Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics Archives | CrossExamined.org

“We’re living in a society in which people feel no obligation to control their own actions. Instead, we rationalize and justify every aberrant behavior under the umbrella of freedom granted by the First Amendment, never admitting that freedom without reasonable and responsible limits destroys individual lives and ultimately destroys the fabric of a civilized society.”

“It is critical to recognize that the founders [of America] were pledging their lives to restore not someone’s revealed religion, but everyone’s self-evident morality.”

“It is important to note that even though the Founders believed the Rights of the people came from God, they did not insist that every citizen believe in God; they simply saw no way to justify those natural moral Rights unless there was a God.”

“The Moral Law actually is clear to everyone. It is evident by a person’s reactions rather than by his or her actions.“

“The Moral Law is not always the standard by which we treat others, but it is nearly always the standard by which we expect others to treat us.”

“The moral rightness or wrongness of a law is not determined by whether its enforcement is successful or unsuccessful…We’ve always found it difficult to enforce a number of our laws, including laws against murder, spouse and child abuse, rape, and theft, yet no sane person would ever suggest that these laws should be repealed because they’re difficult to enforce.”

“[Rights] should not be based on what people do, but on what is right as defined by the Moral Law. In other words, by definition, laws are prescriptive—they prescribe what ought to be done, while behaviors are descriptive—they describe what is being done. If everyone were to commit murder that wouldn’t make murder right. And it certainly wouldn’t be wise to discard all laws against murder because enforcement is difficult.”

“Most people are law-abiding citizens who don’t require someone constantly looking over their shoulder to keep them in line. In other words, the law, aside from law enforcement, has a certain restraining effect in itself. So when immoral behavior is legalized (the restraining effect of the law is removed), that behavior eventually loses its stigma of immorality. This is because many believe that whatever is legal is moral. That’s why legalization only result in more immoral behavior.”

“The history of abortion, like that of slavery and Prohibition, shows that laws can change hearts and attitudes when given enough time.”

“Even though many laws are difficult to enforce, most people obey them without the continuous presence of law enforcement. But since many believe that whatever is legal is moral, legalization of immorality will only result in more immoral behavior.”

“When libertarians or liberals seek to give people more freedom (i.e., by passing a law that legalizes a formerly illegal activity), they do exactly what they condemn conservatives for doing. They impose their morals (and thereby the associated effects) on people who do not agree with those morals.”

“A common mistake of relativists is to confuse behavior and value, what is and what ought to be. What people do is subject to change, but what they ought to do is not. This is the difference between sociology and morality. The former is descriptive, the latter is prescriptive.

“The Moral Law tells [atheists] intuitively that genocide is wrong. But they can’t appeal to the Moral Law to justify their belief because acknowledging the Moral Law would logically mean acknowledging the existence of the Moral Law-giver.”

“If man is the ultimate authority, then human beings are perfectly justified in defining morals and ethics that fit their own desires, even if those ethics are the ones espoused by Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and the Chinese government–murder, torture, and abuse.”

“Large-scale evolution is not only a theory that affects how one looks at things in the biology lab; it has a dramatic impact on government, philosophy, law, and ethics, as well.”

“The [First] Amendment prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion or denomination, but…it logically cannot prohibit Congress from establishing a national morality.”

“Allowing the [Supreme] Court to read their own meaning into the Constitution defeats the whole purpose of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

“If an unelected tribunal of judges can pour any interpretation they desire into a law, then the intentions of the people expressed in that law can be frustrated and usurped. The law ultimately means nothing if its original intent is not honored. Stop signs are useless if drivers are free to interpret them as ‘Go!'”

“While the Bible does not call for its political imposition on civil governments, it does call for those who believe in the Bible to be politically active.”

“The Bible does not command Christians to set up a Christian America; it simply commands them to help create a moral America.”

“What the Left really means when it asserts relativism is that all traditional absolutes are relative—their new absolutes are the only true absolutes. Reasonable people know better.”

“If we continue to let the Supreme Court and the Left suppress the Moral Law morality from our public life, our country is not likely to survive the evil that will continue to grow within it.”

“Like the physical universe, the moral universe is governed by unforgiving laws that we do not have the power to alter.”

“The truth of the objective Moral Law is most clearly seen by analyzing the tangled rhetoric of those who ignore it.”

“A Moral Law government avoids the intolerance of a purely religious government and the moral relativism of a purely secular government.”

“As history has proven, again and again, human beings have an unfailing propensity to suppress the Moral Law when that law gets in the way of their desire for pleasure, power, or property.”

“Today, our moral positions are more often fueled by feelings and emotions than by careful thought.”

“As a society, we rightfully discriminate against all kinds of harmful behaviors (e.g., drunk driving, theft, rape, etc.) regardless of the fact that some people may have been ‘born’ with a propensity to commit those crimes.”

“Even if we are ‘born’ heterosexual or homosexual, we are not required to engage in any particular form of sexual conduct. While we may have strong desires, our conduct is not mandatory. A choice must still be made.

“The fundamental problem in our world is that people willingly choose to do things that deep down they know they shouldn’t do. The fact that we’re all flawed to some extent—is precisely the reason we need a system of laws in our society.”

“We are not saying that all women who have abortions are murderers but victims themselves, deceived by the euphemisms of the abortion propaganda machine.”

“If the ‘pro-choicers’ were truly ‘pro-choice’, they would invite pro-life advocates to their meetings and into their clinics. After all, life is the only other choice a woman can make. Instead, pro-abortion advocates greet pro-lifers with court orders to keep as far away as possible. The pro-abortionists have only one choice in mind. The other choice isn’t good for business.”

“No one has the moral right to choose anything that directly ends the life of another innocent human being. The right to life is the right to all other rights. Without life, we’d all have no rights whatsoever.”

“Because of the legality of abortion, family and friends often feel free to pressure women into killing their babies when they wouldn’t otherwise do so.”

“When the [Supreme] Court ignores the intent of a particular law, it is ignoring the will of the people. Instead of the people governing themselves, they are governed by the imposed will of unelected judges. That’s not representative democracy, that’s closer to tyranny.”

“[Some men with whom women are sexually active] favor abortion because it frees them of what would normally be a long-range responsibility. In effect, abortion makes women more susceptible to predatory males who want to use women for sex but aren’t really interested in making long-term commitments to them.”

“All moral positions impose values. Even the moral position that you should not impose values on others does just that: it imposes values on others. For if we are not to restrain people legally from doing wrong, then we impose on others the effects of the wrongdoing.”

“It is precisely because humans are not animals that we do not kill them in difficult situations. That is, since we believe human life has a higher value than that of animals, we do not treat humans like laboratory rats. Moreover, human beings don’t lose their value when they lose their health. People are valuable because of their humanity, not because they lack an infirmity.”

“Laws favoring abortion impose values on the life of the unborn; pro-life laws impose values on the liberty of the mother. In other words, the pro-life side wants to impose continued pregnancy on the mother, while the pro-abortion side wants to impose death on the baby.”

“If money made people happy, the United States would be the happiest place on earth. Instead, we lead the world in indicators of unhappiness such as suicide, drug use, and divorce.”

“Money without morality leads to the kind of materialistic madness we’ve been experiencing. We have everything to live with and nothing to live by.”

“How can those responsible for legislating morality do so when they have trouble discerning right from wrong? Are such people really qualified to make decisions of the highest moral consequences?”

“Why won’t those who use immoral means to get what they want in their private lives use immoral means to get what they want in their public lives? Those who refuse to restrain their appetites in private are unlikely to resist the enormous temptation to abuse their political power to get what they want (and to use that power to cover up their ‘private’ indiscretions).”

“When the ideal is not realizable, then we should legislate the optimum achievable within the existing conditions. That is when the maximum is not possible, we should not settle for the minimum but should legislate the optimum.”

All these quotes came from Drs. Frank Turek’s and Norman Geisler’s book Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible. Check out the full chapter-by-chapter review of the book and other featured posts:

5 Casualties of the Court’s LGBTQ Sex Ruling

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

“Sex” in civil rights law now legally means sexual orientation or whatever gender you think you are. That’s the result of a surprising Supreme Court decision (Bostock vs. Clayton County) from Justice Neil Gorsuch. Problem? Yes, here are five casualties of this ruling:

We the People: If you think you have the ability to govern yourselves through your elected representatives, the United States Supreme Court again made a mockery of that Constitutional principle. You can work to elect the right people and pass all the laws you want, only to see a handful of unelected lawyers on the Supreme Court nullify or replace your laws with their own.

