Listening to the radio this morning, a person made the following statement:
One issue we seem to have with humanity is that we struggle to make moral issues actually moral issues. It seems as though when political figures market themselves, they discuss values (moral issues). When people talk about moral issues, they politicize them.
I have found this more often than not to be true. When people are looking to get votes, they talk about values and moral issues. But when people discuss abortion or homosexuality, they discuss them from a political standpoint (Republican/Democrat) as opposed to looking at them from the moral basis that they are and testing them off of their basis for moral behavior.
Grace & Peace
PLW
One issue we seem to have with humanity is that we struggle to make moral issues actually moral issues. It seems as though when political figures market themselves, they discuss values (moral issues). When people talk about moral issues, they politicize them.
I have found this more often than not to be true. When people are looking to get votes, they talk about values and moral issues. But when people discuss abortion or homosexuality, they discuss them from a political standpoint (Republican/Democrat) as opposed to looking at them from the moral basis that they are and testing them off of their basis for moral behavior.
Grace & Peace
PLW
What if a person concludes, upon "...testing them off of their basis for moral behavior..." that they are both indeed moral? Or immoral? Let's assume that both are considered immoral and deserve the ultimate punishment: death. Should it remain entirely outside the political and judicial process, whereby citizens should be able to execute offenders themselves? Or should that end be the result of a political process that makes such an official determination?
ReplyDeleteAlso, if you believe abortion and homosexuality are immoral--and let's assume you're right--what more is there to discuss? Or is the question then what to do about it?
There are many examples of both political and non-political appointments of 'punishment'. A few that come to mind are God's appointment of judges or kings. Then, Ceasar, and royal lines of kings were the method of determining guilt or innocence, not necessarily a political process. Ultimately, the Bible says we will all one day be judged on our actions. This definitely will not be a political process. Does this mean that if we sin (or commit an act of immorality if you will), will we die? Christ paid the penalty for immorality by taking on ALL of the sins of mankind and has already paid the just penalty for sin: death - seperation from God. Its up to each one of us to determine whether we will accept this gift/punishment/provision or not. In this way, we as individuals are the actual judges of our own immortality (if you will). Its our choice, we become judge and jury on our own eternity.
ReplyDeleteGiven your response, I can't help but be elated that people politicize moral issues, and only hope that they continue to do so in what I hope remains a secular society. I can't think of a greater sin or crime than for a society to adhere to any religious doctrine as its foundation.
ReplyDeleteOf course I am using the Bible as a basis for moral authority, but I am sure there are others out there. Either way, moral issues should be discussed and judged based on a moral basis, not rhetoric designed at obtaining votes and committing another act of immorality by going back on the promise made to the voters...sorry if I came across preachy but it's kind of interesting. Also, in response to a religious doctrine as its foundation, America was designed around a very Christian philosophy, even though many of the Founding Fathers were not of that faith, as a friend of mine once pointed out not too long ago...
ReplyDeleteYour first sentence is really the heart of the matter. Your use of the Bible as a voice for moral righteousness may be in conflict with other sources which moral superiority--the Koran, the Talmud, etc. At the point they conflict, it becomes political--the conflict of interest and resolution thereof. Even an inter-faith debate is political in nature, if you're seeking resolution.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to "...America was designed around a very Christian philosophy..." I fail to see how. By 'designed' I can only imagine you're referring to the system of government. I'd like the know which tenants of the U.S. Constitution are inherently Christian.
Historically speaking, colonists came to America fleeing religious persecution, not seeking to establish a Christian nation. The nation wasn't formed until much later, when eradication of tyranny was the goal, not Christianity. Many revolts, including a tea party, later, the nation was established--with a founding documents which invoke God, but not Christ. Moreover, the first change to the document takes care to prohibit--via the Establishment Clause--any official religion. The notable Deists of the time that you referred to--Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, et al--were undoubtedly aware of the problems it might cause.
It wasn't until around 1865, near the end of the Civil War, when "In God We Trust" was printed on U.S. currency, due, yes, to popular Christian sentiment. This was some 80-plus years after the founding of the nation.
"In God We Trust" was made the official motto of the United States in 1956--some 170-plus years after the founding, and stands, in part, because of a court ruling that acknowledges the sentiment is only of a minor religious bent, due to frequency of use.
At least some Christians agree that America is not a Christian nation. This from a church I sometimes attend:
http://www.canyonhillscommunitychurch.com/Resources/Media/302363.aspx