A lot is being said about liberty these days, especially in terms of things like the TSA, Obamacare, and the Tea Party.  Many that argue for less government make the case that government control spoils things. 

• It does not bring the prosperity that it promises.
• It provides no incentive to work.
• It leads to moral corrosion.

And I don’t disagree with them, but…

The problem is that the left also has a point when they say:

• Left unchecked, people will abuse others to get ahead.
• Greed is wrong.
• There need to be certain protections in order for society to function.

The problem that I see is that it was never government that was supposed to provide the check against this immoral behavior, but the church.

Our First President Speaks

On September 17, 1796, George Washington affirmed this in his farewell address:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensible 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. … 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 instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? … 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. … It is impossible to govern rightly without God and the Bible.  [Emphasis mine.  Excerpt from Faith & Freedom: Recovering America's Christian Heritage]

The bolded passage, to me, is the important part, and what we’re seeing today.  American culture has rejected the God of the Bible.  No, it’s not that we have forgotten that “In God We Trust” was our national motto.  It’s that society—especially liberal thought—has decided that it can come up with a better morality than Christianity, and the only way to impose this artificial morality is through legislation.

Replacement Morality

Taken Washington’s stance in this address, religion—specifically Christianity—was to play a part in our country, and the part that I believe he meant was the part where it governed right and wrong.  Under that system, greed would have been something that everyone would have agreed was wrong.  Honest work would have been encouraged.

The problem with every system, however, is that people have to carry it out, and as more people decided that government should be secular, and as power corrupts individuals—especially those in government—we find that more laws are added where before there was no need.

For example, there would have been no need for many blue laws in the thirteen colonies—not many people would have tried to buy and sell on Sunday.  When people started to try to do this, the response was to legislate morality, until more people disagreed than agreed.

Christianity was a check on government—much like the check and balances of multiple branches.

Today, we have a new morality being defined—or being fought over between two different parties.  There’s the modified Christian belief system and there’s the secular belief system.

This is why there is difficulty, and this is why there’s little agreement about the way things will go.  The problem is that the secular morality that has been gradually wearing away at the modified Christian morality leads to tyranny, as more people decide daily what constitutes something that is right or wrong.

Eroding Freedom

Where the Christian morality defined specific sins, the new morality defines almost everything we do.

• You must buy one brand of light bulbs
• You must have auto insurance
• Your school cannot have bake sales
• You must wear your seat belt
• You cannot own a gun unless you jump through many hoops
• All of your money will be taxed
• Unborn children can be murdered without penalty
• Smoking some narcotics is fine
• If you’re an elected official, there’s a different standard of right and wrong than if you’re a regular person

The list just keeps on growing, and this new morality is legislated when it can be, and if it can’t be, it’s taken to the courts to be defined that way indefinitely.

I fear that this country cannot long endure this war of cultures, and that a fracture may be imminent.  We shall see.

Running a website on modesty, I have heard all sorts of reasons of why a woman should wear modest clothing.  Most of the reasons center around what different clothing does to guys that look at it, and a desire not to cause men to lust after a woman.

The problem with this logic is that this takes away the personal responsibility of the man to avoid looking at things that cause them to be tempted—and to resist temptation when it comes upon them.

Islamic and Jewish Clothing Choices

In Eastern countries, much more clothing is worn by women than it is today.  The benefit is that a woman can be fairly certain that the only body that their husband sees in their own—there’s less competition.

The problem is that where there is more clothing, there is also a higher degree of temptation for something that would be innocuous in countries with lower clothing standards.

That is why hearing stories where men in Arab countries have raped women there simply because they were filled with lust because she showed some skin (an ankle/calf or an arm) are all too often—and tragic.  However, it’s the same thing that is happening in our country where women are wearing less and showing more, and men become desensitized to certain amounts of skin.

Cheerios

For example, I was out looking for healthy cereal choices, and I found Multi-Grain Cheerios.  Sounds healthy, right?  (You’re supposed to commend me here, just so you know.)  And what’s on the back?  Two healthy women—you can tell as much because they’re both looking like they have a healthy weight, and the one on the right is showing the top part of her chest—and some cleavage there.

We as a society have accepted seeing the tops of women’s breasts even though seeing that could have an effect on the male mind.

So, Does Slinky Clothing Provoke Rape?