That’s what six justices did this week. They changed the 1964 civil rights law into a law that they desired, despite the fact that the very changes they made have been rejected by Congress in recent years. Now, just like that, “sex” no longer means biological sex but sexual orientation and whatever a person thinks their sex is at the time.

As Justices Alito and Thomas wrote in dissent, there’s only one word for what the Court did: “legislation.” “A more brazen abuse of our authority to interpret statutes is hard to recall.”

Now, many actually agree with the result (it has some big negatives I’ll get to in a minute). But the means by which this result was achieved should disturb everyone because it strikes at the very heart of our Constitution and our rights as people to govern ourselves. It’s an injustice for judges to impose their legislative will on the people. If judges want to change the law, then they should do what any citizen has to do—convince fellow citizens to go through the legislative process to get the law changed. To merely impose their will on the people is tyranny.

Women: Justice Gorsuch’s opinion furthers the Leftist claim that sex is defined not by biology, but by one’s state of mind. Therefore, if a man thinks he’s a woman, then the law must treat him as a woman. Although Gorsuch tries to deny this result, what he’s done is given legal grounds for biological men to gain a legal advantage over actual women in the workplace, in the bathroom, and elsewhere.

Ladies, you want that promotion? All other things being equal, who do you think your employer is now going to promote—you or the man transitioning to a woman who now has heightened legal grounds as an even smaller minority to sue for “discrimination”?

Do you want privacy and safety in the bathroom and showering facilities? What policy is your employer or gym going to adopt—the common sense one where biological men and women are kept separate, or the one that prevents a costly discrimination suit by inviting men into women’s facilities?

LGBTQ People: Gorsuch has not just made it harder for women; his reasoning contradicts the very rationale for the existence of women and the LGBTQ people he’s supposedly trying to help. For when someone identifies as a woman, man, lesbian or gay, they are presupposing there is such a thing as objective biological sex. How else can one have sex with someone of the same sex unless one can differentiate that person from the opposite sex? And how can a man transition into becoming a woman unless men and women actually exist?

The practical outcome of the Court’s opinion is that either one’s biology or psychology can determine one’s sex. But if a person’s subjective psychology usurps their objective biology, then there is no objective way of identifying anyone as a man, woman, or LGBTQ. Sex and sexual identity are just figments of the imagination (much like Gorsuch’s justification for his opinion).

That’s why some lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and feminists have been against the subjective transgender psychology standard that Gorsuch just affirmed—it defines them out of existence!

96% of the Population: Ask anyone in corporate America this question: Are you more likely to experience problems at work for supporting LGBTQ political goals or opposing them? It’s not even close, as I found out personally.

HR departments in corporate America are proponents of everything LGBTQ, and those who identify as such are actually better off than their straight counterparts. LGBTQ households, on average, earn more than traditional households, and gay men earn 10% more than straight men. While there are individual exceptions (hence the lawsuit that brought this case to the Supreme Court), there appears to be NO systemic problem of anti-LGBTQ bias in the workplace.

Yet, this Court’s decision will employ the strong arm of government to fix a problem that doesn’t exist. The decision will force companies to give employment preference to a long list of sexual orientations that, at best, 4% of people claim (a 4% that already has a financial advantage). Anyone who claims an LGBTQ identity will now have more job security than John or Jane Doe. How so? Because if a company has to downsize, who are they going choose—one of the helpless Doe’s, or the person of a new legally-preferenced minority who can bring a costly lawsuit alleging “discrimination”?

While reverse discrimination may not be the intent of this decision, it is an inevitable consequence. As soon as you give preferential treatment to one group of people, you are automatically disadvantaging anyone not part of that group.

Moreover, there isn’t any medical consensus as to what sexual orientation or transgenderism is. But the effect of this decision is that businesses are now forced to give preference to those who identify as “ambigender; bigender; blurgender; collgender; conflictgender; cosmicgender; crystagender; deliciagender; duragender; demiflux; domgender; fissgender; gemelgender; gendercluster; genderfluid; gendersea; genderfuzz; genderfractal; genderspiral; genderswirl; gendervex; gyaragender; libragender; ogligender; pangender; polygender; trigender (whatever that all means). How is it possible to even know you’re in compliance if you can’t define what compliance is? How many young workers will claim one of these nebulous labels just to get an advantage? (Their claims for special treatment can’t be objectively disproven like Elizabeth Warren’s claim to be a Native American.)

In short, this decision doesn’t fix an existing workplace problem (thankfully, LGBTQ folks are doing quite well). Instead, it creates legal and administrative chaos, and it legally justifies reverse discrimination against an already underperforming 96% of the population. That’s anything but “equality.”

Religious Freedom: If any group is being discriminated against in corporate America, it is Christians and other conservatives who are hiding under their desks for fear of being outed, excluded, and shamed by the “inclusion and diversity” police. Are their First Amendment rights now nullified? How about Christian, Muslim, and Jewish schools: are they now forced to hire teachers and administrators who contradict their natural law and scriptural views of proper sexual behavior? Will religious people now need special permission from the Supreme Court to live as if there are two genders created for one another?

Judge Gorsuch says those questions are for another case. Given his faulty reasoning skills and legislative impulses, in this case, I’m not optimistic he’ll respect reason or the Constitution the next time either.

The COVID-19 War

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Dr. Dan Eichenberger

The United States incurred an unprovoked attack, and the enemy (COVID-19) has inflicted casualties. The President declared war and already invoked the Defense Production Act, essentially forcing private companies into the production of what the government demands. Since the war has been declared, the expectation is there will be casualties, both of those on the front lines and the innocent. No realistic individual can believe wars come without lives lost. Yet the war strategy is marred with ill-defined goals and no clearly defined end-game. The strategists of this war appear to be politicians, epidemiologists, scientists, and actuaries. The President declared war; however, he is not relying on the general principles of warfare necessary to win. Wars are never won by near-complete withdraw and a shutdown of a country’s economy, limiting the financial strength to continue the fight. History confirms that withdraw comes with consequences usually in favor of the victor.

The way to defeat this enemy is through immunity. The two methods for immunity are active immunity and passive immunity, both helpful in promoting herd immunity. Passive immunity through immunizations is likely months away, and this war cannot wait for its development. Active immunization must occur and will only happen through the exposure of the disease and supporting the individual until resolution. The quicker herd immunity occurs, the fewer hosts/victims will be available for infectivity. This war, as all wars in the past, can and will be won on the backs of the fighters. There will be losses, and there will be sacrifices. However, the longer we wait to truly enter the battlefield, the more untoward consequences our passivity will create. We are held hostage by bureaucrats and activists who intend to utilize this crisis for their underlying agendas. We are already losing liberties with our first and second amendments in many states by government fiat. We are social shaming and virtue-signaling across all social media platforms as well as mainstream media. We are federalizing more financial agencies to redistribute wealth and socialize more of our free-market.

The economic devastation of shutting down a vast amount of the country increases financial devastation for the most vulnerable in our country. The realities of this include increase in bankruptcies, businesses shutdowns, unemployment numbers skyrocketing, increases in domestic violence, increases in suicides, considerable increases in homelessness, leading to less access to adequate nutrition and healthcare. When forced to choose between paying rent, buying food for a family, or paying for medicine or healthcare, most individuals choose to rent and food and forego the healthcare needs. This leads to increased morbidity and mortality down the road. The 2008 recession provided ample support of these conclusions, including the British Medical Journal (BMJ 2013;347:f5239, https://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f5239 ) attributing 10,000 suicide deaths to the economic recession.

The media portrays this war in a biased fashion utilizing data and statistics which support their narrative and promote their underlying agenda. They routinely use numbers and metrics in absolute terms without providing a reference to a standard population base or another comparable metric. They regularly state the worst-case scenarios rather than the more conservative numbers and rarely, if ever, report the underlying bias, assumptions, or deficiencies of the modeling. A perfect example of this is hospital beds and ventilators. The only scenario in which the United States wouldn’t have enough ventilators or beds is if COVID-19 infected everyone at virtually the same time across the country, which is unrealistic and virtually impossible.

This war is mostly a logistics problem. We will continue to see hotspots (battles) around the country, and the biggest challenge is getting the right people, the right equipment, in the right amounts to the right place at the right time. The majority of patients, other than the critically ill, are no more challenging to treat than other patients. The limiting factor in treating these patients is the time, energy, and additional supplies required every time you walk in the room. This is the limiting factor and is a logistic problem more than anything else. Many hospitals are furloughing employees because their censuses are so low. We are still learning about the disease in the critically ill and making some inroads; however, many of these critically ill patients will die no matter what medical advances are made. This is not only the nature of war; it is the natural consequence of life.

