Part of the dilemma facing American (and worldwide) society today is the basis and origin of their laws. Their Constitution is based on laws set down by the Founding Fathers, many of whom were practising traditional Christians. Therefore, you find many traditional Christian values guiding such laws as forbidding homosexuality, polygamy and forced adoption of religion.
According to the beliefs of the Founding Fathers, these laws were not arbitrarily decided. They were laid down by our Creator God Himself. Their underlying moral basis is not open to debate – the morals are ABSOLUTE.
These laws are some of the ones being challenged as ‘biased’ and ‘bigoted’ and ‘old-fashioned fundamentalist discrimination’ by some today. They argue that such laws are no longer relevant or fair in today’s liberal, free, non-Christian dominated society.
These laws should change with the times, they say, depending solely on human society’s demands. Their underlying morals are dependant on our mood – the morals are RELATIVE.
But this line of reasoning naturally rejects divine inspiration for those said laws. By extension, this line of reasoning rejects morality itself as a having divine source.
They reject morality as having been defined by some Creator, because as atheists or agnostics or non-practisings, they don’t believe there is a Creator. Therefore, morality does not have an absolute definition.
If that is the case, then where did moral and ethical ideals come from? They must be human inventions or decisions. If they are not absolute (already set in place and defined), then they must be relative (chosen and moulded by ourselves).
Simply put, if there is no ultimate source of moral right and wrong, then we shall choose our OWN right and wrong! If human societal consensus is the basis of morality, then we are free to create or modify morals to suit our society.
When homosexuality is prevalent, then make it permissible to have gay marriage.
When men with many wives can prove that their families are fair, stable and nurturing, then allow lawful polygamy.
If a 6-year old boy thinks he can choose whether or not to have sexual relations, then by all means, introduce NAMBLA to the neighbourhood kindergarten!
Feeling kinky? Your dog feels kinky too? Then get on down and do it doggie-style! Yeah!
Oops! Were those last few ones a bit risque? Unacceptable to modern society? Well, maybe modern society isn’t enlightened enough yet. What argument can one make against paedophilia and bestiality, if one does not subscribe to any particular pre-set morals?
See the problem? Even the most liberal of us balk at the idea of sex with underage kids, or animals, or even underage animals. But what logic can they use? That it is immoral? Who chooses the morals? For us Bible-believers, God chose.
*Gasp*, is liberal society saying that they have SOME Christian values ingrained in them? That must be SO horrible for them to realize!
But this extends far, far further than just marriage conventions. If there is no absolute basis for morality, then EVERY MORAL is open to debate and re-definition. There is no appeal to a higher power – you cannot accuse me of being evil, since evil is merely what I choose to define it as. I can say that in my opinion, YOU are being evil in not tolerating my beliefs.
So if population numbers are becoming too great and babies are unwanted, then abort them and leave the corpses in the town dump.
When citizens are old, sick, disabled or otherwise unproductive in society, euthanize them for the greater good of civilization. Stop their resource drain and churn out some Soylent Green in the process.
Take it to the furthest extreme it has historically gone: When a large enough majority of society decides that a new moral code should be implemented, then kill the Jews. Massacre the Gypsies. Purge the nation of anyone who professes a religion or a different political viewpoint. It’s not morally wrong, because I say it isn’t!
This is the logical result of moral relativism, which says that morals are NOT based on an underlying, pre-set definition of right and wrong.
Incidentally, realize that the biggest perpatrators were atheist, Communist leaders – Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong-Il.
Because there is no God in Communism, therefore there are no divinely-placed rules. Man is free to be his own god, to choose his own rules. And that is exactly what these Great Leaders did, they became cruel and oppressive gods over their people. Mao’s Little Red Book anyone?
In conclusion, let me just say that humanity, with our puny brains and mere millenia of collective experience, has NEVER known what is best for ourselves. We need something, someOne higher to trust in. Us children need a Father to lay down the rules, and to guide us by the hand every day of our lives.
So where do YOU get your definition of right and wrong?