Some people would have you believe that it does.  What it does is promote exactly what it’s supposed to…

Let me put it this way.  Would you buy clothing labeled “sexy” that was a tent?  What do you think that clothing that looks “sexy” is supposed to look like?

If you said “form fitting”, “showing skin”, “low necklines”, or “short skirts—you’re on the right track.  The label is telling you what to expect—of the clothing and of the reactions.

So, if you’re wearing clothing designed to get a reaction from men, and some men are not as good at holding back as others, are you increasing the odds of getting a poor reaction?  Certainly.

Is it all the girl’s fault?  Nope.  It’s both.

It’s the man’s fault for not controlling himself, but it’s also the woman’s fault for wearing clothing that has been labeled with a specific purpose—to excite the sexual appetite in men.

Like the woman pictured above, women should strive for “beauty” over “sexy”.

Sorry. The point is this: We have a new tyranny at hand, and it’s not coming from Christians. In fact, what Christians have tried to do pales in comparison to what is currently going on based on this new moral law of discrimination. It is now wrong to conduct business and not serve certain people or not hire certain people purely based on what someone thinks is your motive.

Scare you?

If we look back to our founding documents you see that when we were a Christian (and not Post-Christian nation) our founding fathers understood something. Read the Declaration of Independence. Read what our rights given by God are: Life, Liberty and Property. This new moral law of discrimination infringes on both Liberty and Property. It contends that there is a body out there that can decide based on what they believe you think whether you’re wrong, and then they can seek to punish you in a way to make you do what they believe is right. In a way, it’s terrifying.

Taken to its logical conclusion, you may soon see that Christian churches may have to start changing their doctrinal statements on some subjects such as homosexuality simply because they’re discriminating. We’ve already seen what can happen to great charities that are told either provide adoption services to homosexual “parents” or close– they closed. The logical outgrowth of a society that elevates discrimination to a new sin that has to be enforced universally is that anyone that states an opinion other than the accepted one can be judged on any future actions they take based on their voiced opinion.

So, say I owned big company and was in charge of hiring and I had two candidates and one was a homosexual. I choose the straight man over the homosexual man, and then the homosexual man goes back, finds my blog, and says “he was being a bigot.” He could sue me or my company, and depending on how the justice ruled, he could win damages. Regardless of whether or not qualifications were followed.

What I’ve already spent too many words saying is basically this: The secular morality of discrimination should not infringe on the God given right of liberty and property. The secular moral is baseless– there’s no hard and fast rule, and it’s unequally applied. It gives too much power to people who just seek to make trouble and it replaces freedom in America with tyranny.

Will it ever get this bad? Possibly. Am I just exaggerating? Hopefully. The point is watching the trends– seeing what’s happening.

As long as those out there that see discrimination as the new sin to be applied because we don’t like a person’s opinion or belief, we have the danger of having this imposed on us from above through government. I would say the same thing to them that they say to me. Leave your morality out of government. Stop trying to force your morality on me, and let me have the freedom that you claim I’m trying to take away from you.

The second thing I found fascinating was the whole idea that discrimination is the new sin. In my discussion which is still continuing on Christian morality and Atheistic morality one of the things that I haven’t managed to get to is the discussion of basis for morality– what makes a given thing right or wrong. I’ll tackle this in the series, but I wanted to give you a frame of reference.

Because we as a society are leaving the Christian moral framework and headed towards a more secular one, we should expect to see more things changing as far as right and wrong, and this is one of the examples. We now have the sin of choosing one person over another– and part of this is playing mind reader.

What do I mean? Well, consider the Chinese Restaurant. When’s the last time that you were there? Now, when I go, I tend to stay near the chicken, and I always make sure to get one of those doughnuts. One of my college friends likes to get crazy things in order to see if he can gross us out. In any case, how many of those that served or ran the restaurant were Asian? I would guess a fair amount. Do you consider this a problem? Do you see many people protesting, people going to the ACLU to say that their rights were infringed on? I personally haven’t even read a story like this.

Why not? Why aren’t they vilified for not having the correct ratio of African-American, White American, etc? Perhaps it’s because one expects Chinese servers? Does it make it more authentic? Could the managers believe that they’ll turn a better profit if they hire Asian girls? GASP!

I could use other examples, but I want to go back to Musicguy’s comments:

I don’t support discrimination of any kind, at any time.  period.  Go ahead and mask it as “personal freedom” but at the end of the day, it’s discrimination:  evil, hateful, ugly discrimination.