This war needs to be managed differently; otherwise, the long-term effects will be worse than the current disease. The economy needs to be selectively reopened immediately based on a risk analysis for each company. The legislatures need to restrict and/or limit any litigation related to a private company wishing to reopen. Individuals need to take personal responsibility related to their individual actions. Society needs to assist in protecting the most vulnerable, which includes the elderly and infirmed. We need to recognize and acknowledge there will continue to be hotspots around the country, and we will continue to see deaths. Every community needs to have strategies and plans in place to logistically and effectively manage each new battle.

Herd immunity is the solution to win the war. The sooner war strategies are implemented to reach this goal, the sooner we win.

The Redefinition of Love—Resulting From the Loss of Truth

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Rich Hoyer

Most people agree that we should love one another. But what does it mean to love others?

Love can’t mean what our culture says it means. It can’t be untethered from a transcendent moral standard (i.e., God’s word and natural Law) and left to be defined subjectively by our feelings, to be molded and fashioned into whatever shape current societal trends bend it. The average person in the US today is a Popular Secularist[1] and has accepted the Popular Secularist definition of love. When most people speak of love today, to speak of “loving others” means something like, “I want you to have whatever you want; to exist in whatever state you think will make you happy.” Love is now defined in terms of the core Popular Secularist values of comfort and happiness rather than by the traditional values of goodness and truth. Thus, in today’s culture, to be unloving or hateful is to stand in the way of a lifestyle choice of another which that person thinks will bring him happiness and satisfaction, even to tell someone that what they want is “wrong” in some way and to suggest that they should deny themselves of certain wants and desires. That’s what it means to be “unloving” in our Popular Secularist culture today.

When the concept of knowable moral Truth (a standard of right/wrong and good/evil which originates from beyond mankind and beyond societal opinion) is rejected by a culture, there is nothing by which to authoritatively measure our wants and desires. It becomes impossible to say, “My desire for this person is wrong,” or “My desire to do this is bad for me and for society.” All that is left is for people and society to voice their opinions. Yet, many in our society don’t act like their definition of love is opinion. Some even seek to impose their opinion on those who disagree with the dominant societal view even though there is no solid philosophical foundation to justify such action. Society is still left to talk about concepts like love, but the traditional definition of love which joins love tightly to Truth is lost.

Thus, love becomes like a boat that is untethered from its moorings, left to drift here and thereby the wind and waves of societal fads.

Yet love and Truth go hand-in-hand. Without Truth, that which is claimed to be love is a counterfeit—much like what happens when a person mistakes infatuation for love. Love for another must include a desire for that which is good in the life of the other. More specifically, to love someone is to work to bring about that which is good in the life of another. Yet the only way to measure “the good” is to have a standard that originates from a source beyond society’s opinion by which we can examine the choices put forward. Thankfully, we do have a true measuring stick to measure the good in the form of God’s revelation given to us through the Bible and through natural Law.

Christians should know what love is and what it looks like. We shouldn’t be deceived into accepting the cultural definition of love that is grounded in feelings rather than Truth. In fact, we can learn a lot about love simply by looking at the assumptions at play in the conversation when Jesus answered a Pharisee’s question in Matthew 22:36, “What is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus’ answer is found in verse 37-40:

Matthew 22:37-40 (NIV)
³⁷ Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’
³⁸ This is the first and greatest commandment.
³⁹ And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
⁴⁰ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Jesus said that to love God and to love others as yourself are the greatest commandments, the highest responsibility of man. It’s at this point that the Popular Secularist might agree to say, “Yes, LOVE is the greatest value! See, even Jesus said so. You Christians should be more loving of people. You should affirm them and not criticize their lifestyle choices and beliefs just because they are different than yours.” Sadly, we are seeing more and more Christians affirming immoral lifestyle choices in the name of being more inclusive, affirming, and loving—even in the spirit of the Love of Christ Himself!

Yet those who adopt such a stance fail to consider the context as well as WHAT WAS ASSUMED by the Pharisee’s question and by Jesus’ answer. Both assumed that moral truth CAN BE KNOWN. Both were basing their definition of love, not on subjective feelings, but on the clear revelation of moral Truth originating from God Himself. After all, the question was, “What is the greatest commandment in the Law?” We must ask the question, “To which Law are they both referring?” The answer, of course, is the Law that was given by God to the people of Israel! And from where did that Law originate? From God! In other words, if you want to love God and love others, you must do the things detailed in God’s Law given to Israel.[2] As Jesus said in verse 40, “All of God’s law is designed to help you love God and love others” (my paraphrase). This is not a subjective concept of love, but one that is based on the clear ability to access and to know God’s revelation to man. In short to love God and to love man is to obey the Law of God.

That very revelation to man is what the now dominant Popular Secularist worldview denies. According to Popular Secularism, God may or may not exist, but we certainly can’t definitively say “who” God is, much less what God wants. Thus, the concept of love is left to float about and be defined by whatever wind and wave of doctrine the current version of society pushes. Love becomes like a boat detached from its moorings floating aimlessly this way and that.

While it may not surprise us when non-Christians such as Popular Secularists adopt this viewpoint, it should surprise us when professing Christians adopt this viewpoint. It is partially because many Christians don’t know the Scriptures because they don’t read the Bible, that they are easily led astray by this “wind and wave” of false doctrine that is born from the Popular Secularist worldview. Some professing Christians, I would dare say, are really Popular Secularists at heart even though they profess to believe in Jesus. Their actions and attitudes, just like those of everyone else, flow out of their deepest convictions, which align more closely to the culture at large rather than Christianity.

Yet as Christians, if we truly are Christians, we must accept the teachings of the Bible, the words of Jesus Christ Himself, rather than the convictions of our current culture. We must measure everything we see and hear by the measuring stick of God’s revelation to us. If we fail to do so, we will not be transformed into the image of Christ and will instead conform to false notions of all sorts of things—including distortions of fundamental concepts, even love.

Notes

[1] Popular Secularism is the dominant worldview in the West today. Popular Secularism holds the following assumptions about reality:

God may or may not exist.
1. If God does exist, no one knows which God is true.
2. No one can rightly say one religion is right and another wrong.
3. To make such claims is intolerant.
As such, no one can claim to know what God wants mankind to do to the exclusion of the claims of others.
1. Thus no religious book (the Bible, the Koran, etc…) can rightly claim to be the word of God.
2. Each book carries the same weight, but less weight than the wisdom of elite educational progressive knowledge today.
Morality is probably real but has more to do with the survival of society rather than the pleasure of God.
1. It’s undeniable that “evil” is real.
2. Yet since we don’t know if God is real or who he is, no one can rightly say that someone’s actions are objectively wrong unless the majority of society agrees.
3. Thus, morality is a construction of society rather than a product of God’s revelation to us.
Comfort and happiness are the highest human considerations.
1. Humans should work to make sure that everyone is comfortable and happy.
2. Anything that denies comfort and happiness should be avoided and possibly forbidden.
Economic considerations should always be held in higher regard than religious claims.
1. Public policy/laws should be decided by considering whether something will provide more money for society rather than based upon “religious” claims about morality.
2. As a contemporary example: If legalized gaming with bring added revenue to a city to alleviate budget shortages, that knowledge should be considered more important than religious claims that added gambling opportunities are not “good” for society.
3. “The good” is defined in economic, sexual, and environmental terms.
(Near) total sexual freedom is something to which everyone is entitled.
1. Homosexuality, Transgenderism, sex outside of marriage, are all legitimate lifestyle choices as people should have the right to do what they want.
2. Only those sexual activities that “harm” others are wrong.
3. A growing number of Popular Secularists believe that each person should be entitled to freedom from being offended, including silencing dissenting voices.
Ignorance and the abuse caused by “the rich” are mankind’s two main problems.
1. If we educate people, many of the world’s evils and inequities will disappear.
2. Governments also need to pursue income redistribution to bring about economic justice.
3. If all would cooperate, we could usher in near utopian conditions, and life would improve for everyone.
No one knows what happens when we die.
1. If there is no God, there is no Judgment Day to worry about.
2. On the other hand, some believe that just about everyone goes to heaven.
3. In the minds of those, only the really bad people go to hell, if there is such a place.

[2] Today, one must not immediately institute all the Old Testament laws willy-nilly. One must recognize that God’s revelation is progressive in nature. The Moral Code is repeated in the New Testament and is still valid, while the Ceremonial and Civil laws are obsolete, having been fulfilled by Christ.

