Posted on 12/09/2014 7:17:40 AM PST by wagglebee
“There is no right and wrong!” the angry university student said loudly, storming up to our campus pro-life display.
“Is that right?” my friend Caleb said slowly. The student came to an abrupt stop, realizing, perhaps for the first time, that his worldview was, in philosophical terms, an “argument to commit suicide.”
That anecdote is illustrative of how we’ve been letting the Cultural Left get away with murder. I’m not just referring to the institutionalized destruction of life in the womb or the “mercy-killing” of the old, but also the broad cultural acceptance—including among Christians—of two stupid and dangerous ideas that have allowed the Left to dominate the cultural discussion for decades.
Christians have not been losing in the public square because we do not have the arguments to respond to the New Moral Revolution of the Cultural Left. We have been losing because we have not been making those arguments, or have not been making them articulately enough.
First, Christians are told loudly, we can’t legislate morality.
I could point out that this argument is inevitably used to justify the legality of something blatantly wicked and immoral, like abortion. Yet, I’ve heard countless Christians tell me that while they are pro-life and do believe in Christian ethics, they don’t think trying to impact public policy or bring our message to the public square is useful because “we can’t legislate our morality.”
They’re forgetting something: All laws legislate morality. All laws are put in place because of a value judgement that something should be permitted, restricted, regulated, or banned. When Christians leave the discussion, all we’re doing is ensuring that it is someone else’s code of morality that is being enshrined into law, and someone else’s values are being used as the guiding principle for governance.
If we don’t fight for the lives of pre-born children and demand legal protection for them, for example, we’re not ensuring that the government won’t legislate morality; we’re allowing those who claim that the right to destroy human life at whim exists and is moral to seize and win the day. Eventually, the government will be paying the butchers with our own tax dollars—because a New Morality has been legislated, and ours has been definitively replaced.
A very brief look at the news cycle reveals that the Cultural Left, while silencing Christians with the demand that we cease trying to “legislate our morality,” is attempting to do precisely that. When they howl that gay marriage should be legal and accepted, they are demanding this because they say it is right and good and moral. They are stating that to deny marriage to homosexuals is discriminatory, and therefore wrong. And the solution to this, they tell us, is for the government or the courts to step in and ensure that this wrong is righted, that this injustice is corrected.
It is not that they don’t think morality should be legislated. They simply think that Christian morality should not be legislated.
Which brings me to the second argument the Left has used to silence Christians: That morality is subjective, if it even exists at all. In other words, it’s okay if you believe that, but that only means its right for you. Other people must remain “true to themselves” and do “what’s right for them.”
This is obviously nothing short of profound stupidity, but a brief jaunt on to any university campus will show you that the number of those who believe that morality does not exist (while simultaneously calling fracking and Christian ethics evil) is staggering. I’ve engaged in dozens of debates that went something like this:
Student: “Well, there is no morality.”
Me: “Okay. Do you think rape is wrong?”
Student: “Of course rape is wrong!”
Me: “Why?”
Student (nervously): “Because…you can’t just force yourself on someone.”
Me: “Says who? You’re appealing to a moral law, which necessitates a lawgiver. Who says that is wrong?”
Student (relieved to have found an answer): “The government! It’s illegal!”
Me: “While I’m glad you’ve found your source of morality, wouldn’t you agree that laws have been wrong before? What about slavery? Segregation?”
This is to illustrate, of course, that morality cannot be subjective, or it is not morality. Right and wrong cannot be subjective, or they cease to exist. Appalling crimes like rape and murder should be illegal, because they are immoral. Christians would argue that they are immoral because God, the Lawgiver, has said they are. The Cultural Left cannot claim that banning abortion, for example, is immoral—because they cannot claim anything is immoral. Inevitably, their claims that something is or is not immoral is based on one thing: How they feel about something. (When they appeal to science, they are again being fallacious: Science, of course, can only tell us what is, not what ought to be. Science can reveal to us observable truths, but cannot provide us with correlating value judgements.)
