING THE GAP BETWEEN SCRIPTURE AND OUR EXPERIENCE - By: Sam Storms

Found here. An excellent article.
---------------------

We just concluded our second national Convergence conference here in OKC and witnessed a multitude of healings. As people send in reports of what happened, I’ll share them on this blog.

In my first message at the conference I addressed the problem of the gap (indeed, the vast chasm!) that often exists between what we believe the Bible teaches to be true and what we have personally experienced. We are always quick to believe and embrace what reinforces and confirms our experience. But when the Bible teaches some truth or calls us to some action that we haven’t yet experienced, we instinctively react with pushback or skepticism. Worst of all, we simply find a way of reinterpreting the text of Scripture or even explaining it away so that the discomfort it creates can be overcome.

Online abuses demand changes to First Amendment - letter by Douglas Stream

Found here. Our comments in bold.

--------------------

This letter writer, with justifiable concern, chronicles the deterioration of society via expressions of less-than-desirable speech. He then proceeds to a non-sequitur, a supposed need to amend the First Amendment. Let's quote the relevant section:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 

This amendment, like every other amendment, grants, defines, and restricts government powers. Congress shall make no law...

Thus the letter writer will recommend that First Amendment be amended to grant the government more power. He would want the judicial branch to be empowered determine what is appropriate speech, and what is not. 

Can you imagine? A federal branch of government would occupy its time examining what someone said or wrote to determine if it is allowed. Case after case would be brought to the court for adjudication. Endless parsing of phrasing, context, and propriety of words would be considered.

The author then asserts: You can be certain that if the internet had existed when James Madison drafted the Bill of Rights in 1789, he would surely have imposed reasonable restrictions on its use. Really? Newspapers existed at that time. Pamphlets. Did Madison have anything written into the Bill of Rights addressing the content of these? No.

Why not? Because the Bill of Rights, like the Constitution, has nothing to say about what The People can and cannot do. From the Preamble to the Bill of Rights:

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses (emphasis added) should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to further restrict the power of government! Its intent is not to create rights, for it cannot. Rights descend from the Creator, and are unalienable.

This is made clear from Amendment 9:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Is the letter writer unfamiliar with Prohibition? The Constitution must not be wielded to speak to what The People can or cannot do.

He is completely mistaken about the Bill of Rights and Madison's intent. His prescriptions would be a disaster.

---------------------