Secularism, COVID-19, & the “Non-Essential” Church

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Rich Hoyer

Many have asked the question, “Why are churches considered ‘non-essential’ during the Coronavirus shutdown and places like restaurants considered ‘essential’? Why are churches closed while grocery stores and restaurants remain open (at least for carry-out orders)?” The insinuation is NOT that food isn’t necessary, but the focus of the inquiry is on why churches are not considered ‘essential.’ After all, if social distancing is practiced in the church building and if surfaces are sanitized, how is being around people in a church building any different than being around a few hundred people in the Walmart or Meijer or the grocery store (especially since most church gatherings in the US number 100 people or less)?

Part of the answer lies in worldview analysis. Everyone, whether a person realizes it or not, has a worldview. Everyone thinks with their worldview. And our worldview assumptions drive the decisions we make. For instance, if we believe that God is real, knowable, and cares for mankind, we will pray to God because our basic worldview assumption tells us that God hears our prayers. If, on the other hand, we don’t believe that God is real, knowable, or caring, then we won’t pray because we would consider doing so a waste of time. It’s my assertion that the average person in the US holds to a worldview that I call “Popular Secularism.”[i] Popular Secularism (PS) is a softer version of classic Secular Humanism (SH). SH flatly denies God’s existence. It also explicitly denies any spiritual realm beyond the physical, material world. PS, on the other hand, allows for a person to believe in whatever spiritual realm and religious view that he/she chooses. God may or may not exist. PS, however, considers spiritual concerns as being less important than physical, material concerns. Thus, a person can believe whatever he wants with regards to spiritual things. But PS treats a person’s spiritual beliefs like a parent views a child’s fairy tale. These are nice things to believe, but when its time to get serious, there is little-to-no room for certain spiritual practices.

Thus, enter the current discussion about why church gatherings are deemed “non-essential” while restaurants and other retail businesses are deemed “essential.” Because the average person in the US is a Popular Secularist, and because our politicians are elected from the general populace, we see Popular Secularists making the decisions for our country. And since PS views spiritual concerns as less important than physical and material concerns, church gatherings are deemed “non-essential” while food concerns are deemed essential.

Someone might object, “It makes sense to limit gatherings of people to protect the populace from getting sick.” Yes, but the question raised is this: If the populace is already gathering together (several hundred at a time) once or twice a week at the grocery store, how is the church gathering together once a week any different? The answer from the Popular Secularist might be that “people need to eat but they don’t need to go to church?” Here, though, we see the Popular Secularist reasoning from his worldview, which considers spiritual things less important than physical and material concerns. Again, the point of making this statement is not to say that I don’t think food is essential; it’s to point out WHY church gatherings are officially considered “non-essential.” PS considers spiritual things less important than the material.

When the dominant worldview of culture says, “This world is all that we can be sure exists,” of course, those who think with that worldview will prioritize this life, the here and now. PS reasons, “This life is all there is. We need to make sure that we extend it as long as possible.” While the Biblical Christian worldview says, “Life is a gift from God. We will take precautions to stay healthy and to help others stay healthy. But gathering as a church is just as important as going to the grocery store because spiritual things are just as important as the physical. And we are confident that eternity with God is far greater than life here and now.” As the Apostle Paul said, “To live is Christ; to die is gain.”

Notes

[i] [i] Popular Secularism is the dominant worldview in the West today. Popular Secularism holds the following assumptions about reality:

God may or may not exist.
1. If God does exist, no one knows which god is true.
2. No one can rightly say one religion is right and another wrong.
3. To make such claims is intolerant.
As such, no one can claim to know what God wants mankind to do to the exclusion of the claims of others.
1. Thus no religious book (the Bible, the Koran, etc…) can rightly claim to be the word of God.
2. Each book carries the same weight, but less weight than the wisdom of elite educational progressive knowledge today.
Morality is probably real but has more to do with the survival of society rather than the pleasure of God.
1. It’s undeniable that “evil” is real.
2. Yet since we don’t know if God is real or who he is, no one can rightly say that someone’s actions are objectively wrong unless the majority of society agrees.
3. Thus, morality is a construction of society rather than a product of God’s revelation to us.
Comfort and happiness are the highest human considerations.
1. Humans should work to make sure that everyone is comfortable and happy.
2. Anything that denies comfort and happiness should be avoided and possibly forbidden.
Economic considerations should always be held in higher regard than religious claims.
1. Public policy/laws should be decided by considering whether something will provide more money for society rather than based upon “religious” claims about morality.
2. As a contemporary example: If legalized gaming with brings added revenue to a city to alleviate budget shortages, that knowledge should be considered more important than religious claims that added gambling opportunities are not “good” for society.
3. “The good” is defined in economic, sexual, and environmental terms.
(Near) total sexual freedom is something to which everyone is entitled.
1. Homosexuality, Transgenderism, sex outside of marriage, are all legitimate lifestyle choices as people should have the right to do what they want.
2. Only those sexual activities that “harm” others are wrong.
3. A growing number of Popular Secularists believe that each person should be entitled to freedom from being offended, including silencing dissenting voices.
Ignorance and the abuse caused by “the rich” are mankind’s two main problems.
1. If we educate people, many of the world’s evils and inequities will disappear.
2. Governments also need to pursue income redistribution to bring about economic justice.
3. If all would cooperate, we could usher in near utopian conditions, and life would improve for everyone.
No one knows what happens when we die.
1. If there is no God, there is no Judgment Day to worry about.
2. On the other hand, some believe that just about everyone goes to heaven.
3. In the minds of those, only the really bad people go to hell, if there is such a place.

The Separation Doctrine Between Church And State

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Jason Jiménez

In 1830, upon arriving to North America from France, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, “The religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things. In France, I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America, I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country.”[1] The Constitution of North Carolina (1776) proclaims: “…all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.”[2]

It is astonishing to think that despite all the evidence indicating our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian truths, America continues to reject the obvious. Many of the secular advancements to replace religious discussion from the public square come from employing “separation of church and state” and the First Amendment as legal principles penned by Jefferson. Secularists (non-religious) want us to believe that Jefferson allegedly supported the idea that there was no place for any religious reference among the citizenry and that religious disturbance was not to be tolerated in the public affairs of life. They incite these false views and misrepresentation of the facts because they want us to buy into the lie that America has always been a secular nation. However, contrary to popular belief, what we actually find in history is quite a different story regarding Jefferson’s viewpoints and the role Christianity played in shaping America. With historical objectivity as our guide, let us settle the truth about the “separation of church and state” once and for all.

Who Phrased the Infamous Phrase?

In reference to the phrase “a wall of separation between church and state,” we can indeed attribute that to Thomas Jefferson. However, we must do so in the proper context. Jefferson was not the originator of this phrase, but it was actually used as a famous metaphor by ministers in England in the 1500s, and eventually in America in the 1600s. After periods of state control and corruption of religion, an early Methodist bishop by the name of Charles Galloway insisted that there ought not to be any intrusion of governmental matters with ecclesiastical ones. Rev. Richard Hooker was actually the first to use the phrase, “separation of…Church and Commonwealth” under the reign of King Henry VIII of England. (The phrase “separation of church and state” originated from the Pilgrims’ religious flight from England under the ecclesiastical supremacy of Queen Elizabeth). The Pilgrims fled to Holland and eventually settled in America where they stressed that the government had no right to “compel religion, to plant churches by power, and to force a submission to the ecclesiastical government by laws and penalties.”[3]

Therefore, the purpose of separation was always to protect the church from interference by the government – not to protect the government from the church.

What Did Our Founders Believe?

The First Amendment is essentially divided up into two clauses. The first being the Establishment Clause: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion;” and the second being the Free Exercise Clause: “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.”

But what exactly is the intended meaning of words like “establishment,” “religion,” “prohibit,” and “free exercise?”

Well, the Framers made it abundantly clear from the start that Congress, not individual states, is limited in its capacity to establish, exercise, and even disestablish a state-run religion. Additionally, the Establishment Clause is the one that prohibits Congress from having jurisdiction or enforcement over the religious freedoms expressed in public life, and, it is the Free Exercise Clause that allows the state (i.e., Congress) to protect these religious freedoms and expressions. Historically speaking, the view of that day was that the Church (religion) and State (government) were two separate spheres but with adjoined purposes.

Government was to protect the civility for the people. Religion was to enhance the morality and vitality of the people.

On July 13, 1787, the Continental Congress enacted the Northwest Ordinance, and in it they prodigiously professed: “Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged.”[4]Those in attendance included George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin. These men are considered the most prominent figures in the development of the U. S. Constitution and the ratification of the Bill of Rights. George Washington was not only the President of the Convention which created the U.S. Constitution, but he was also the President of the United States who pushed for the creation of the Bill of Rights to enhance the principles and protections of the liberties expressed in the U.S. Constitution. We find no mentioning of a privatized faith of any sort in Washington’s writings or addresses to the American people.

