Did you know that liberals and secularists have values, too? They just differ greatly from our own. Christians believe the moral law comes from God; secularists believe it derives from man’s best efforts through trial and error evolutionary processes. In that sense, “moral values” have become relative.
We all value what we believe is right, but is what we believe true? That’s the question.
Scott Johnson of Power Line writes:
Alone in the world, the United States is founded on the “self-evident truths” that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that government is instituted among men to secure these rights. These rights exist under what the Declaration of Indepence — the first of the founding laws of the United States — refers to as the laws of nature and Nature’s God.The founders of the United States never spoke of “values”; the concept was foreign to their political discourse. The concept of “values” derives from the thought of the German intellectual Max Weber. Weber maintained that the fundamental distinction of social science was that between “facts” and “values.” Regarding “values” — the deeply held beliefs that shaped the lives of citizens — social science could render no judgment.
“Values” are by definition relative. They have no objective status or connection to a commonly shared nature. The supplanting of nature and self-evident truths by “values” is more or less the great project of modern liberalism, whose home is in the Democratic Party. It is but a short distance from the orthodoxy of “values” to the related dogmas of “multiculturalism” and “diversity” that permeate liberal thought. In this sense the Democratic Party is the party of “values.”
Read the whole post.
Update (11/14): Democrats try to draw “mainstream” voters.
This Canadian tells Americans to stay right where they are. We don’t want you!
{ 26 comments }
You and Scott have it 100% right. It seem to me to be as my grandmother used to say, “As plain as the nose on your face!”
Exactly! The difference between conservative and liberal morality is not its quantity or the sincerity with which it is held, but its basis. To what standard must our morality answer? To the conservative it is the Law of God, permanently set down in writing for all to see. To the liberal it is the ever-evolving (dare I say capriciously changing?)standards of either public opinion or the opinion of society’s most powerful.
I’d argue that there’s a difference between secularism and humanism. E.g., I believe that moral law comes from God, and that we have inalienable rights. However, I also believe in separation of religion and state. I am a secular moderate-conservative, but not a humanist one.
Most liberals oppose the death penalty and are pro-choice. Most conservatives are pro-life and support the death penalty. Both are hypocrites.
I will address this issue in more detail later, but I’ll submit this now: Christians can best be described as anti-murder. We believe that some killings are justified. Capital punishment is not murder but abortion, an unjustified killing, is. Liberals, on the other hand, seek to preserve the lives of those who commit capital crimes but support the destruction of innocent, unborn life, if it’s the woman’s “choice”, of course.
By the way, it might be helpful to give the Bible a cursory read before you call Christians hypocrites.
Atheists have values too. My values are based on that which
is, or should be obvious, in terms of social, economic and
humanitarian peaceful and fruitful existence. For instance,
killing another human is wrong because of the biological
imperative ’survival of species.’ This applies to unborn
children as well. But logic would also demand that there
are cases when rendered death is not only necessary but
conducive to humanity. The death penalty and war are good
examples. The war should be just. The verdict should be
justified by evidence.
Caring for those with less means is desirable as long as
it’s a choice and not an order.
Marriage is between a man and woman because the purpose
of marriage is the procreation of our species. That is
not possible outside the conventional marriage except
with medical practices that should have to adhere to that
morality from the outset. But too often don’t.
Kindness yields kindness and this maintains a social
stability. But I wouldn’t turn the other cheek very
often because that violates ’survival of self.’
Tolerance in all things is much the same as kindness …
it fosters stability. BUT, because I am tolerant doesn’t
mean I’ll accept or condone coercesive conversion to …
anything.
Charity keeps us all better off. Simple.
I may not answer to a god, but I do have to answer to
my own heart. Hypocrisy is as much an anathema to me as
to any other reasoned and sentient being. Therefore, I
strive to maintain the consistency of my application of
my values on the life I live with all the rigor as any
person of religion.
Are my values diminished because they are not ordained?
I don’t think so. Are my values less moral because they
are my values and not of religion? I don’t think so. Are
they less rigid because they are not quantified in a
Bible? I don’t think so. Do my values affect my life any
less because I don’t have a name for them, save for being
simply my values? I don’t think so.
I see good and evil just as plainly as any religionist.
