The Importance of Christianity
To America’s Existence

How Long Will It Last?

With the United States being only about 250 years old at this point, it can be seen that American style of democracy is a relatively recent experiment in self-governance in historical terms. Looking back into history, one can see numerous once seemingly perpetual and invincible nations and civilizations that have come and gone over the last two thousand years. Therefore, one should probably not assume that the ultimate outcome of the American experiment in self-governance will be one of success, or even that America with its current form of government will still be in existence centuries from now, or possibility even decades from now.

The possibility of the American system of democracy ultimately failing may seem a little far fetched to some people, yet the gridlock in Washington often occurring over the past decade, and especially the gridlock and public animosity that can be observed after the election of President Donald Trump, may be seen as strong evidence of the reality of that possibility.

In addition, one can look at the case of what has happened over the past few decades with the increasing number of judges in state and federal courts determining major societal issues instead of those issues being left to the democratic vote of the people, as well as judges overriding the vote of the people. Also another problem in recent years has been the refusal of state and federal executive branch officials due to their own personal preferences or feelings, to enforce, or defend in court, laws that were lawfully passed by the vote of the people. For example, the incident of former Governor Jerry Brown and Attorney General Harris (now Senator Harris) of California and Proposition 8 (which became law and defined marriage as being between one man and one woman).

Furthermore, another development along these lines in recent years, is that sometimes after states pass a law, companies or organizations who's leaders and/or members don't like the law protest them by threatening to withhold business, money, and/or jobs to the citizens of that state unless the laws that they disapprove of ore repealed (paradoxically such actions even punish the people of the state who, same as the company or organization, also disagree with the law). One example being what happened with North Carolina in April 2016, and another example is what occurred in Spring 2019 when some organizations and people in Hollywood threatened to withhold business from the state of Georgia unless they repealed the anti-abortion law that they passed. Thus, instead of the companies and organizations protesting the laws they object to through media campaigns, or funding court challenges, both actions being part of the established workings of the American democratic system, they basically use extortion to try to overrule the will of the state's electorate, and enforce the company's or organization's private viewpoints and values on the issue related to the legislation upon the people of that state.

It is noteworthy that one can see the parallels, and may also consider possible connections, between the issues highlighted in the proceeding few paragraphs and the subjective vs. objective basic human rights and moral values conflict discussed later on this page.

There is probably one central factor that will determine whether America with its current form of government will ultimately survive or not. It is expressed in the opening and closing sections of the Declaration of Independence, which (respectfully) read;

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

As well, it was plainly articulated after the establishment of the United States of America by John Adams. He wrote:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Because as previously mentioned, a person's adopted spiritual belief system typically has a strong influence on their view of the world, their perspectives and opinions on issues, public and private, that occur, as well as their actions in the world, spiritual belief systems historically have often had a significant influence on the formation and development of political belief systems, and consequently their corresponding nations.

For instance, the Declaration of Independence indicates that the United States was founded on the principle that there are rights and laws given to mankind by God which are higher than, and supersede rights and laws that are created by mankind; the Declaration of Independence's cited case in point being the unjust laws and treatment imposed on the colonies by Great Britain. Similarly, this was also a fundamental principle used in the creation of the U.S. Constitution, and thus is embedded in the American system of representative democracy. For the United States this connection between its relevant spiritual belief system (i.e. Christianity) and the political system has had, and continues to have a great influence upon American society, including discussions and resolutions of both major and minor societal issues that arise, as well as the overall cohesion and continuing growth and development of the society and nation.

Separation Directive

Definition: Secularism - The exclusion, rejection, or indifference to religion or its influence, and belief that decisions and actions, especially in the public realm, should be based on worldly considerations, excluding religious influences.

The claim and demand that has in recent decades often been heard from some people, is that a person's personally held spiritual beliefs should not be allowed to have significant influence or effect on what is discussed or decided concerning issues related to government or other policy in the public realm. This is the "separation of church and state" that they regularly talk about, and often say or imply that it is mandated in the U.S. Constitution. They also often demand that personally held spiritual beliefs not be freely expressed in the public realm.

While the Constitution does mandate that there can't be a government designated national religion, it does not mention the "separation of church and state" which is often used today. Looking back into history in fact, in addition to at its founding, in some of America's greatest times of crisis, numerous leaders, such as Abraham Lincoln, looked to their spiritual beliefs for guidance and as a basis for making their most critical decisions and proclamations; those which had major and long lasting effects upon the United States and its people.

Likewise, most people who adopt a spiritual belief system typically use it as a basis to help them make important moral valuations, and subsequently important decisions on matters that effect themselves and others. To demand that someone who has adopted a spiritual belief system (e.g. Christianity) not do so concerning important issues would mean that they would have little or no solid basis to reach reasoned decisions for themselves about those issues, thus would essentially end up delegating their thinking and decisions about those issues to others, and in that way making them very susceptible to be directed, shaped, or dominated by other people's desires and agendas, and/or possibly the tides of fate.

As a side point, countries of similar size and scope as the United States where there is little or no tolerance of spiritual belief systems or of them havaing an influence on public matters, such as China, and the former U.S.S.R., tend to have a relativity poor history and environment of human and legal rights for its citizenry.


The Objective Moral Values vs. Moral Relativism Tie-In

A main point of the preceding sections is that a person's stance on spiritual matters is important, since it typically strongly influences their moral valuations and their decisions concerning both public and private matters. Therefore, where people get their moral values from, and the overall characteristics of those values is an important question.

Definition: Moral Relativism - A system of thought that says that basic human rights, and moral values are subjective, not universal; that they originate from natural entities such as a society, or a government (i.e. communist, democratic, etc.), and that basic human rights, and moral values can legitimately be granted, changed, or taken away by those entities. It says that there is no absolute truth regarding moral matters; that everyone can have their own truth. Thus, for example, if two people have different stances on a given moral issue, both of those stances can be considered morally right; even if the stances are totally opposite to one another.

Focusing on the United States and Christianity, someone having adopted the Christian belief system means that they should believe that basic human rights, and moral values (which according to Christianity are separate from societal standards and norms; though such standards and norms may mirror Christian moral values) come from the proclamations of an eternal God, and so are objectively established and universal, and since the Bible states that God is just and loving, established for the good of humankind.

If a person has not adopted a spiritual belief system, or has not adopted one such as Christianity which has an objective moral law giver (i.e. God), then the set or system of moral values that they hold equates to their acceptance of moral relativism. Moral relativism states that basic human rights, and moral values (which according moral relativism, can be synonymous with societal standards and norms) do not come from God and are not universal, but instead takes the stance that they are subjective.

From the perspective of moral relativism, there is no objective valuation in regards to issues related to morality. It is also typically interpreted to imply that the moral values held by a person should be well tolerated by others, and not be judged or looked upon by others in an morally absolutist way. (However, today moral relativists tend to a significant degree to do the opposite and do not tolerate certain ideas or groups of people; why this is the case is a topic that would probably be good to explore in a future site update.) Unlike the case of Christianity, by the very nature of moral relativism, one person or group's ideas of basic human rights, and moral values may be good for that person, and/or another person or group, or may result in harm to that person, and/or another person or group.

Paradoxically there also seems to be some professing Christians who selectively pick the moral values they personally like or agree with from the Bible and ignore others they don't personally care for or agree with; this is actually also a form of moral relativism.


Real World Events and Situations

The Supreme Court - The U.S. Constitution: The Originalist View vs. The Living Document View
Moral relativism also has a reflection in legal ideology. It can be seen in the two opposing legal views of the U.S. Constitution. A view that is typically held by political conservatives is the originalist view; that the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with its original meaning - that is, the original intent of its writers. A view that is typically comes from and is repeated by political liberals, such as Hillary Clinton, and Senator Feinstein at the Supreme Court confirmation hearings in March 2017, is the living document view; that the Constitution is a living breathing document whose interpretation and meaning can change depending on and in response to the needs and conditions of the society.

While the originalist view seems to be one that would provide legal certainty and stability for members of the society, the living document view would seem to not do so. Specifically, it would seem to enable the laws of the society to be changed without the consensus of the majority of people of the society, and facilitates laws being changed in a period of societal tension, turmoil, or crisis, essentially in a reactionary fashion, without members of the society having and taking time to consider what they think it would be the best to do to deal with the particular issue/situation at hand. Also, and importantly, if the Constitution, the highest law of the land is a living breathing document, that would seem to entail and mean that all state and local laws are also living and breathing entities . Such a situation would undoubtedly lead to a very chaotic society.

Music Downloading
In recent years the entertainment industry has lost hundreds of millions of dollars due to unauthorized downloading of material through the Internet. While on the Internet, a person who holds to moral relativism might come across an unauthorized music download site, and depending on the personal set of moral values they have, may very possibly think something akin to, "Well, most of those artists already have lots of money, so if I download some tunes for free, nobody gets hurt and I can enjoy the music." In contrast, a Christian (i.e. who believes in objective moral values) would-should remember what the Bible says about such an action, and only download music from authorized sites. (Note: It seems ironic that there are many songs and videos from the entertainment industry that seem to enthusiastically promote non-Christian values, or an anti-Christian attitude, yet people with Christian values are people who would theoretically always legally download and pay the industry for their products.)

Other Examples in Brief
The Hobby Lobby Supreme Court Ruling - Perhaps the most significant and relevant point about the 2014 ruling is that it essentially served as a statement that people who determine their moral values and opinions on public issues on religious grounds have legitimate opinions that should be counted, and not disqualified, ignored, or automatically dismissed, in the debates on those issues.

The Movie and Music Industries - The "If you are curious about something try it.", and the "If something feels good to you, then it is good and ok to do." perspectives and attitudes often expressed, especially about things related to sex, and especially towards young people.

Divorce - Opposite to what is often stated in most of today's news media, actual studies show that excluding liberal Christians (who have a very significant possibility of holding some form of moral relativism), conservative Christians (i.e. who believe in objective basic human rights, and moral values), have a divorce rate that is significantly lower than the general population. This is an important point because divorce usually has very negative effects on the parents, children, and also often on society in various ways.

Listing of Other Examples
- Abortion on Demand
- Modern Social Unrest Movements
- Moral Relativism’s License To Be Dishonest
- Inaccurate News Coverage of Important Issues
- The Issue of The Theory of Evolution
- Religious Freedom and Constitutional Rights
- Social-Political Polarization
- Feigned Tolerance Via Intolerance

Ultimate Effects On A Nation

Both moral relativists in general and particularly those that are secular-progressives, often say that their stances are for the good of the society and the nation. In general people who are of a moral relativist mindset often seem to say that their way of thinking leads to a "tolerant", "inclusive", and non-discriminatory society that is good for everyone. Secular-progressives often say they want to prevent the government from becoming a theocracy, and prevent one group of people from forcing upon the society their own set of "personal" moral beliefs and values.

Much could be said in response, but President George Washington stated and explained it concisely in his farewell address to the nation. He said:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable 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. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity."

Copyright (c) 2019, Christianmetrics.org

Home