What Did Jefferson Believe?

It’s important to point out that though Jefferson was the architect of the Declaration of Independence, he was not a framer of the U.S. Constitution.[5] Jefferson was in France (acting as Ambassador) at the time of the writing of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. On June 19, 1802, Jefferson wrote a letter in response to an article he had received from Dr. Joseph Priestly who accredited the success of the U.S. Constitution to him. Jefferson wrote:

One passage in the paper you enclosed me must be corrected. It is the following, ‘And all say it was yourself more than any other individual, that planned and established it,’ i. e., the Constitution. I was in Europe when the Constitution was planned, and never saw it till after it was established.[6]

Upon Jefferson becoming President in 1801, many Baptists were strong supporters of his Anti-Federalist positions and sought counsel from the President. They did so based upon the reading of the Kentucky Resolution of 1798 whereby Jefferson declared his beliefs of interpreting the U.S. Constitution:

That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitutions, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, our prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”; and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed….[7]

According to this and other public remarks by Jefferson, the Danbury Baptists knew the President opposed governmental control and interference in religious matters of the church. In October 7, 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut wrote to President Jefferson about their concern that religious liberty is a God-given right, not a privilege granted by the government. They realized that if the government granted such religious freedoms to the people, then that would mean that it could, at any given time, remove them. In response to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson replied on January 1, 1802:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties [emphasis mine].[8]

On subsequent occasions, Jefferson articulated this same position to others as he did to the Danbury Baptists. Jefferson wrote, “I consider the government of the U.S. as interdicted by the constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U.S.”[9] John Adams agreed with Jefferson, stating, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”[10]

Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists were simply addressing the dangers of the government’s marginalizing religious freedoms, not the other way around. Once again, it is perfectly clear that the separation doctrine was a campaign of the church to remove government oversight, not the government trying to remove the Church from public life.

When Did It Become Misinterpreted?

In 1878 the U.S. Supreme Court used Jefferson’s “separation” metaphor as part and parcel to the ruling that it is the government’s duty to protect rather than limit the free exercise of religious preference. In fact, the Court took it a step further by invoking Jefferson’s famous Virginia Act of Religious Freedom of 1786 in order to point out a few exceptions whereupon the government does have authority to intervene on religious matters. David Barton interprets the Court’s ruling of Jefferson’s statute as such,

That Court (and others) then identified a handful of actions that, if perpetrated in the name of religion, the government did have legitimate reason to limit, including bigamy, concubinage, incest, child sacrifice, infanticide, parricide, and other similar crimes. But the government was not to impede traditional religious expressions in public, such as public prayer, public display of religious symbols, public use of Scriptures, acknowledgement of God in public events, and so on. In short, the separation of Church and State existed not to remove or secularize the free exercise of religion but rather to preserve and protect it, regardless of whether it was exercised in private or public life.[11]

Thus, according to the Founders, religion played a virtuous role in shaping the values of a nation governed by the moral character of the people and for the people.

And yet in a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1947, the High Court declared that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment not only applied to the imposed limitations of the federal government, but to States as well. Justice Black openly declared, “In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’”[12]

Over a century and a half later, the U.S. Supreme Court seized Jefferson’s phrase “wall of separation” and applied an anti-religious interpretation to the First Amendment. It was no longer a safeguard from intrusion or obstruction on the part of Congress, but now a flipped version that merged the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment with the due process law of the Fourteenth Amendment that fundamentally changed the course of religion in public life. Since the pronouncement by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1947, almost every case addressing religious and public separation cite Jefferson as the architect of both the First Amendment and the law of “separation of church and state.”

However, as already shown, this is not only a fabrication of American history, but it’s also a poor rendering of the First Amendment. Spalding clarifies, “What this reconciliation of religion and politics did not mean is equally important, and crucial to understanding the meaning and significance of religious liberty: This official separation of church doctrine and the new federal government never meant—was never intended to imply—the separation of religion and politics, or the expunging of religion from public life.”[13] That’s precisely why former Chief Justice, William Rehnquist (served 1986-2005), admittedly observed, “The metaphor of a wall of separation is bad history and worse law. It has made a positive chaos out of court rulings. It should be explicitly abandoned.”[14]

Based on the examination of the origin and historical meaning of the separation doctrine, it’s obvious that it has always been the government that has jumped the “wall of separation” and not the Church. But because of the mishandling of our Founders’ religious (mainly Christian) viewpoints, particularly those of Jefferson, and robbing the government of its proper role to protect religion in public life, secularism has altered the course of American history. As a result, secularism has been widely successful in removing God, redefining truth, and is well on its way to replacing Christianity.

Notes

[1] ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE, HENRY REEVE, AND JOHN C. SPENCER, DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA (NEW YORK: ALLARD AND SAUNDERS, 1838), 319.

[2] “NORTH CAROLINA CONSTITUTION OF 1776,” BELIEFNET, HTTP://WWW.BELIEFNET.COM/RESOURCELIB/DOCS/169/NORTH_CAROLINA_CONSTITUTION_OF_1776_1.HTML.

[3] DAVID BARTON, THE JEFFERSON LIES: EXPOSING THE MYTHS YOU ALWAYS BELIEVED ABOUT THOMAS JEFFERSON (NASHVILLE: THOMAS NELSON, 2012), 120.

[4] “THE NORTHWEST ORDINANCE, ARTICLE III,” NORTHWEST ORDINANCE, HTTP://WWW.NORTHWESTORDINANCE.ORG/.

[5] JEFFERSON WAS NOT THE ARCHITECT OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT (READ THE LETTER TO MADISON ON DECEMBER 20, 1787), AND HIS LETTER USING THE PHRASE “WALL OF SEPARATION” WAS WRITTEN OVER TEN YEARS AFTER THE FIRST AMENDMENT WAS RATIFIED!

[6] H. A. WASHINGTON, THE WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON: BEING HIS AUTOBIOGRAPHY, CORRESPONDENCE, REPORTS, MESSAGES, ADDRESSES, AND OTHER WRITINGS, OFFICIAL AND PRIVATE, PUB. BY THE ORDER OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS ON THE LIBRARY, FROM THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS, DEPOSITED IN THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE (WASHINGTON, D.C.: TAYLOR & MAURY, 1853), 441.

[7] “THE KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS OF 1798,” CONSTITUTION SOCIETY, LAST UPDATED NOVEMBER 4, 2011, HTTP://WWW.CONSTITUTION.ORG/CONS/KENT1798.HTM.

[8] “AMENDMENT I (RELIGION), DOCUMENT 58, THOMAS JEFFERSON TO DANBURY BAPTIST ASSOCIATION,” THE FOUNDER’S CONSTITUTION, HTTP://WWW.PRESSPUBS.UCHICAGO.EDU/FOUNDERS/DOCUMENTS/AMENDI_RELIGIONS58.HTML.

[9] “AMENDMENT I (RELIGION), DOCUMENT 60, THOMAS JEFFERSON TO REV. SAMUEL MILLER,” THE FOUNDER’S CONSTITUTION, HTTP://WWW.PRESS-PUBS.UCHICAGO.EDU/FOUNDERS/DOCUMENTS/AMENDI_RELIGIONS60.HTML.

[10] “MESSAGE FROM JOHN ADAMS TO THE OFFICERS OF THE FIRST BRIGADE OF THE THIRD DIVISION OF THE MILITIA OF MASSACHUSETTS,” BELIEFNET, HTTP://WWW.BELIEFNET.COM/RESOURCELIB/DOCS/115/MESSAGE_FROM_JOHN_ADAMS_TO_THE_OFFICERS_OF_THE_FIRST_BRIGADE_1.HTML.

[11] BARTON, THE JEFFERSON LIES, 126-127.

[12] “MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION – 333 U.S. 203 (1948),” JUSTIA US SUPREME COURT CENTER, HTTP://WWW.SUPREME.JUSTIA.COM/CASES/FEDERAL/US/333/203/CASE.HTML.

[13] MATTHEW SPAULDING, WE STILL HOLD THESE TRUTHS: REDISCOVERING OUR PRINCIPLES, RECLAIMING OUR FUTURE (WILMINGTON, DE: ISI BOOKS, 2009), 56.

[14] “REHNQUIST’S DISSENT IN WALLACE V JAFFREE (1985),” BELCHER FOUNDATION, HTTP://WWW.BELCHERFOUNDATION.ORG/WALLACE_V_JAFFREE_DISSENT.HTM.