He was upset that I said that I could support a business owner’s right to only hire men. Why is he aghast? Because he judges motives (and I thought Christians were the only ones that judged other people) and to him it’s a sin to want to have exclusively male employees– regardless of the reason.   See how he adds “any kind at any time.”  And this is the danger.  Because we cannot truly know the thoughts and the heart, we’re left with people guessing motives. 

He cannot truly mean that he has a problem with Chinese restaurants.  I personally have a problem with Hooters for other reasons, but I haven’t heard Musicguy state that he has a problem with them for only hiring waitresses. Perhaps he would get on the bandwagon to say he opposed them not letting pregnant waitresses be a part, but I would have to wait to hear just what he had to say. I truly do not wish to put words in his mouth.

Ok, pretty good so far, right? Then the screws tighten. He wants to do God-sized things through us, but we’re too busy being busy for God and all the while depending on ourselves rather than him.

At the same time, I think of the whole conversation I’m having on Atheism, Evolution and morals, and I start to ask myself why I’m having that conversation at all. Regardless as to whether the Atheist/Evolutionist will understand it or accept it, the whole debate comes down to a worldview’s interpretation of facts. So, if you cannot use reason and “evidence” to show the unbeliever the truth, what can you show.

It is there that we catch up with Elijah on the top of Mount Caramel. For many years, Ahab and his wife Jezebel had introduced and been following the worship of Baal. This caused God to take away rain from the land for 3 years (by announcement from Elijah) and here is Elijah standing in front of the multitudes of Baal’s prophets.

Now, the New Testament tells us that Elijah was a man of like passions as we are– a man that sinned. But he’s different in a few senses. He never died. God performed miraculous acts through him. And yet he and God had a relationship, and he understood what needed to be done.

He announces to the children of Israel: Don’t sit on the fence. Choose today who is God and follow him. If it’s Jehovah (or I AM), then follow Him. If it’s Baal than follow him. He then throws down the gauntlet. Prepare an alter, and whichever God brings fire is God.

Back to today. I believe this message to the Christian is twofold.

What Do You Believe?

First, what do we truly believe? If we believe in God, why do we worship both Him and Presidents, Him and Entertainment, Him and Money? Why are we not sharing the Gospel with all that we come in contact with? What explains our lack of including Him in all our life?

Why Do We Think That We Can Do It Alone?

Whether it’s our conversations, or seeing souls saved, why do we believe that people should just accept something because we accept it. The truth of the matter is, people need to see God, not us. The common line now is that people should see Christ in us, but I think that’s a bit flawed. I think people need to see God, not us. That means that we need to get out of the way.

We’re imperfect models of Christ. We fail. We’re hypocritical. We lack the faith that Christ said could move mountains. What we need instead is to give God the opportunity for Him to display Himself to all that would see. We need God-sized tasks– like George Mueller and other saints that got out of the way and said “God wants me to do this– and I’ll give Him the glory.”

Until Christians get the faith in God, and follow it up with seeking His face and doing things so that He might be glorified, I believe we’ll still see the weak church and debates with unbelievers. Once God is seen in all His glory– all those around will stand back in awe at His power and be drawn to Himself.

Just as when fire came from Heaven to consume the water, the sacrifice and the stones and the prophets of Baal were shown clearly to be wrong, a tremendous demonstration of God’s power could decimate the prophets of secularism. But do we really believe that we have that kind of God?

There’s this weird convergence on this topic on this blog such that it makes sense to clarify what I’m trying to say here because it’s foundational to what I’m saying elsewhere.

So, what do I mean when I say that Atheism has no basis for a moral code?
Let’s start with what I’m not saying and go from there.

What I’m not saying

I’m not saying that Atheists cannot be good people or do good things. Neither am I saying that they should be looked at with derision, or considered lesser people. That is apart from my point entirely because my point is less of a practical one (in one manner) than it is a philosophical one.

What I am saying

Simply put, morality seeks to declare a given action, activity or thought either right or wrong. It does not, directly, address consequences or rewards. It may be perceived in levels, though at its foundation it is either right or wrong (perhaps neutral, but that’s beside the point).

In the case of the Bible (and other moral codes derived from other religion’s books), morality is defined by a higher power, a Creator– one whose right it is to set rules. To bring this concept home better, think about the contract that you sign when you go to work for an employer. You agree to do a certain set of things and they agree to pay you for them. The employer then has the right to tell you what’s right or wrong in terms of your contract (ex. It’s right for you to work on project X, and wrong to work on project Y).

Same thing with a Creator God– He has the right because we are His creation to declare right and wrong, and regardless of whether we can meet the standard, the standard has been set.

When you take away a “holy book” or a set of standards by a higher power, what are you left with? You are left with a group of equals that must decide morality based on personal preference, conscience, etc. The problem with this is two fold.

1. The obvious– God created a moral standard, and regardless of whatever standard man comes up with, if it does not match God’s it is flawed.
2. The less obvious– Since it’s man that can come up with a moral standard arbitrarily, something that is right for one man maybe wrong for another man. This leads to chaos.

You lost me

Ok, a plain example. In some countries where missionaries have gone in, the native tribes accept and consider right the theft of another person’s property. We here in America believe theft to be wrong, but these people believe it to be right. Who is right?

Naturally, our American perspective says we are. Taking someone else’s property must be innately wrong because we know it to be so. But the problem is that if there’s no higher power or higher morality, why should any one person’s opinion of morality (or people group for that matter) be above any other person’s opinion of morality.

This is exactly the point. It’s not that Atheists won’t be moral, it’s that the definition of morality is worthless apart from a higher power because morality can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean– logically and rationally.

This is why we can now have discussions where we can say that discrimination is a higher wrong than infringing on a right to property, association and liberty. Because morality is whatever a group thinks it should be. But it’s irrational to have this thought, and conversations will go nowhere with this as a basis, because there can never be a winner.

The more I’ve talked online about Creation vs. Evolution or Atheism vs. Christianity the more it confirms to me that these two worldviews are very difficult to reconcile because of their nature. Both believe that they reflect truth, and that the other reflects nonsense. Both strongly hold their opinions, and the longer that they debate them online (or in other places) the more hardened their opinions become. It gets to the point where one begins to wonder if there’s even a benefit to debate the topic simply because of the way that one side looks at the other side.

Nothing demonstrates this as well as the recent conversation that’s been on this blog regarding the movie Expelled that opened yesterday in theaters. If you read through the comments, you’ll see a common theme: One explanation of the facts is nonsense, the other is truth. The charge that has been leveled against Christians in the past is that they blindly follow a book, but Evolutionists are the same way– blindly following The Origin of the Species regardless of whether there is a better or easier explanation.

So, with all the “meta” out of the way, let’s get to the topic at hand.

Morality

At its core, morality (or ethics) tries to answer the question of whether a given activity is right or wrong. Moral codes have been formed around different sets of beliefs, but one thing that is common about moral codes is that they usually hold a high standard (often higher than a person can hold throughout a lifetime). That and the fact they are often bent in order to justify one’s actions.

From a Christian perspective, morality came from God. When God told Adam not to eat of the fruit, God laid out the first moral code: Obey God and do not eat is right, eat and disobey and you’re doing wrong. At its core, Christian morality boils down to obeying God vs. disobeying God.

To take care of the tangent that could arise here, I’m going to say that morality does not exist outside of God. Morality is God’s rules– He created, His rules. Therefore, had he made any current “wrong” thing “right” then He would have been just doing that and that would be right.

So, what is that code?

There are a lot of commands in the Bible. Some are given to individuals, some are covenants given to people, some are laws given to the Israelite people, and some are summed up commands.

When Jesus asked to boil down the law (because the Pharisees had added so many more rules that it was practically a full time job to remember all the rules (reminds me of the United States)) he boiled it down to two principles: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself.

What about the Old Testament Law?

About this time, someone will start asking about killing the rebellious child, wearing clothing with two forms of material, and all sorts of unclean questions. This is easily answered, however, in that a moral code does not dictate a punishment. See, according to the Bible all sin deserves death and separation from God– and ultimately we will answer for our sin, or have it covered by the blood of Christ. Therefore, all sin is equal. It all deserves death and separation. There’s no degree of sin before God– it’s all sin, all serious, and all equal.

Simply put, being rebellious as a child is wrong. What should be done about it is up to a government or parent to decide. In the Israelite government, God decided it was worth death. Should we do this today? That’s outside of the scope of this post, but if you’re open minded it’s an interesting question.

Back on topic– the answer is you should look at what is being said about “right and wrong” and not at what the punishment was declared to be.

Can You Be More Concrete?

Consider this a introductory post on the topic. To list all components of what I believe to be the Christian moral code would take many more posts (which I can do if there is interest). The point here was to paint the broad brushstrokes.

We are seeing Christian morality fade in this Post-Christian culture we are finding ourselves in. It is important to know what is and what is not what God has to say about right and wrong, and for Christians it’s even moreso.

A confession: I believe that all too often I paint the light of truth on the culture as if I will make an impact on the culture by what I have to say. God clearly states in the Scripture that this is mostly in vain. For those of you that are Christian, I will attempt to focus more on you and your needs in combating the culture– trying to focus on what is right and what is wrong.

For those of you that are not Christian, please understand that I don’t expect you to follow a Christian moral standard. However, I do believe that you have an innate knowledge of right and wrong, and that you also are well aware that you fail to even keep that internal standard you have. For that, I recommend Jesus Christ as the salvation that you need to right that wrong. He is the only way. You may continue to debate with me, we can keep having discussion, but ultimately my goal is to be a beacon for believers to see the culture and to know what’s sin in God’s eyes and how to live for Him, and to show those that are in sin that there’s a way to get out of the guilt– through Jesus shed blood on the cross.

Now hear me out, I’m not recommending either of these two things for American law or even to be implemented in the church.  Now that I’ve said it, let’s move on. 

It used to be said that Christianity was keeping a certain percentage above the world morally.  Simply stated, the more the world loosened its standards, the more the church did as well, but there was always a gap– a place where the church was slightly better than the world.

With statistics indicating that the percentage of Christians getting divorced equaling that of the unsaved world around them, and what Christians are allowing themselves to be entertained with, one begins to wonder if the reason that Christianity is loosing ground is that it isn’t Christianity at all.

Like the Internet Monk, I agree that we do not see the persecution that Christians see in Africa and Asia, but I think that a big reason is because we’re not the Christians we should be.  We’re petty, we fight amongst ourselves, and the world really doesn’t see us as much of a threat, since we’re just like them.

I’m not advocating becoming Amish, but what I am saying is that the time has come to take a serious look at our hearts.  We need to look inside and find out:

• Why are we entertained by half dressed girls singing pop songs?
• Why are we entertained by things with demonic undertones?
• Why are we entertained by violence and death?
• Why we are drawn to dress in clothing that reveals all?
• Why we are engaging in premarital sex and divorcing at the same rate as the world?
• Why are our churches splitting?
• Why is their disrespect inside of families?

I encourage you to take a hard look at yourself, as I will be doing, and see what it is you choose to entertain yourself with and figure out how it squares with the Bible.  Take a look at your activities, and where your mind goes when it’s free to go wherever it chooses.

For everything we do, we have a reason. Sometimes we do not think through the reason, but there is a reason none the same. So, when it comes to the discussion of morals and why we do what we do, it is important to recognize this fact if we are going to have a good discussion.

Nature vs. Nurture

Many divide this discussion up into nature vs. nurture– was I born this way or did I become this way. I will mention Nature in passing (as I believe it is relevant) though a majority of this post will cover the Nurture section.

I believe that each and every one of us is born with a sin nature . This does not mean that we will each commit every sin that there is, but it does mean that we are capable of every kind of sin and incapable of preventing sin of our own will.

I agree with Freud on only this point– that man in his natural state is not good. He does good things, but he is trained that way from his youth up. Which gets me to nurture.

Whether you are a Christian or not, I believe that we are influenced in what we do primarily by our parents and teachers in young grades. It is the discipline in the early years that has a tremendous influence on who we will become as we age. It is our parents that teach us how much we will be able to exercise our will, how much we can get away with and who model noble virtues.

For the most part, I believe that many people, Christians and non-Christians alike, act out a moral code without giving any thought to it based on discipline and self-discipline that has happened throughout their life– especially when they are young.

What Would Happen if America Dropped Christian Morality?

So, with that as the backdrop, I do not believe that if America decided to drop Christian ethics from their code tomorrow that the world would immediately become lawless. I do not believe that the Atheist is, by his lack of belief, any more likely to commit crime because he does not respect a Higher Authority than a Christian is– with a caveat.

I believe the reason behind this is that even the current generation of Atheists were raised with the value system of Christian moral standards, and therefore will continue to exercise these standards by the fact (as I stated above) that they will believe it natural to behave the way they were brought up.

And this is the point in which we draw the line.

There is a line of difference between the practicing Atheist and Atheistic teaching just as their a line of difference between the practicing Christian and Christian teachings. Just as the practicing Christian may do things that are not characteristic to Christianity (i.e. the Crusades, witch burnings, etc.), Atheists may do those things which are not characteristic of Atheism (i.e. adhering to a theistic moral set when there is no reason to consider any option better than another option.

So, while I do not expect an Atheist to be a bad parent, I do expect that if a child grows up with less respect for Christian morality, then each subsequent generation will have more problems reasoning why they should be charitable, why human life should be respected (or be considered more valuable than that of animal life), etc. since they will have no basis in that belief.

Why Do We Do What We Do?

Again, I think it’s a combination of factors. I believe that it’s part of who we were raised to be. I believe that it’s part of who we respect. I also believe there’s a fear component, whether that’s fear of the law, fear of death, or fear of judgement.

I believe that the Christian’s desire to please God can be an influence for behavior, but I believe that too few Christians actually think through this concept to make it have the impact that it should (and I’m guilty of this more than I’d like to admit!). I believe that if Christians actually acted out their faith this world would be a different place, and we would not be having this discussion, but I digress and probably assume too much.

It was an interesting conversation that I did not start. The other day I was working at my desk when a coworker– a contractor from natively from Canada– probed to see what I believed in and then offered a short dissertation on the impact of Christianity in his hometown.

Basically, he recounted that in Quebec at one time the Roman Catholic Bishop (or whatever head was there) more or less ruled so far as ethics were concerned. Even public officials would go for this man’s blessing. But during the 50s and 60s when both ours and his country started to reject religion, the people of Quebec stopped listening to this man’s guidance, and now the city is rampant with crime and this man attributes this to the wane of religious authority in the town.

He is a self labeled agnostic who claims not to have set foot in a church in over 20 years after rejecting it as a child .

Though I’m not presenting hard data (anecdotal at best) it follows along with another statement I was reading just the other day:

We imagine we can ditch Christianity and yet the good things we have inherited in our way of life will continue. They will not. Christianity formed Western civilisation and is so consubstantial with it that if Christianity goes, the lot goes with it. Let TS Eliot, writing in 1934, give us a text to think about this Easter: “Do you need to be told that even such modest attainments as you can boast in the way of polite society will hardly survive the Faith to which they owe their significance?”

You see, one of the main arguments that Atheists advance is that humans have evolved (they have to link their believe in Evolution here) to a point where they’ve moved beyond the need of religion, that they’ve learned enough to “not need the crutch.” However, history does not bear out this assertion.

You see, everywhere that religion has been supplanted for non-religion, it has lead to an eroding of moral values, not an increase of them. America, as it becomes more secular is also becoming more violent. When you ask Muslims what they like and dislike about America, they point at the moral decay this society has. And it’s true. Our society is in decay and just like many great empires before it, it is headed for a fall.

And I addressed the core of a problem in a meeting I had just the other day.

We were trying to decide the best security for sending applications that we build as software developers to the production system which is live on the Internet. Basically, we’re pretty undisciplined at the moment (not unsecure, mind you, we just don’t follow procedures) and we were looking to gain more discipline– more structure.

My response to how to do this was to put into place some software that would force us to follow the process. And my reason why was simple. We, as humans, are pretty good at taking shortcuts and coming up with justifications. Without something keeping us from doing the wrong things, we will tend to go faster than the speed limit, try to take advantage of rules, and seek to do the most we can without going over the line.

Simply put, we’re sinners. Now, in a society derived from God (endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights…) we know that it is not the government by which my rights are given and should be secured, but by God. That means that the Supreme Court is not above God’s law– they can’t take away my freedom of life, liberty and property because it’s not given to us by them. Same thing with the President and Congress.

It is exactly at these times when the government believes that it does have that right, and that rights derive from them that secularism sweeps in and so does situational ethics and we start having debates over the obvious. (i.e. Why is slavery a moral wrong worthy of being banned but not abortion? Who is the moral arbiter? The majority? But the majority does not make right!)

All this to say, atheism is not some utopia, but the exact opposite. It leads to the very “everyone doing that which was right in his own eyes” that got the world judged by the flood, and will get it judged by fire this next time.