This is a draft of an op-ed I plan to submit. Your feedback is welcome:
Worlds Collide on the Moral Divide
Election exit polls showed that twenty-two percent of voters ranked “moral values” as the most important issue, above terrorism and the economy. Nearly 80 percent of that group voted for George Bush. As the dust settles in the aftermath of his decisive victory, people are still talking about the so-called moral divide in America. But does it really exist?
Those who don’t believe in God have moral values, too. They just differ from what Christians believe. For example, they may claim that the moral law derives from man’s best efforts through trial-and-error evolutionary processes. Christians believe that it comes from the God of the Bible.
[Correction]: One of Christian columnist David Limbaugh’s readers summarizes it this way: “[L]iberals cannot conceive of morals in the sense conservatives do, because this would require acknowledging a God who has set standards for thought and behavior, and then striving to meet those standards (which, of course, we can’t, thus our need for a Savior).”
We all value what we think is right, but is it true? All religions make truth claims, some in direct opposition to others, but they can’t all be true. Fortunately, freedom of religion is a constitutional guarantee in America, and our government may not discriminate on the basis of which religion is true and which is not. We are free to practice false religions. And whether they want to admit it or not, “non-religious” types practice a religion.
Whether it’s called Wicca, Humanism, New Ageism or Atheism, we all live by a set of standards that shape our worldview — our understanding of God and mankind. The national election illustrated a collision of worldviews in a dramatic way. In a Seattle Post-Intelligencer editorial, we see an example of one worldview:
There is no morality in the government forcing the victim of rape or incest to bear the fruit of that horror or to dismiss the health of the mother in abortion decisions. There is no morality in the denial of legal rights based solely on whom one chooses to love. There is no morality in rejecting the promise of a cure to those who suffer from a terrible disease.
To the writer, immorality is “government forcing”, “denial of legal rights” and “rejecting the promise of a cure.” According to the Christian’s worldview, an unborn baby is a life worthy of protection no matter how he was conceived. Christians believe that God ordained the institution of marriage between a man and a woman, and the law recognizes its societal benefits. Society is protecting the institution, not denying legal rights. People are free to love whomever and whatever they choose. Lastly, Christians contend that killing the unborn and harvesting body parts, no matter who it will cure, is immoral. Worlds collide.
Some liberals say that either you support same-sex “marriage” or you’re a bigot. They also believe that faith is personal and should be kept private. Christians know that faith, while personal, is based on eternal truths that guide every aspect of their lives.
Some non-Christians may be guided by secular humanism, which is no less a religion than Christianity. They may not believe in the Bible but definitely live by a code of ethics and set of values: human rather than religious values. Christians assert that God, as Creator of all things, is the measure of all things. Worlds collide.
The culture war is being fought everyday, from the classroom to the courthouse, and Christians and social conservatives are no longer willing to sit back and allow liberals and the mainstream media to define what we value.
When worlds collide, the truth emerges.
————–
Addendum: New York City’s evangelicals (reg. req.). Interesting, but not all Christians are evangelicals, and not all who claim to be evangelicals are. Food for thought. See this link.
Update: FYI, I updated rule #2 of my Comment Policy. Read and learn.
Also, a reader comments on George Washington’s farewell speech. Coincidentally (not!) my pastor mentioned the same speech this morning. This part is particularly relevant in light of this post:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