Why Religious Freedom Should Matter to Absolutely Everyone

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Mikel Del Rosario

Religious Freedom in a Pluralistic Society

Why should religious freedom matter to everyone? Because the value we put on religious liberty shows how much we really care about freedom. If you’re going to be able to work for the common good—with people from all sorts of backgrounds—the law has got to protect your freedom to live by your convictions.

But what is religious freedom? Religious freedom is a civil right that comes from God, not the government. Why should it matter even to people who aren’t religious? Because religious freedom upholds freedom of conscience for both religious and non-religious people.

What is Religious Freedom?

Religious freedom is a civil right that doesn’t ultimately come from the government. The founders of our nation knew this. All they did was recognize the rights God already gave us. That’s why they wrote The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution–to protect our intrinsic rights from being infringed upon by the federal government.

Having religious freedom doesn’t just mean you have the right to believe certain religious claims are true. It also means having the freedom to live according to your convictions in everyday life–not just while you’re sitting in your house or in church. Our founders said no government had the right to take religious freedom away. That’s what the opening section of the Declaration of Independence is all about. The idea that God, not the government, grants us religious freedom is one of the key ideas our system of government was built on.

So, religious freedom means the right to both believe and act on our beliefs in society. But how does the law relate to the freedoms of our non-religious friends and neighbors?

Religious Freedom in a Pluralistic Society

To have a free society, we’ve got to have religious freedom—even in a diverse, pluralistic culture. Why? So people from all kinds of backgrounds can live out their beliefs in matters of conscience. This relates to freedom of speech too. If you’re gonna live in a free society, you’re gonna hear from people who disagree with you.

Look, if you’re an atheist, I’m not offended. Why should I be? Hopefully, you’re not offended by me being a Christian, either. Part of true tolerance is being able to have a respectful conversation about some of the most important things in life—even with people who disagree with us. But the law’s got to provide freedom of belief and expression for everyone. This is one reason the Freedom from Religion movement isn’t very helpful in a pluralistic society. I like how Kelly Shackelford, president, and CEO of First Liberty Institute, put it on the Table Podcast:

There’s no freedom from religion if there’s freedom of religion. There’s no freedom from speech if there’s freedom of speech.

When you live a free society, you hear things that you disagree with. That’s OK. People have a right to say things you disagree with. But that includes religious things you disagree with. Freedom of religion means you don’t have some right to be free from hearing about someone else’s religion. It’s gonna happen in a free society where you have the exchange of ideas.

This is why a law forcing someone to take down a nativity scene on their own property doesn’t help society—it’s the government exercising an unjust power over conscience.

Why Religious Freedom Should Matter to Everyone

I like how Shackelford responds to a common argument for removing religious things from public life and explains why everyone should care about religious freedom:

[Many people] the use of the term which, of course, is not in the Constitution, “separation of church and state.” But then they read that in a bizarre way, to mean that everywhere the government is, religion can’t be there. Well, the government’s everywhere. So what that would essentially mean is, religion goes into the corners of society, and religious expression [too]…

Some people want religious freedom to mean, “You have the right to your religion in your church, in your synagogue, and in your home, and that’s it.”They think the country would be better if religion was removed from public society [but] if these folks ever got what they really wanted, what they’d really have is the government having power over people’s conscience: Freedom from religion.

If the government could tell us that we [could not] talk about religion in public, we [would have] given incredible power to the government over the marketplace of ideas, and people’s conscience and expression…for the atheist, they lose freedom, too…so, we really all should be for full, vibrant religious freedom–for those of faith–and those who don’t have faith at all.

As Christians, we don’t need an unfair advantage. All we need is freedom to speak the truth…You think especially [of] some of the Muslim countries where there’s just a complete meshing of government and religion. And certainly there’s not religious freedom in those places.

That’s a very different idea from ours and…what they do when they infuse [religion] with the government is they take away people’s freedoms. I think the Judeo-Christian [worldview] that believes your faith is between you and God, is what’s behind giving freedom to everybody, no matter what their faith is, or even if they have no faith at all.

Religious Freedom and Freedom of Conscience

Maybe the best way to help our skeptical friends think about this is to frame the conversation in terms of freedom of conscience. Religious freedom is a part of that. Thinking about it like this, no one should feel threatened. At least that’s the way I see it.

In the end, religious freedom is so important to a diverse, pluralistic culture because both religious and non-religious people must be free to live out their beliefs in matters of conscience. A country where you can only say things that support the position of the government or a majority perspective is no free country at all. And that is why religious freedom should matter to absolutely everybody.

The value our society puts on religious freedom tells us a lot about how we see freedom in general. In a diverse, pluralistic society, we must value conscience rights if we’re going to maintain a free society where people of different faiths and no faith can still work together for the common good.

Are Pro-Lifers Who Own Guns Hypocrites?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Nathan Apodaca

Another assertion has become commonplace in discussions of abortion. Pro-lifers who own firearms, or support military actions abroad are misled at best, and at worst, hypocrites. The critic assumes that any inconsistently held pro-life beliefs are evidence pro-lifers aren’t actually motivated by a desire to protect human life, but rather a desire to control women’s liberty. This line of criticism lacks substance and misunderstands both the essential pro-life position as well as why people support gun rights or particular military actions.

Suppose for a moment it’s true that the vast majority of pro-lifers are hypocritical in how they hold their views on protecting life across various issues. Would that supposition invalidate the pro-life position as a whole? The essential pro-life argument is as follows:

It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings
Elective Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings
Therefore, elective abortion is wrong.

If the premises are true (and there’s good reason to believe they are) and the conclusion logically follows, then the argument is sound. Would a subset of the pro-life community being hypocrites demonstrate that either premise is untrue? Of course not. Neither the wrongness of killing innocent human beings nor the nature of abortion and its victims are in any way impacted by whether some pro-life advocates behave inconsistently toward life in regards to the views they champion.

In fact, this is little more than a personal attack. It’s highly unlikely that if the moral consistency of particular pro-lifers changed overnight, these critics would then drop their support for abortion. It’s a smokescreen, an attempt to poison the well of the pro-life cause, not an actual rebuttal of the above argument.

Guns Protect Life

That being said, the claim that supporting gun rights or military service is inconsistent with the pro-life view is mistaken. As philosopher Tim Hsaio points out, self-defense is an extension of the right to life, intrinsic to all human beings. Since all human beings have the natural (intrinsic or God-given) right to life, then it is perfectly just for human beings to take steps to prevent themselves from being victimized by those with an evil intent. Writes Hsaio,

“Now since the purpose of a right is to protect my well-being, the possession of a right entitles me to protect that which I have a right to. Thus, if I possess the right to life, then I must also possess the corresponding right to secure or protect my life. I must, in other words, possess the right to self-defense. The right to self-defense follows immediately from the right to life—in fact, the right to self-defense is an integral part of the right to life itself. It is what gives substance to the right to life.”[1]

Remember, the reason abortion is wrong is because it intentionally kills an innocent human being. The vast majority of Americans who purchase firearms do not do so for the purpose of going out and intentionally killing innocent human beings, but for self-defense purposes or for protecting friends and family from those with wicked intentions.

What About Military Service?

Military action is a bit more complicated but still serves as a further extension of this principle. Being a service-member myself (Going on six years as a Cavalry Scout in the Army National Guard) I have received the question on numerous occasions, why do I oppose abortion if I am engaged in a line of work where my job is predicated upon the taking of human life?

The question ultimately relies on a confusion of moral principles. Remember, pro-lifers oppose elective abortion because it intentionally takes the life of innocent human beings. We could be mistaken in that claim, but that doesn’t necessarily make us inconsistent if we support or serve in the Armed Forces. It’s impossible to find a valid comparison between an ISIS fighter or a Nazi executioner and an unborn child. It’s not even worth pondering.

The ethics of warfare are complex and involve a great amount of moral ambiguity, but at their core are the same basic principles which underlie both the pro-life position and self-defense. Just as a toddler cannot adequately exercise the ability to defend their life or well-being, and therefore needs an adult (such as a parent) to fill this role, governments must protect the lives of citizens against immoral aggressors such as foreign states and terror groups. This is why we have police, intelligence services, and the military provided by civil government.