Christians have not been losing in the public square because we do not have the arguments to respond to the New Moral Revolution of the Cultural Left. We have been losing because we have not been making those arguments, or have not been making them articulately enough. We’ve often bought the laughable lies that morality simultaneously does not exist, and cannot be legislated. Both of these lies are simply a means of keeping us from fighting for what is right in the public square. In many cases, we’ve vacated the battlefield. It’s time to engage like never before—because as we see with abortion, assisted suicide, and euthanasia, lives literally depend on it.
Too bad then...
Unfortunately the pattern you outline is going to continue IMO....
I do not necessarily disagree. The R voters are the wild card.
Neither can I. Sad, isn’t it? Well, Billy Graham is still alive. Do you like his son?
Yes, he seems to be a good man, but I never hear very much about him.
He’s occasionally on Sean Hannity’s radio program and he sounds good. But he’s not all over the place the way someone like Falwell was in the 80s. He probably is never invited on tv.
It’s really too bad that he isn’t on TV. Is he ever on the radio, I wonder? He is 62, but he could have quite a few years of influence if he chose.
Sorry, but for sincere, committed Christians, everything is about religion
Sorry. I meant to say in my last post that he should have a radio show of his own. Like Bishop Sheen did back in the day.
I just checked his Wikipedia page and he has no radio show - that would be helpful. He’s fully engaged, it seems, in philanthropic groups. He lives in Boone, N.C. - I just drove through that area. Lovely.
He seems to be one of those people who prefers to live a quiet life with his family, and tries to balance that with his work. Not an easy task.
My vote is like a purchase.
Why would I buy something I do not want? So the other thing I do not want doesn’t get bought?
I vote for those who best represent my views. I also have core beliefs that if a candidate does not share, I can not vote for them. Because that would make me complicate in that sin.
If the candidate wants my vote (or anyone else’s) they had better reflect the product I want to buy. Guilt tripping the conservatives to vote for the “lesser” liberal will not work long term. If you are going to vote that way, go full strength.
bump
Mine isn’t a religion....it’s a relationship.
You should know the difference.
Ok—that’s the most articulate & honest response I’ve gotten on the thread!
Thank you!
Not voting for a liberal is not voting for Obama or Romney.
There is ZERO DIFFERENCE between Obama, Hillary, Romney and any of the Bushes. They are ALL pro-abortion, pro-amnesty, anti-limited government liberals.
Our Republic is exactly the same today as it would have been if Romney had won two years ago or McCain had won six years ago. We were always going to have out-of-control spending, open borders, amnesty and socialized medicine.
Keep in mind that the template for Obamacare is Romneycare. It was Romney who ushered in same-sex "marriage". If Romney had a "D" after his name and didn't change any of his policies, he would be the most important Democrat in America.
Makes a whole lot of sense! Especially if you want to win elections.
I was born in 1967 and 1988 was the first election I could vote in. I have voted in seven presidential elections and conservatives lost every single one of them. I am no longer willing to act as if electing someone with an "R" after their name is a victory.
I’m by NO MEANS a GOP fan. I’m more Tea Party than anything. Still, the fact remains, those who didn’t vote cost CONSERVATIVES the election.
Again, the last time the GOP nominated a conservative for president was in 1984.
Lesser of two evils so to say, you don’t see it that way fine....I don’t see it your way.
The lesser of two evils is still evil. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and that is what you are advocating.
I have used this tactic several times....it does make the THINKING person stop....but it has to be delivered in a winsome manner. If you bash them hatefully with the argument, they ignore your words and hate you back.
bump
Either you’re relationship with Christ is a 100% commitment or it is worthless and meaningless. That translates to pleasing God in all facets in your life including politics. Which means you can no more vote for a Republican (Romney) that supports Abortion than u can for a Democrat. But you should already know that.
or it is
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.