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.
{ 29 comments }
You wrote: “…in America… our government may not discriminate on the basis of which religion is true and which is not…”
I do not think that goes far enough. Our government may not take any religious position at all — a much higher standard than whether a given religion is “true.” The “no establishment” clause is just as important as the “free exercise” clause.
Finally, I believe it unwise, and ultimately dishonest, to try to dissuade anyone from their geninely-held religious convictions, solely on the basis that one believes the other’s covenants are, in fact, untrue.
my $0.02.
– rainnn king
One of my resident trolls (who exhibits evidence of mental abnormalities) managed to slip this one through, but since the comment itself is not objectionable, I’ll allow it to remain. – Admin
I agree…Atheism,secularism and liberalism have become the fastest growing, government sponsored religions.
Thanks for the feedback.
rainnn – I assumed most people would understand that our government may not take a position on any religion, given the Establishment Clause. I think most people will know that’s obvious.
As for this: I believe it unwise, and ultimately dishonest, to try to dissuade anyone from their geninely-held religious convictions, solely on the basis that one believes the other’s covenants are, in fact, untrue.
Christians are commissioned to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Rather than trying to dissuade others on their beliefs, we’re to defend the faith and distinguish it from all others so that the person is able to discern what is true and what is false. But that’s a command for individuals, not governments. Sharing the Gospel with someone doesn’t automatically “dissuade” him. That’s the providence of the Holy Spirit.
“Whether it’s called Wicca, Humanism, New Ageism or Atheism”, they all tend to promote the ten commandments.
Calling secular humanism a religion just like Christianity is, I think, trying to be too cute. Correct use of the word “religion,” but just two lines before you speak of liberals calling people bigots using a more than tainted interpretation of the word “bigot,” which is defined;”a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices” I know you did the whole law school thing so you are more than capable of playing with that definition and saying your views on homosexuality are not your own, but God’s. While that may be an interesting thing to argue it goes too far out of the way for this context. The point is that you are a bigot, rightly understood, and being that you are a Christian you should be. I’m really not trying to call names, but you do think homosexuality is wrong and last I checked you’re not looking for a debate on the subject. Anyway, sound piece for an op-ed, though I don’t really argee with you.
>>“Election exit polls showed that twenty-two percent of voters ranked “moral values” as the most important issue, above terrorism and the economy”
The problem for me with a statement like this is, what do those voters mean by ‘moral values’? In many conversations, the meaning of morality has been narrowed so that it excludes almost everything but sex.
I believe thr Founders’ original intentions were to protect people and their beliefs from government interference. The current interpretation – and it seems to be widely espoused – is that government is to be protected from religion at all costs.
Another example of the colliding worlds; http://www.portlandmercury.com/2004-11-11/feature.html
At least he’s admitting who he is; a liberal!
And for Rainn King, when public schools bring the Koran to school in order to “understand them better”, yet expel a child with a bible in their backpack, it becomes indefensible for the left! And La Shawn is very correct in her assessment that the right is tired of being quiet about what the left has been getting away with for 30 years! The tide is changing, as it is wont to do every 35 years or so.
I’m still not convinced that “moral issues” turned this election. Unless I’m mistaken, the internal data on issue preference came for the same skewed sample which led the exits to see Kerry as far ahead. My bet is that those with strong convictions–anti-Bush & morals-based– sought out the pollsters in just great enough numbers to throw off the “results”.
The country is so evenly divided because at the core we are all so similar– a few thousand votes flip and Kerry wins Ohio–then what? Are we conservatives wrong, or evil?
“They [Liberals] 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.”
My friends such as yourself on the Evangelical side of these issues need a finer set of tools for discriminating the differences among those of us who are not Evangelical. The “Liberals” vs. “Christians” dichotomy is simply false and the “collision of moral values” story which arises from this false dichotomy is a chimera.
However, your notation of the “faith which is kept personal and private” view is the single nugget of real gold about religion in America in a bushel of fool’s gold.
There ARE many Christians who explicitly take this “personal and private” view of faith; your particular sect may think their Christianity heterodox rather than orthodox, but not to acknowlege their Christianity at all is ludicrous.
There are, moreover, atheist and agnostic Conservatives and Libertarians who are as impatient with overt religiousity as any atheist or agnostic “Liberal Secular Humanist” (and, yes, LSH’s really do exist, too, though they are far fewer than rumor makes them).
This impatience is far less than the “persecution” that many Christian individuals, David Limbaugh most prominently, are pleased to assert.
If any on the Evangelical side would like to sample this impatience for themselves, they should look into the first impulse of their hearts when they meet a Muslim women who has her head covered in public. Or when they meet someone wearing a Pentagram as jewellery.
You can bet that the Muslim or the Neo-Pagan is as sensitive to your body language, which usually betrays your heart, as you are when this impatience is directed at you.
For personal reasons not relevant here, I have begun, as a Buddhist, to openly use my mala, or prayer beads, to count Mantras which I repeat silently when sitting alone, say, on the sidewalk outside a coffee shop. I am also a sharp observer of my fellow Americans.
I would say from my experience that about seven out of ten of them are made uncomfortable by the mere fact that I am very quietly running an elaborate set of beads through my fingers while minding my own business staring off into space.
I would take this ratio as a reflection of how many Americans actually think, or, rather, feel at a level below conscious thought, that “faith is a private matter”, particularly somebody else’s faith which they do not happen to share.
These social mores are really not relevant to the actual issues that have become conflated with them: whether the government should recognize gay “marriage” or any “civil unions”, whether abortion should be illegal, where and how language, images, or doctrine that derives directly from the Bible may coexist with the civil actions of the State.
We may disagree about any or all of these. But that disagreement is by no means a titanic clash of two monolithic sets of moral values known as “Christianity” and “Liberalism” save in the minds of those whose religious views obscure the true variety of viewpoints which government Religious Tolerance and a country with true freedom of religious practice permits.
Pretty good La Shawn!!!
Your link to Christianity.com was pretty powerful stuff regarding theSolas . Thanks.
Again I am reminded of two statements from the past:
George Washington during his Farewell Address:
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.
John Adams, second president of the United States. He saw the need for religious values to provide the moral base line for society. He stated in a letter to the officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts:
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
Excellent! I really enjoyed the article and I think you nailed it!
There is an interesting movie that addresses exactly what George Washington was saying in regards to morals without a religious foundation. It’s called Time Changer. Takes place in 1890s America and portrays what would happen in the future (say 1990’s) when our society stops associating morals with religion (on which the nation was built).
“Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” Acts 4:12
God bless you, La Shawn, and keep on bloggin’.
well, LaShawn, I thought it was a great piece. I really like how you posit that the belief in God is the real difference between the various groups and your assertion that atheism is a form of religion too.
Thank you for the feedback, everyone. Keep it coming!
This whole issue of moral values, and especially how it was determined is entirely bogus I think, and is being used by the MSM to again whack conservatives, and push their intolerant agenda. First, it came from the same exit polls that said Kerry was way ahead, and second, “moral values” can mean just about anything. Instead of sex, like most of the MSM seems to be saying, it could be referring to the fact that Kerry divorced his wife, and married this heiress, which people may feel is not a good sign of moral values. Anyway it is only 22%, and the last time i looked, 22% won’t win you an election.
[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).
In other words, liberals can’t be believers in religion.
Wow. I find that, for lack of a better word, asinine.
Rev. Floyd Flake, while in congress, was a Democrat and was called liberal. Limbaugh’s statement means that Flake is living a lie and leading a flock with his lies.
Carl – To an extent, you’re correct, especially about the MSM. However, Bush needed more than the “Christian” vote to win; he needed moderates in big numbers, which he got. If liberals perceive that the “moral values” issue helped him retain the White House, I’m willing to let them believe it. If nothing else, it calls attention to the fact that we Christians will fight the push for homosexual “marriage” and stem cell research on embryos. Whether or not the exit polls are flawed doesn’t change their perception.
DS – I met Rev. Flake at a school voucher discussion (he was a speaker) and he is a big proponent of school choice. He’s a Dem, but I don’t think someone like Flake is in view here. Limbaugh is referring to irreligious liberals. Just my opinion of Limbaugh’s view after reading so many of his columns.
God exists.
God does not exist.
We cannot know whether or not God exists.
All of these statements are about God. None of them can be proved or disproved by science. All of these statements are religious. Everyone who subscribes to one of these statements or any other statement about any deity or absence thereof is making a religious claim.
The same can be said of statements about whether or not God is relevant to law, politics, or education. Can science (or history or law or language) be rightly understood without reference to the God of Nature (or of Providence, or the Supreme Lawgiver, or the Word Incarnate)? Whether you answer yes or no, you make a religious claim.
Secularists (I use the term broadly to apply to those who believe law, education, etc. can be carried on without reference to God.) claim that their views are not religious and then on the basis of that claim, expect others to join them and construct a culture that can be fairly characterized as officially agnostic. As all sides believe that what they believe is correct (otherwise they wouldn’t believe it), I would submit that we cannot solve the problem of how to live together in a pluralistic society where everyone is free to exercise his or her religion unless we first come to terms (as Mortimer J. Adler would say) and agree that all of these views are religious.
Our founders (some of whom were secularists) solved the problem by basing our law on the only reasonable unchanging standard that was available—the Bible, and then carefully protecting each person’s right to freely exercise their conscience (a Biblical concept which was greatly studied in the Reformation) in worship and belief. Further, they protected the Scriptural distinction between Church authorities and civil authorities when they included the Establishment Clause that prevented one Christian sect being established above others as the State Religion, and kept the government out of the business of appointing church leaders and vice versa.
If now we want to change this basis of our government and establish ourselves as an officially agnostic country, secularists need to admit that that is what they are proposing and then make the argument to persuade the majority of us to make the change.
I don’t know if this will help you but here is my reaction to the “values” debate about the 2004 election:
When the final post-election poll arrived in my email box, it included a question that went something like, “Which is more important issue for you when voting for a presidential candidate ‘moral values’ or ‘national security?’ I hesitated and marked “refused.” While moral values are very important for me personally, I would feel differently about them in reference to a presidential candidate. Jimmy Carter was a very moral man who supported traditional morality, but he had the usual deficiencies concerning national security found in Presidents who are Democrat and it cost this nation dearly.
Currently, in the post-election analysis, I notice many commentators mentioning the “moral values” issue. They usually go on to mention that the values voters were concerned about were a very few of a broad range of values. They usually go on to say, in a tone of voice indicating that they think that their thinking is superior, that they, themselves hold values that require them to be concerned for the elderly, poor, sick, uninsured, etc. So do most of the rest of us. Some of us do not think that the best way to implement this concern is by putting government, especially the federal government, in charge of this. Many of us have long participated in contributing to food shelves, community clothes closets, deacon’s funds, soup kitchens, hospitals, crisis pregnancy centers, etc. We see this as the way to live out our values.
Bingo! on this:
“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.”
Secularism is a religion in and of itself, baiting its followers in the trap of moral relativism. Maureen Dowd did it this weekend:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/opinion/14dowd.html?oref=login
I talk about it here:
http://reporterette.blogspot.com/2004/11/dowd-disses-conservative-christians.html
I have recently posted on this very topic. Since my worldview and yours are rather different I think my post might give you a different reference frame for you article.
URL is in my sig url
—–
Understanding Liberal Amorality
I am part of a political discussion listserv. When the list started I was a liberal. I was pissed about 2000 election. The list serve calmed down until 9/11 since then the liberal on the list have made me realize there is no place for moderate views on the left side of debates.
The left is saying that middle America is stupid, unscientific in their voting decisions. But the fact is it is the left that has lost any modicum of common sense. And they refuse to accept dissenting views. If you say marriage is between a man and a woman you are a gay basher. If you think there should be some protection for unborn children you are a religious zealot. If you believe in tax cuts for the rich you want poor people to go hungry. If you think people should have to identify themselves to vote you are trying to suppress the vote. You can’t say Arafat is a killer without getting Bush has killed more civilians in Iraq than Arafat has.