Debates over the ethics of contemporary military actions abroad usually come down to finer details about how to effectively engage enemy combatants and achieve victory with minimal loss of innocent life. While a military commander may foresee the loss of life on the battlefield, this in no way makes a conflict inherently immoral, provided steps are taken to mitigate the loss of life without compromising the overall mission. For instance, the introduction of laser-guided weaponry, thermal imaging, communications, and better surveillance/reconnaissance equipment has been a major boon towards limiting the risk to civilians(and friendly forces) caught in the crossfire of a battle.[2]

Even when an attack or war is being fought for justified reasons, the loss of innocent human life can sometimes be unavoidable. For instance, during the D-Day landings in Normandy, due to uncontrollable circumstances such as bad weather, enemy anti-aircraft fire, and other factors, Allied bombers often overshot their objectives and accidentally bombed civilian centers as well as Allied fighting positions.[3][4] While undoubtedly tragic, few would argue that the invasion would have been inherently unjust unless no civilian lives were lost. In war, a variety of unseen and unavoidable variables can pop-up in an instant and impact battlefield decision making. The advent of modern military technologies helps, but similar problems can still impact the battlespace resulting in tragedy. Communications errors, equipment failures, bad intelligence, and unethical behavior on the part of soldiers sometimes tragically lead to unintended results in conflict. Fatigue and cynicism can also play a role. Decision making on the battlefield changes within split seconds while still being guided by the commander’s intent, which is guided by an overall strategy and “big picture” mission of friendly forces. All of these safeguards can’t prevent the occasional unethical and immoral behavior (human beings aren’t basically good), which is why a clearly defined Rules of Engagement (ROE for shorthand) and Uniform Code of Military Justice are essential for a morally upright military. In the circumstances where soldiers behave unethically or even wickedly towards non-combatants, the military justice system corrects and punishes bad behavior, while promoting and honoring good behavior on the parts of service-members. Leaders should model good behavior and combat bad behavior within the ranks. As retired Marine Corps General James Mattis poignantly puts it, people should know that they have no better friend and no worse enemy “than a United States Marine.” The same is true for the rest of the Armed Services.

As Army Major Pete Hegseth points out, by and large, it has been the United States military (with help from countless invaluable allies worldwide), which has promoted stability, justice, and peace at home and abroad by serving as a sort of world sheriff.[5] Perfect, no, but until a better alternative presents itself, those who love justice shouldn’t feel ashamed for supporting the United States military. As the noted British historian Andrew Roberts argues, when the United States military is weak, wicked men like Adolf Hitler are able to make growing threats to the lives of millions of marginalized people; however, when the American military is strong, even oppressive superpowers like the Soviet Union are forced to tread carefully.[6]

The decision to engage in conflict must be guided by sound moral principles, which includes considering the possible unintended consequences of one’s decision. Good intentions alone are not good enough.

Conclusion

In light of this, pro-lifers are not hypocritical to support either gun ownership or armed conflict provided both are guided by sound moral reasoning. Debates over both are a sign of healthy functioning social conscience.

However, the debate over abortion has nothing to do with what sort of human beings pro-lifers are; it has everything to do with whether the unborn are human, and will be granted recognition as fellow members of the human family. Debates over the Ethics of war, capital punishment, and gun ownership are ultimately irrelevant to the humanity of the unborn and the inhumanity of abortion.

Notes

[1] Hsiao, Tim “Natural Rights, Self-Defense, and the Right to Own Firearms,” The Public Discourse https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/10/42765/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_bomb

[3] United States Army, “Invasion of Normandy” https://history.army.mil/brochures/normandy/nor-pam.htm

[4] Beevor, Antony D-Day: The Battle for Normandy

[5] Maj. Hegseth, Peter “Who Should Win the Nobel Peace Prize?” PragerUniversity, Nov 11, 2019

[6] Roberts, Andrew “Why America’s Military Must Be Strong” PragerUniversity, May 26, 2014

Does The “Legacy of Slavery” Explain Black Women’s 72% Out-Of-Wedlock Birth Rate?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Wintery Knight

James White asks: does the Bible apply to black women?

I don’t like Calvinist theologian James White at all, but at least he’s willing to defend the moral teachings of the Bible against the woke identity politics that is taking over Christian churches. A few months ago, he tweeted something very controversial (see above), and got into a lot of hot water with fake Christians. In this post, I’ll explain why he is right.

So, as you can see above, James is concerned that black women are having so many abortions, and he thinks that the solution to this is to encourage black women to take the Bible’s advice on sexual morality. Shocking, I know.

If you read the replies to his tweet on Twitter, you’ll see millions and millions of comments calling him a racist, and telling him that slavery is to blame for EVERYTHING that black women do wrong. Basically, James haters say that black women can do anything they want and should never be told that it’s wrong according to the Bible because their bad choices are all the fault of slavery. So, the Bible doesn’t even apply to them, or something.

Here is an example from a radical feminist progressive named Karen Swallow Prior:

Karen Swallow Prior says that unlike whites, blacks have no moral agency

According to the fake Christians, it’s not that black women make poor choices with sex, it’s that the ghosts of white slavers who raped their great-great-great grandmothers reach through time with magic and force them to have sex with hunky bad boys who won’t commit to them before sex. It’s not rap music calling black women hoes! It’s the ghosts of slavery past. And even if this ghost theory isn’t true, we shouldn’t tell black women not to sin, because…it would hurt their feelings. After all, the Bible isn’t a book that’s designed to set boundaries to prevent self-destructive behaviors. It encourages us to listen to our hearts, be reckless, and sin as much as we can.

So, when did black community problems with sex and abortion start? Did it start with slavery times? Actually, blacks were doing GREAT at marriage and sexual matters just 50 years ago.

This reply to James White explained:

Blacks married at rates comparable to whites before the welfare

That’s true. Black children weren’t fatherless, so they weren’t having early sex outside of marriage, and so they weren’t getting abortions.

Children born to blacks were just as likely to be born in a married home as children born to whites, up until the 1960s:

Black women were more likely to be married before single mother welfare programs

(Source)

The reason that the graph is going upward is because daughters raised in fatherless homes tend to engage in sexual activity at younger ages because they are seeking approval from a man which their (single) mother cannot give them. It’s a tragic downwards spiral, and it affects all races. The only way to stop it is to tell women to choose marriage-minded men (not hot bad boys) and marry before having sex like the Bible says. But woke fake Christians think the Bible is too mean, and better to allow sin by saying that sin is inevitable because slavery ghosts or something.

What’s neat is that black men who take Christianity seriously are totally on board with the facts:

Black man here. Can confirm that the Bible applies to black women.

On this blog, I don’t talk about my ethnicity myself, for confidentiality reasons, but I have said that my skin is darker than Barack Obama. I’m not white or Asian. And the reason that I don’t fall into this trap of causing babies to be born out of wedlock is because I think that when the Bible says that sex outside of marriage is a sin, that this is true. I don’t make excuses or shift blame. It’s incumbent on me to obey since I claim to be a follower of Jesus. I’m not interested in identity politics. I’m not interested in racial divisions. I’m not interested in blame-shifting. The rules are the rules. And my following of the rules caused me to not cause abortions, according to Christian specifications. Period.

When it comes to sex outside of marriage, the answer of every Bible-believing Christian is simple: I’m against it. That is the correct answer, and anything more or less than this answer is demonic. If you are a Christian, sex outside of marriage is always morally wrong. And if you try to justify it, or blame someone else, in order to excuse it, then you’re not a Christian at all. If you try to make excuses for why someone did it, you’re not a Christian. Whether you have had it and been forgiven, or never had it, the answer is always the same: it’s morally wrong. Don’t do it. Never do it.

What I am seeing from people who are critical of James White’s tweet is that they are basically trying to attack those who make moral judgments based on what the Bible says. They want to make room for sinners to sin. The root of abortion sin is sexual sin. Real Christians discourage sexual sin and therefore protect unborn children. Fake Christians want to be liked by appearing compassionate, so they make excuses for sexual sin. If you take the Bible seriously on morality, you won’t be liked. Those who try to excuse sin do so because their need to be liked is more important than their need to promote what the Bible teaches.

Some fake Christians will say, “oh, but I do think the Bible is right about sex and marriage, but we have to care about slavery reparations and global warming and refugees and illegal immigrants and transgender rights, too.” Baloney. An authentic Christian is concerned about the things that the Bible teaches are “major” things. Drunkenness is a major thing. Sexual immorality is a major thing. Divorce is a major thing. Homosexuality is a major thing. If you meet a Christian who treats those issues as minor issues, and instead majors in what the secular left tells them are major issues, then you’re talking to a fake Christian.