And I strive as hard to be good and to fight evil as any
religionist. Do my values and morality mean less because
I am not a believer?
I don’t think so.
Steel
You’re doing it again La Shawn:
“Christians can best be described … Liberals, on the other hand…”
I hate to be a bore about this, but can you *please* stop using ‘christian’ and ‘liberal’ as poar opposites. I’m sure you’d call me a liberal. I’m also a Christian. I’m opposed to the death penalty. I’m not “for” abortion (though I don’t accept the ‘abortion is murder’ formula). I’m very happy for you not to agree with me and (as you know) I’m happy to argue a point with you. But language like this “unchurches” many of your brothers and sisters in Christ and I sort of suspect you don’t really mean that.
“Most liberals oppose the death penalty and are pro-choice. Most conservatives are pro-life and support the death penalty. Both are hypocrites.”
Clever but shallow. Advocates of neither of the positions you state are hypocrites. The “pro-life” position condemns the taking of innocent, human life. The death penalty is for those found guilty of voluntarily taking human life. This position is the moral one.
The “pro-choice” position does not condemn the taking of innocent, human life. And many also condemn the death penalty for guilty killers. This position in not a moral, or Biblical one.
Very well, Richard. How’s this:
“Non-Christians, on the other hand…”
INTERESTING STORY. I NEVER THOUGHT OF IT THAT WAY, BUT IT DOES EXIBIT TRUTH. CONSERVATIVES SEEK A TRUTH THAT IS BASED IN SOUND TESTING AND ABSOLUTES, LIKE 1+1= 2. JUST SO HAPPENS THAT GOD WORKS THAT WAY TOO. SO GRAVITY, THE SPEED OF LIGHT, GAS, LIQUID, SOLIDS ARE ALL STUDIED AN DISCERNED BY TRUE GLIMPSES OF THEIR PROPERTIES.
LIBERALS HAVE LOST THE ABILITY TO SEE OR UNDERSTAND TRUTH. SO IT IS EVIDENT THAT THERE PROPOSALS TO FIX PROBLEMS ALWAYS FALL SHORT OF ACHEIVING THEIR DESIRED RESULTS BECUASE THEIR FOUNDATIONS ARE BASELESS.
AGAIN, THIS ARTICLE HELPED ME TO SEE SOMETHING I HAD FAILED TO SEE BEFORE.
PS: YOUR WEB SITE IS SIMPLY WONDERFUL AND FULL OF TRUTH AND LIGHT.
A bit off topic but have you seen this crap put out in the local rag, The Stranger here in Seattle. this is what we have to deal with out here, this kind of “compassion”.
THE URBAN ARCHIPELAGO
http://www.thestranger.com/2004-11-11/feature.html
Perhaps a better distinction from “moral equivalence” would be “similar to religious principles” rather than “coming from religion” –
For example – “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” just makes sense – coming from religion or anything else.
The Left’s demonizing of such principles as “right wing” or “religious” thought is just more of the same – they hate religion more than religious principles.
When a person proclaims to be a Christian yet does not accept that abortion is murder, does that same Christian have an answer as to “what” is in the womb and “who” created it? God’s “image” in my Bible.
Steel, I would second your comments, and pre-emptively seek to counter certain arguments I have heard in the past. People tend to claim that you cannot choose your own morals, that morals are set down by God. I beg to differ. There are so many different forms of morals available through different religions, and conversion from one to another is possible, that you MUST make your own decision on morals, because nearly all possible moral frameworks are available somewhere.
If you choose to take a religious path to your morals, that is wonderful. However, if you do not, AND you are willing to follow the reasoning necessary to find the best rules for working together with others, I think you will find that the underlying moral framework will be very similar, though they will vary widely in detail, just like the major religions do.
For the record, I oppose the death penalty because of the possibility of getting it wrong. It is easy to release someone and make reparations, but it is extremely difficult to un-kill someone. There are many occasions, however, that I feel Police are justified in killing a criminal who resists, instead of endangering themselves trying to apprehend them alive.
I agree with political news’ post, it is all a crock. We should
1). Love our neighbor
2). Not “play God”
3). Learn to show tolerance to others
As a former Conservative, (raised in a religious household where my parents showed no tolerance and claimed to be the only real practicers of Christianity) I am here to tell you that you should all practice The Golden Rule, which most Conservatives, my family included, cannot seem to grasp or understand.
Judge not and you shall not be judged. For some reason Liberals have an easier time with this. My question is why?
As an ex-Conservative raised in a house where wearing a “hair shirt” was the norm, Liberal is a breathe of fresh air. I have actually found that Liberals can practice the Golden Rule with no problem. As for me I choose to align myself with Christ, the original Liberal who reached out to whores and beggars.
To Steel Turman:
You pose the age old question, can a person be good without God?
In a society that does not recognize an objective standard for “good” or what we christians call “righteousness”, your “values” will be reduced to mere “opinion” and “conjecture”. Then you will be faced with the question Steel, what makes your “values” moral?
I don’t know if you have read Friedrich Nietzsche. Many consider him the father of modern atheism. In his “Godless” worldview, your “values” would ultimately be determined by who has the most power.
Chasey – Let’s dispense with “liberal” and “conservative” and deal with that oft-cited “Judge not, that you be not judged” passage in Matthew 7. Why don’t you exposit it for us? Who is Jesus talking to? In its context, what does the entire passage mean?
I couldn’t care less what your political affliliation is, but if you’re going to quote Scripture, let’s do it right. And who your parents are and what they did and didn’t do is irrelevant to the discussion.
Bulleyes, La Shawn! With this post and the response to Chasey. Lovin’ it!
>>“When a person proclaims to be a Christian yet does not accept that abortion is murder, does that same Christian have an answer as to “what” is in the womb and “who” created it? God’s “image” in my Bible”
Yes
I’d be interested in hearing Chasey exposit Jesus was a liberalism in light of His comment that he’d just as soon destroy the world then and there with fire.
LaShawn,
I come from a strong evangelical home – born into a Conservative home, which doesn’t seem the norm here. Most of you, yourself and readers, are all ex-libs who found God late in life. My reference to my parents was merely to provide you with background, nothing more.
Scripture: Matthew 7:1-5
1 “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.
Thinking the best of other people is necessary if we wish to grow in love. And kindliness in judgment is nothing less that a sacred duty. Our judgment of others is usually “off the mark” because we can’t see inside the person, or we don’t have access to all the facts, or we are swayed by instinct and unreasoning reactions to people. It is easier to find fault in others than in oneself.
Please remember that. And I am hoping you will be Christian enough not to deem me a troll for having a difference of opinion (as I noticed in the posts below yours).
I know Scripture quite well, I was the “Sword Drill Champion” at our Christian camp every year except 10th grade! I dropped my Bible and my brother was able to a come in and beat me!
Chasey – I don’t consider you a troll. Contrary to what you may have heard or read about me, I don’t delete people just because they criticize my arguments. It’s all in the way you do it. I delete vulgarity, insults, comments by people whose only purpose is to be annoying and comments that border on ad hominem.
I’m still a sinner dealing with my own sins, especially pride, which is a daily struggle. But it is not unbiblical for me or any other Christian to point out that others are sinners. Since you’re probably new to my blog (at least as far as commenting is concerned), you should read my archives to get to know more about me before you judge me. I do much more than just find fault in others. I share the Gospel, write about current events and politics from a Christian worldview, and many other things. If we Christians couldn’t open our mouths to criticize anyone or anything unless we were faultless, none of us would be sharing God’s word with anyone.
Unfortunately the secular culture has persuaded many Christians into thinking it’s wrong to judge others, but we are supposed to make judgments everyday about everything. It would be foolish not to. How else do we discern false prophets, for example, if we’re “not to judge others” or help other Christians deal with sin in their lives? It is so easy to quote that verse, particular that one line, out of context. People unfamiliar with the Bible get a false understanding of it.
Yes, we are required to examine ourselves, but in the process, our own judgment about the world and other people is not suspended.
I wish Christians would cite verses like John 14:6 more often ( “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”) That’s what unbelievers need to hear, not that Christians aren’t allowed to “judge” anybody.
No need to be defensive about Scripture, either. You quoted a verse and I asked you to tell us more about it.
LaShawn,
We are all sinners, thank you for your honesty and for being a bigger person and admitting it. We all suffer from the sin of Pride, and many of us will never take the high road as you have done. This is reflected in many of the posts of your readers.
My favorite verses from John are from Chapter 15:
9. As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.
10. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.
11. These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.
12. This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
13. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
14. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
Many Evangelicals, my parents included, feel that this Gospel differs from the synoptic gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) by having clear Gnostic elements. According to the tradition, the gospel was written by a witness to the life of Jesus, by the name of John. This is strongly contested, and because people familiar with the gospel, like Ignatius, have mentioned nothing of it and also due to the specific way of using of sources by the author. Also, the gospel is dated to around 100 CE, was written in Greek, and little is obvious on its geographical origin.
Formation is often missing from John, there is only limited chronology up until chapter 12. From then on, the evolving crisis between Jesus and the Jews is the central theme.
In addition, in the synoptic gospels, Jesus is in Galilee, while in the Gospel of John Jesus is in Judea, and often in Jerusalem, as well.
There is also a big difference in John as there are no stories of exorcisms but there are as many as 7 miracles. As they say, “There are no parables, only parabolic discourses”.
I still feel these verses are paramount, as The Ten Commandments are the foundation of Western morality and the American Constitution/government and we break them everyday.
Many use God’s name in vain, many steal, many kill our unborn (sustained as the norm by so many Liberals), many get divorced in frightful numbers (practiced by Liberals and unfortunately many notable Conservatives are following suit of late), many kill in the name of God and commit senseless acts of terrorism.
Won’t they be shocked to find out that Jesus really is the Jewish Messiah and that He is going to rule the world from Jerusalem with a rod of iron!
Thank you for your time, LaShawn, I must get ready for Church – our evening services. Tonight I am the door greeter. Check back with you soon!
Thanks for the comments, everyone!
Chasey – I assume you’re implying the Gospel of John is not authoritive (?) and therefore citing John 14 is…what? As you know, the authorship of several NT books has always and will continue to be in question, but as one who believes the Bible is inerrant, infallible and God-breathed, it would take some seriously contradictory evidence to even cause a scintilla of doubt in my mind that the apostle John indeed wrote it.
The Bible was written by men through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but these men used their own styles, idioms, personalities and methods of expression. Whether or not John contains specific elements found in the four Gospels doesn’t come close to proving (showing?) it was not written through inspiration of the Holy Spirit and therefore, not part of the canon.
I know you didn’t go that far, but I was on a roll.
The accusations of Gnostic authorship are but one of many criticisms of John, which is no different (in my view) from criticism about the entire Bible’s inerrancy in general.
I hope you make my blog part of your daily reading.
Dejuan,
I do not need a book, a government or a religon to define
or state my values. They are self evident in their birth
and concrete in their implementation. Nor do I need a …
a choir or chorus to support or augment my sense of …
morality. It is the offspring of observation married to
my own humanity.
The ‘age old’ question you cite … was first framed when
humans were all illiterate, before Guttenberg, and never
ventured past the village next door.
I am beyond those restrictions and have been for longer
than you have been ALIVE.
I say, the more you are involved with and the more …
immersed in humanity you are, the more you will value same.
And I will argue morality is nought but a conotation
of that value.
I actualy spent all day dwelling on your response. At the
end of the day, I came to the conclusion that you somehow
dismiss my values/morality because it is not ordained.
By a god. Or your God. To which I say…. That sort
of reasoning will limit your intellect, but I won’t allow
it to poison mine. Nietzsche be damned.
Your sense of right and my sense of right may be the same.
You have no right to dismiss or diminish my sense of right
simply because it comes from on high to you. THAT is and
will be the bane of religion as a structure until you and
your ilk grasp that concept. Right and wrong. Good and evil
are SELF EVIDENT. Seems like I’ve heard that before.
Granted, there will always be those that twist the …
goodness in my heart and yours to their own ends. Ain’t
me. Ain’t you.
But if we are are the same side … don’t question my
goodness, because if memory serves, the Bible says …
something about who among you is more holy? Who among you
will cast the first stone? Or something like that.
Save your rocks for an adversary that is not good in heart.
I’ll bet the Bible said something along those lines too.
Steel
Steel – On our own, none of us is righteous. But the Bible teaches that Christ’s righteous in imputed to those who believe in him. Apart from Christ, there is no such thing as a “good heart” when compared to that standard.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }