Religion, Morality and the ‘Gay Marriage’ Decision

With the impending decision on a constitutional right for people of the same sex to marry, there have been a variety of different commentaries crossing the net. One recent piece by former Arkansas Governor and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee suggests that the result of a favorable decision could result in the criminalization of Christianity because Christians would be forced to violate their faith beliefs under such a ruling.

Huckabee is not off base in making this suggestion. Particularly in an environment in which people are being forced out of business and otherwise mistreated for exercising their faiths. Outright criminalization of belief is not impossible when a political regime believes that all under its influence must be forced to follow the party line.

But there is more behind the scenes than meets the eye here, or at least that is what is most likely. A short while ago this writer published a piece on why the left was targeting Christianity. The fact that Christianity has been a moral bulwark, which is inconvenient for amoral politicians to confront, was a central idea therein.  Morality is an important social construct. It governs the daily lives of people and directs how they associate with each other. Absent religious principles it is still possible for morality to exist, but the fact remains that Judeo-Christian religion has been the foremost influence on morality in the western world for centuries, and while imperfect in its influence, it still remains as the best set of rules that we have had the opportunity to experience and judge.

The reader may note the reference above to ‘amoral politicians.’ This idea is of extreme importance, given the difference between immorality and amorality. Immorality requires the application of standards and then a violation of those standards. Amorality, in contrast requires a complete lack of standards; literally, no right or wrong, no good or evil.

When looks at history amorality has become a centerpiece of political actions throughout the 20th century. Hitler, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, and others killed millions in the name of their political objectives and thought nothing of it, except that it was justified by their goals. In the rest of the world we might look at these individuals and say that they were acting immorally, because we were applying our standards. But for them, there were no standards except their own designs and their belief that the ends justified the means, even if it meant that millions must die so they could have power. And that is where the modern American left is attempting to take us.

Consider the corruption that has surrounded the Clintons during Bill’s time as President, the smell of which has only intensified after he left office. What Rush Limbaugh has referred to as the “Clinton Crime Family Foundation” is undoubtedly one of the largest personal slush funds ever created and points to the possibility that if elected Hillary Clinton may well be the first coin operated president in the history of the US; the nation’s policy sold to the highest bidder because of her limitless greed for money and power.

But Barack Obama is no better. His incessant lying about his past, his policy intentions, his accomplishments and so on, coupled with the secrecy and manipulation that has surrounded his time in office is the stuff of legends. The recent trade legislation proposal being classified and with no public access, resulting in the legislature considering a proposal about which many of them know virtually nothing leads one to wonder why the secrecy if the proposal is so beneficial? Senator Ted Cruz, who at first supported the deal has now switched, stating “For too long, career politicians in both parties have supported government of the lobbyist, by the lobbyist, and for the lobbyist – at the expense of the taxpayers. … TPA’s progress through the House and Senate appears to have been made possible by secret deals between Republican Leadership and the Democrats.”

A discussion of issues along these lines can probably fill a book. What matters here in this limited forum is that a government that has no moral underpinnings is willing and able to do anything. Oaths sworn “so help me God” are meaningless in an context that denies divinity. People who attempt to place themselves in positions of absolute authority while denying anything greater are attempting to usurp a role that they are unsuited for by the very fact of their desire to do so.

One is reminded of a speech Hillary Clinton made in 1993 at the University of Texas (Austin) where she suggested that we need a “politics of meaning.” What she meant, and what very few people discerned at the time was the replacement of God with Government. Of course, if she is heading that government, which she is intending to do through the upcoming election, then she becomes the new replacement god; certainly better than the old one because she is so certain of her own infallibility, or at least her deservedness. No one should be allowed to get in her way because she is who she is. Wait, didn’t God say something that sounded just a bit like that when Moses asked the burning bush what he should tell pharaoh when asked who sent him to free the Hebrews.

Morality has a place in society that corresponds to a political concept known as “rule of law.” It provides a level of certainty regarding human behavior that cannot be replaced with rule of man (or woman) and uncertainty that follows from the capriciousness of dictatorial types who change with the wind that best suits their political goals and personal fortunes.

Sadly, the hubris of the national political class has come to a point where it knows little or nothing of limitations. Hubris, inevitably leads to self-destruction. The problem here is that no matter what the rest of us do, the hubris of these self-appointed replacements for the divine is likely to take down all of us with them. It is a sad testimonial to a nation that was founded, in part, on the belief that God and morality are an essential part of this society.

Comments are closed.