Christianity isn’t a brain-dead faith. You get your priorities from the Bible, and you argue those priorities using facts. The facts about marriage rates are clear, and they show that the problems in the black community aren’t caused by slavery. They’re caused by single mother welfare programs. Those welfare programs taught women of all races that they didn’t have to listen to their fathers when choosing men. Those welfare programs taught women that feelings were a better guide in relationships than the Bible. Those welfare programs taught women that their eyes were a better judge of character than the performance of traditional marriage roles. Those welfare programs taught women that recreational sex was a way to get a man to commit and stop being a bad boy. We need to go back to the root cause of the problem. The root cause of the problem was making excuses for disobedience to the Bible and transferring money from married homes to out-of-control women. Of all races.

Why Do Christians Tend to Align With “Conservative” Economics?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

A while back, I saw an intriguing question on social media from a person who is in the middle of a worldview transition. This person is concerned about why so many Christians follow conservative economic theories and not more liberal ones. As I have thought about the question more and more, I have noticed not just a viable answer but also an apologetic opportunity in addressing this concern. Here is the question in the questioner’s own words and how I would respond:

The Question:

“I am going through a transition… From an atheist to someone who may not be Christian but does believe in a higher power.

My background is economics, and I am struggling with the fact that Christianity has aligned its self so heavily with the conservative party. I totally understand your aversion to abortion, but not the economic theory behind their chosen party.

Are there people here that don’t agree with the conservative economic theory, or is the abortion issue the main reason why you align with them?”

My Response:

Limited Government

I believe that the reason that most Christians align with conservative parties is because conservative parties tend to believe in a government that has limited power to legislate. All laws (including regulations that guide economics of a country) legislate morality. The more a government legislates morality, the further from a pluralistic society it promotes and starts to infringe upon differing moral views. Conservatives generally (*generally*) believe that the government should only legislate the basic morality that is “written on the hearts of all men” and should stay out of other matters. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek go into the details of this position in their book “Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible.”

Intrinsic Human Value and Economics

When a government is limited in this manner, it has less control (some is definitely necessary) over

economics and leaves that control with the people.

Today’s popular view of economics for liberals is based on the intrinsic value of humans (see my post “Do Humans Have Intrinsic Value?“) and pushes for all to have a comfortable and healthy life. Neither of those desires are wrong or evil. In fact, both are very good. The goodness of the foundation and intentions of the liberals’ view should not be overlooked, nor should they be ignored. They need to be honored for the objective value that they ascribe to humanity and the objective good that they wish to achieve.

However, no one should forcibly take something from one person to give to another. Forcibly removing funds (such as for economic redistribution or universal anything) would violate not taking what is not yours (stealing). So, that method to achieve the goals cannot be used.

No view of economics should achieve its moral goal through immoral means; this includes both liberal and conservative economic views.

Free Will and Economics

The conservatives hold that people should freely give to those in need (which many do either directly or through charities). I know a lot of liberals see that many also do not, and they believe that this is not right (especially when we see the suffering in the world), but one person (or group of people) simply cannot do something evil to force another person or group of people to do what is right. It is neither logical nor moral to attempt to achieve a good end by intentionally doing evil acts.

Both sides have the free choice of their behavior and actions, and they also have to live with the consequences of their chosen behavior and actions. Those who do evil, both conservative and liberal, will be judged by the ultimate Judge. There will be justice ultimately- whether one side or both; both are held responsible. Most conservatives and Christians believe it is best that only those who refuse to be generous (and refuse to care for widows and orphans- James 1:27) be the ones suffering consequences, not those people and the ones who forcibly take (steals) what is not theirs (the funds of the selfish people) to “right the wrong.” We cannot repay evil with evil. We can encourage them to choose good behavior and actions instead of evil ones, but we cannot force their actions. It is their free choice and their consequences to be reaped.

Sin In Conservative Economics

Having said that, I must also point out that the failures of conservative economic policies (such as capitalism) are primarily due to the fact that people have chosen to practice those policies outside the correct moral framework. The Christian worldview provides a powerful explanation for this common behavior and skewed moral framework: sin. Such an exercise has resulted in much evil, but the answer is not another economic system (such as socialism) that will be practiced outside the correct moral framework too. The economic system (capitalism) is not necessarily the problem; the problem is the moral framework. That is what needs to be different.

And that leads me to my main point: we cannot merely set idly by in judgment of another’s evil decisions in the capitalist society, rather our recognition of the suffering of others due to evil choices not of their own is a call to self-assessment, self-judgment, and change. The Christian does not just watch the poor suffer at the hands of evil people because logic and morality forbid them to interfere in the affairs of the evil people. Instead, we must assess our own situation to make changes so that we can be the solution, so that “what (one) meant for evil, God meant for good” (Genesis 50:20).

“Give Like No One Else”

This does not require a change from capitalism and does not require us to use evil means to “right the wrong.” The foundational philosophy that drives the business of financial guru Dave Ramsey is this: “Live like no one else, so you can live and give like no one else.” The poor do not have to suffer because “in a moral capitalist society logic and morality do not permit us to force the rich to share their money”, rather the poor do not have to suffer because we have the free will to make the decision to make financial changes and sacrifices in our own lives so that we have excess to give to others.

Ramsey, though, explains in his book “Total Money Makeover” an important aspect of this kind of a change:

“To properly view behavior and to understand how to change behavior intelligently, we must consider several things. Behavior intelligently viewed takes into account the emotional, the relational, the family history, the socioeconomic impacts, and the spiritual. To ignore any of these while discussing behavior change about money is incomplete and a very naive.” (emphasis added)

I emphasized “spiritual” and the naivety of ignoring it because Ramsey goes on to say that the person must have a “heart-level makeover”. Without a change in our heart and worldview to accepting Jesus Christ’s sacrifice for our sins, we cannot have a heart-level makeover, and we are likely to fall into the same sin trap of the evil people who refuse to give to the poor. It is only through Christ that we can overcome this sin that we despise so much in others (Matt 7:1-5).

How This Discussion Leads to Christ

Earlier in the post, I pointed out that the intrinsic human value that grounds our moral outrage can only be found in the Christian worldview (via the doctrine of the Image of God). I also explained that only Christianity (through the recognition of man’s natural sinful state) can explain the evil behavior and actions (and will cause them to continue regardless of the economic system). Those who find the alignment of Christians with the conservative economic system of capitalism concerning must borrow from the Christian worldview in at least two areas to justify their concern (a third borrowing is also necessary for objective morality, which I didn’t expand on). Now, we see that the only logical and moral solution is through the affirmation of the truth of the Christian worldview (acceptance of Christ so that we can be the solution- the Body of Christ- again James 1:27). In the discussion of economics and the evil that has been seen, the skeptic of Christianity (who brings up these concerns) has four reasons on his or her economic concerns alone to accept the truth of the Christian worldview.

Conclusion

If our concern for the poor is authentic, and we truly want to see this issue solved, Christianity is the only option. Without Christ, there are only two equally despicable alternatives:

We either must resort to illogical and immoral means and “repay evil with evil.”

Or we must abandon our concern for the poor and just let them suffer at the hands of evil.

For the questioner who is in transition in their worldview, if this discussion is not enough to at least get them considering the truth of Christianity (perhaps they are tempted to accept one of the alternatives above), then I implore them to consider the evidence for the single historical claim that if it happened, Christianity is true and they have your answer to their economic concern, but if it did not happen, Christianity is false, and they are free to pick from the two options above. For the objective, historical evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, I recommend these posts and books:

Did The Historical Jesus Rise From The Dead?

Book Review: Has Christianity Failed You?

Book Review: The Historical Jesus

Book Review: The Risen Jesus and Future Hope

Book Review: Cold-Case Christianity

NOTE: Along with the books I recommended above, I would also recommend another by Norman Geisler called “Christian Ethics: Issues and Options.” It goes into more detail about Christian morality and how it applies consistently across many different moral debates.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Who Phrased the Infamous Phrase?

Therefore, the purpose of separation was always to protect the church from interference by the government – not to protect the government from the church.

What Did Our Founders Believe?

Government was to protect the civility for the people. Religion was to enhance the morality and vitality of the people.

What Did Jefferson Believe?

Thus, according to the Founders, religion played a virtuous role in shaping the values of a nation governed by the moral character of the people and for the people.

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Religious Freedom in a Pluralistic Society

What is Religious Freedom?

Religious Freedom in a Pluralistic Society

Why Religious Freedom Should Matter to Everyone

Religious Freedom and Freedom of Conscience

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Guns Protect Life

What About Military Service?

Conclusion

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Introduction

The Question:

My Response:

Limited Government

Intrinsic Human Value and Economics

Free Will and Economics

Sin In Conservative Economics

“Give Like No One Else”

How This Discussion Leads to Christ

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic: