Saturday, February 11, 2012
Morality, Laws, & Government
"Does morality exist, and, if so, by what standard?", was the topic for a recent debate. Several views were put forward which are worthy of review. 1. Morality is person-relative, not universal or transcendent, and government and morality do not mix. 2. Morality is situationally-relative, not universal or transcendent, and therefore cannot be applied to governmental laws. 3. Morality is grounded in God's eternal and unchanging character as defined in Christianity, and morality should be reflected in government through laws which protect the freedom and the good of society as would be found in a Biblical theocracy, although necessarily imperfectly and not tyrannical, yet as found to strive to consistently and thoughtfully understand and interpret Biblical law as it applies to society in the present. 4. Morality as an evolving concept, having some sense of universalism related to the survival of a society through laws enacted by a government protecting concerns such as murder, but, at the same time, granting the flexibility inherent in further evolution. Other religious views were touched upon, such as Sharia Law, but not in depth. Would like to hear from others regarding these views as to which view makes the most sense, and critiques of the views as well. Definitions were established in the debate as finding morality to be eternal, unchanging codes of conduct for humanity and society. This definition renders 1, 2, & 4 as impossible, because morality changes, but the views represented in 1,2, & 4 must still be addressed due to there impact on law and government as is or is not appropriate within each view.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
View 1 can not be correct because morality can not be "person-relative." If morality was "person-relative" then it was "ok" for Hitler to kill all of those Jews because his "morality" (which was "personal" to him) said it was "ok" to kill Jews and any other races he deemed "inferior" to him. View 2 can not be correct because if morality depended on the situation, then it would be "ok" for me (in my situation of not having enough money to pay the bills) to rob a bank because I'm broke and I need money to pay bills. It's not ok. View 4 - how is morality an "evolving" concept? Morality can't be "flexible." Then it would be "ok" for my husband to "cheat" because he wants to have "flexible" morality. I think View 3 is the correct view, because God, in His eternal and unchanging nature, set forth laws of morality, logic, nature, etc. which do not change. I do have some questions on how all of these views affect governments and how they rule and "all that jazz." I don't want to say that "separation of church and state" is necessarily wrong or necessarily right. My main reason for this is because if we say that we can "mix" religion and law, then we say that we can "mix" ANY religion and law, and I don't really feel comfortable saying that, especially with the views that Sharia Law and other religions that I do not base my faith in believe. What does everyone else think?
ReplyDeleteTest response - making sure this works...
ReplyDeleteI will agree and disagree, of course. Christy, I think that I was one of the people who supported #1 in the original facebook discussion. Though we don't want to accept it, Hitler probably thought he was morally in the right concerning the extermination of Jews and other races of people he viewed as "unclean." It doesn't make it morally right to the majority of the world, but in his interpretation...well, that's one of the issues with religion. Look at the Bible and all the different forms of worship based on it: Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Catholics, Baptists, Pentecostals, etc. Somehow, we all took a different perspective on what was said and, even within those divisions, individuals translate the Word as personal message to themselves.
ReplyDeleteI know a lot of Christians who consider themselves morally adherent. They go to church, they give to charity, they have stayed married and maybe have never even had sex with anyone other than their spouse! On the outside, they seem like the pure, perfect picture of morality...then you talk to them and they're the most racist people you've ever met. They would admonish Hitler's evils (as most anyone would), but give them a machine gun and they'd gladly jump up on top of a wall along the Arizona/Mexico border and kill illegals to keep them out of our country! Is that moral? Would Jesus kill illegal immigrants or would he give them his last loaf of bread?
On the other end of the spectrum, I've know agnostics and atheists who are the nicest, most nonjudgmental, giving people I've ever met. They are turned away from Christianity because of people they've met (like in my example) or televised propaganda such as the Westboro Baptist Church's protests at soldier's funerals. All I can do is let these people know that none of us are perfect (Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God") and we're all just trying to do the best we can. I try to be an example in my own life and hope to one day be here for those people when/if they are ready to receive Christ...after all, I was one of those people (just ask Steve).
So this is why I still believe #1 is the answer even though I currently hold my own beliefs with #3.
Good stuff here! Love it. Love you both too.
To clarify, I do make a distinction between what one personally views as morally right and wrong, and what is objectively right and wrong based upon God's unchanging moral character. I believe that God is not only the Author of morality but it's final Interpreter as well, leaving us with an objective standard in which to judge right from wrong. After all, if morality is only person-relative, and not universal, applying to all humanity equally, then "sin" could not be defined and Christ's death to pay the debt of sinners would become pointless. Christ died for sin, but if sin can't be defined, then what did Christ actually die to pay for? His sacrifice would be rendered folly, after all, if morality is person-relative, then so is sin, and any and all things can be construed as right, therefore not sin.
DeleteLove you, too Damara! I think that there are so many different denominations because we, as imperfect beings without perfect understanding, interpret the Bible in different ways. Unfortunately, with so many interpretations, some people take it to the extreme (Hitler, Westboro Baptist, Warren Jeffs, etc.) and give Christianity a "bad name." No one has a perfect "interpretation" of the Scriptures, but we do the best we can. We just do not always get it right. With that said, the Word SHOULD be a personal message to ourselves, but it should ALL be taken in the context that the particular Scripture was written. It is important to research and study the Bible, take it all in, and not in parts. Sometimes I think that when someone or a group of people "zero in" on a certain passage in the Scriptures, they throw out the rest of the book and then justify their actions and call it "moral" when true morality has been lost on them.
DeleteI also know some agnostics and atheists who are really good people and I can't help but understand why they have turned away from Christianity due to all the negative publicity it has received from the groups out there who promote "hate" and not Christian love. I think it is important, as you said, to be an example in our own lives, to show them that Christianity is about a forgiving God who loves unconditionally, accepts us as we are, imperfections and all, simply because He WANTS to, not because of anything we do (or don't do).
Just to clarify, sin is sin, but if you do not accept Christ, you will not gain entrance into Heaven whether or not you are a morally-adherent person. Sinners make it to Heaven all the time, but non-believers never do. I don't believe Hitler was ever a true Christian just as I don't believe many political figures are true Christians; instead, they use religion as a tool to earn votes. Not all of them do this, but some of them do.
DeleteI agree, Damara. I also believe that if you do not accept Christ, you will not gain entrance into heaven. Unfortunately there are a lot of prominent people who only seem to give lip service to Christianity simply to get ahead.
DeleteI agree with Christy. I am not comfortable with a theocracy because I believe it threatens one's freedom of personal choice of belief, which then becomes how one's governs one's own life. Even as a Christian, I do not want other Christians telling me how to govern my own life. I want to be free to make my own decisions. A theocracy can be too easily corrupted and abused. I prefer democracy based on certain inalienable rights but with the freedom to choose. However, I also understand that any form of government created by imperfect beings is then made imperfect, despite best intentions and uptopian ideas. My belief is that until Jesus returns and sets up a benevolent dictatorship, all governments are finite. Basically we are doing the best we have with the best we know.
ReplyDeleteYes, Beth, a theocracy does not "sit well" with me. I do think that government should be "based" on biblical principles, but the government should not be allowed to tell me how to live my life or to tell me where or how or who I should worship either. Our government started out that way (basing itself on biblical principles)and many of our own laws today reflect that. But I am beginning to see a gradual decline in the enforcement of these laws that were founded on biblical principle. Many are being reversed or abolished or changed to accommodate the social decline of our society (or at least it appears that way). I am interested to hear other opinions on this subject.
DeleteWell said, but I believe that having a theocracy does not equal lack of freedom. The principle of freedom is grounded in Christianity. Biblical Christianity does not force others to believe as Christians. It presents the Truth of Christianity, but allows one to agree or disagree with it, unlike religions which force conversion or face death. Moreover, all governments require their people to follow certain laws or face the consequences of unlawfulness. Scriptures indicate that government is a minister of God in Romans 13:4. It is subject, as is all creation, to the King of Kings. This indicates that government has a responsibility to God for its actions. With this in mind, I believe that the rightful place of government is to reflect and enforce the morality and freedom found in God. Granted, it will be imperfect, but this is no excuse to not strive for what is proper for government to attempt to achieve. If governmental laws are not founded upon God's eternal character as demonstrated Biblically though His laws, then what standard have we to form laws? If morality is relative to a situation or people or a person, then there really is no set morality, all becomes "right", and laws become only changing perceptions and not rules in which to live by. This would make seeking justice impossible and would create a society which would not only have no true moral standards, but also a society in which anything goes, and where seeking justice becomes improper. I believe without marrying Christian morality to governmental laws, that moral chaos ensues. Freedom is not sacrificed through a Christian theocracy and neither is justice or eternally grounded morality which demonstrates itself through godly laws for governing societies.
DeleteI don't know. I think it gets a little sticky to say government should be grounded in Christian morality. Many religions have similar moral bases. There are simple elements of right and wrong: don't kill, don't force others into subjugation, don't steal, etc. These are basic human rights that don't need a religion to support their "rightness." Dignity doesn't need religion. Compassion doesn't need a biblical base.
DeleteI will have to disagree. Morality only finds meaning through eternal, absolute principles. Eternal, absolute principles only have there grounding in religion due to the eternality of God. The religion which purports those principles must be trustworthy (not internally contradictory) which is exclusively found in Christianity because God does not contradict Himself. Without Christianity as it's base, morality is rendered meaningless. Certainly not being able to have the quality of eternality which can only be attributed to God's character and His revelation to us of that character which gives us the basis and the ability to account for morality in the first place. If you divide morality from Christianity you are left with baseless man made, temporary rules which have no true binding power to mankind who can change them at will. This leaves me as the only rational option for morality to be found in Christianity, and for government to reflect that morality in laws which promote order and freedom to society as its rightful role as pronounced in Romans 13:4 under the Lordship of the King of Kings.
DeleteSteven, you present an interesting point. I think you are right in that the principle of freedom is grounded in Christianity. I agree that governments should base their laws on biblical principles. However, I am concerned about the practicality of enforcing them. I'm not saying that we should not have laws based on these principles. I'm saying that some of these laws are either not practical to enforce or are being eroded by the immoral behaviors in our society. On the other end of the spectrum, some governments that have laws based on religious principles (both Christian and non-Christian) sometimes take things to the extreme and stomp on the freedoms of their citizens. I know that this is due to the imperfections of man - not of God, of course. I guess we just have to wait until the Perfect Ruler returns for things to all be "set right."
DeleteI don't think laws should be based on any one religion because there needs to be the freedom to come to religion. Without the freedom of choice, how can you truly belong to God? Before Christianity...back in the days of the caveman (I do believe in cavemen and dinosaurs...I think Genesis isn't literal in that way...maybe we differ there,) for a society to exist, you couldn't go around bashing each other in the head with a rock every time "Crog" made you mad. There are basic, human traits that let people know right from wrong. When you're a kid and someone takes your toy and you cry, you know that makes you feel bad so you don't take another kid's toys because you remember how that feels...if you have good parents, they help you learn these lessons a little better. If people didn't have these basic traits, why ever invent trade? We could just fight and steal for what we want. Why have any type of mate when men could take a woman at random? Why seek religious answers and why listen when people began speaking about God? There is something inside humans with or without religion: our souls. We nurture it with spirituality, but it is there regardless. This is why morality exists as long as humans exist.
DeleteYes, everyone has a soul. They are created in the image of God which gives them a sense of morality, but, as stated elsewhere, the fall of mankind and our own sinful actions make objective morality found in governing laws necessary. Christianity inherently promotes freedom and choice. You will find nowhere in Christianity a teaching which demands forced conversion. It does present itself as the standard for all truth. You are given a choice to believe or not. As truth, Christianity demonstrates itself to be internally consistent and to correspond to reality, so there is not a concern regarding forced conversion. Good ideas stand, bad ideas fall, but to not marry Christian morals with governmental law leaves man-made laws which have no eternal foundation, and those eternal, inherent, transcendent, inalienable rights can have no grounding disassociated from Christianity. It's only in the consistency and trustworthiness of Christianity that can inform us of the existence of these inalienable rights. The trustworthiness of Christianity and it's inherent teachings regarding the dignity and freedoms of mankind give us the only foundation for those inalienable principles, all other worldviews fail to be trustworthy due to their inherent contradictory nature as not being truth.
Delete"The religion which purports those principles must be trustworthy (not internally contradictory) which is exclusively found in Christianity because God does not contradict Himself. Without Christianity as it's base, morality is rendered meaningless."
ReplyDeleteI think people of most other faiths would object to that exclusionary statement.
From my understanding (and I'm certainly no biblical scholar), Christian law is defined in Matthew as having but two commandments:
1) Love God with all your heart and soul
2) Love your neighbor as you love yourself
Neither of those is at all unique to Christianity nor do they originate with Christianity. The Greeks wrote about it 500 years before Christ, such as Pittacus' "Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him". At around the same time, in China, Confucius said "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself". Also around the same time, Buddha said "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful"
I would say that most faiths are built around those simple ideas. Most all faiths are identical until people get involved and turn them into religions and start adding all kinds of dogma and restrictions as mechanisms to control each other.
I would also say that it's perfectly possible for people without a faith to ignore the first and still fully follow the second of Matthew's commandments. And that the second is the only one that has a direct bearing on society, while the first obviously has a bearing in the afterlife.
So, the commonality of at least the second implies the possibility of a universal morality.
The passage from Matthew is the summary of the law. The Old Testament (OT) law has over 600+ laws in it. In Matthew, it is the essence of those laws which are exposed. In this case, the unpacking of those two laws are found in the OT laws. The commonality of the second law is granted. In this sense I agree with you, but I would state although a commonality may make it practical to love one’s neighbor, and laws can be enacted to that effect, that commonality, itself, is not sufficient to maintain a lasting universal application. There is no eternal aspect to a potentially changing commonality, and therefore no sure foundation to seek justice when love of neighbor is broken. How can one judge right or wrongfulness of commonality, and what can be the criteria to support that a majority view supersedes a minority view? Also, if one states that the "majority rules", as it were, then racism can be construed as "right"; no, there must be a transcendent morality to inform what is objectively right or wrong which must come from God. In regard to the pre-existance of those laws prior to the writings of Matthew, Christianity teaches that all of humanity was made in the image of God, and as such, we would sense His moral character as so created, but because mankind's fallen state has rendered us unable to perform the requirements of God's law, we needed a Savior to save from the consequences of the sinful state of the fall as it affected all of humanity, and our own personal sins which we chose ongoingly. The rediscovery of the love of neighbor throughout history is indicative of being made in the image of God and is found in the summary of the OT laws, but also found outside Judeo-Christian writings as evidenced in your above quotations.
DeleteAs far as the exclusionary nature of my statement, I am glad you pulled that out. It's true, Christianity is exclusionary. Christ claimed to be the only way to the Father (John 14:6), and to be The Truth (which excludes all opposing viewpoints). I would misrepresent Christianity to state otherwise. If one understands Christianity as truth, then, by necessity, anything that varies from it in any contradictory fashion is false. That is the nature of truth. A worldview is Truth only if the worldview is internally consistent, and if it corresponds with reality. Other worldviews may be proposed, but only one can be true, or none at all. Two or more diametrically opposing worldviews cannot both be true. It's the law of non-contradiction in logic. One cannot have both A and non-A at the same time and in the same respect. The same woman cannot be both pregnant and not pregnant at the same time and in the same respect. That would be foolishness. The reason Christianity is true is based upon the proof of the impossibility of the contrary, hence Christianity's exclusionary nature is established (the stuff of which makes for a future blog to fully flesh out). One last thought...all faiths are not the same. From the get-go, the objects of faith are greatly different which impacts how one understands that object, and how the object does/does not interact with humanity. Moreover, the teachings that stem from the object of faith have vastly different applications. The commonalities that exist, exist to make the worldview palatable. It must contain various elements of truth to be accepted, yet the variances from truth is where the internal contradictions are evident, which render the worldview, as a whole, untrustworthy at any given point. If you can't trust one aspect of revelation, all revelation from that source becomes suspect. Hence, only one worldview can be true and trustworthy as stated above, and to have any revelation at all, it must come from a trustworthy source. It is only in that kind of revelation do we have the ability to know and account for how we live, otherwise our lives become contradictory and foolish, unable to have a basis to know anything about realty with certainty, and unable to account, philosophically, for anything we do.
ReplyDelete