Its become almost impossible to have a debate with a politically active liberal.
Science has proven that most babies can live outside the womb at 22 plus weeks of gestation but the refuse to give any protections to those babies. So in their mind a person who takes a baseball bat to a woman uterus and kills the baby did not commit murder, they only assaulted the woman.
Arafat is the father of modern terrorism, but to the left he is the same as our minutemen and Bush is worse because he attack Iraq.
It so sad that so many people around they world have become so confused and have lost any touch with common sense.
So when people are saying they voted for Bush because of morality. Its not because they agree with his morality but because he actually believes in right and wrong. He believes there is difference between targeting civilians and civilian caught in the crossfire. Hell even the Bloods and the Crips get it. They might kill a child in a crossfire but they aren’t rolling up and shooting random women on the street. Which is what Arafat’s supporters have done for decades. The left has given up on right and wrong. The lure of “rights” without responsibilities is so strong that they can’t admit that there is something wrong with abortions. This a woman right to choose they say again and again, as if its a hair cut.
How could John Kerry say I believe life begins at conception but I will do nothing to protect those lives. I guess like Clinton who believed people were dying in Rwanda but he was unwilling to do anything to protect those lives. We don’t need leaders who refuse to stand up for what is right. I didn’t vote for Bush for moral reasons. But I understand the people who do. If you don’t have time to become an amateur policy wonk all you have to rely on is does your leader have a moral compass and is he willing to follow it.
When worlds collide, the truth emerges….
Better said … when worlds collide, truth is the battle-field. Ignorance is the vanquished.
————–
La Shawn,
Please forgive my tangent. This is not directed at you or anyone making suggestions above, but is a simple attempt, because of my limitations, to awake those who want religion out of the public forum.
Amendment I (U.S. Constitution)
“Congress shall make no law”
1. respecting an establishment of religion,
2. or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
3. or abridging the freedom of speech,
4. or of the press;
5. or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
6. and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
If items 1 & 2 are to be prohibited from the public forum/interaction within the government, then items 3, 4, 5 and 6 must also be prohibited.
In other words, a separation of press and state. No press pools that travel with the President, no press room or press conferences within the White House, etc.
Don’t forget that the original Constitutional Amendments were called “The Bill of Rights”.
Please take at look at my blog, 11/12/04. I try to create a 3-d analysis of the election, with Bush’s positions as: pro-War (for freedom); pro-tax Cuts (whole econ policy); and pro-God (abortion, gay marriage, Christian values).
Kerry and Liberal Dems are the opposite: anti-War, anti-Cuts, anti-God.
Usually supporting two of these three means that’s the candidate you’d support, but there were many Reps for Kerry (9%) and Dems for Bush (10%).
A big issue are those who support just 1 of Bush’s positions, like the pro-War, anti-Cuts, anti-God Liberal Hawks; and the anti-War, anti-Cuts, pro-God Catholics.
Bush’s victory depended on all of the groups who supported him, but the “moderates” are those who support only one or two of the three. I suggest, article not finished yet, that the pro-God supporters are a bit bigger, and especially that they are more important to the future Rep votes. Pro-abortion Dems are likely to get increasingly fewer Catholic votes than the 48% Kerry got.
tomgrey.motime.com/1100218857#372506 (an ID, not a link?)
One thing I find funny about most of the polls that show “Morals” as the #1 issue for voters, is that they never tell you what the other choices were. People did not spontaneously say “Morals, Deffinitely. I voted to stop XX and YY!”.
People were given an A, B, C, D and None of the Above to choose from.
So, what were the other choices?
I know the war in Iraq, and the war on terrorism were on the list. Many people, like me, see them as parts of a larger issue, and if you add up the totals from those two, it exceeds “Morals”.
Anyone have the full list of choices?
Just my opinion of Limbaugh’s view after reading so many of his columns.
Fair enough.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }