Decades of relentless effort by teachers, writers, lawyers, entertainers and others with significant influence have indoctrinated most of our leaders and thinkers with the idea that there is no universally true standard for human behavior and for truth other than whatever survival dictates. Truth, they say, is personal. You’ve heard it. Whatever works for you is true for you. This is called “tolerance.” The point is to allow each person to live comfortably in the illusion that they cannot, and should not, be shamed nor condemned because such feelings are considered the root of anger, depression, and destructive behavior. So freedom in this context is really the freedom from having to live up to any imposed standard of behavior that goes against personal inclinations. As a result anyone proposing a universal standard is considered unenlightened, immature or mentally ill.
Another foundational belief of this world view is that all people are inherently good inside. Therefore undesirable feelings and behavior are due to deficiencies in environment, including laws, poverty and education. Fix these and everyone will someday lay down their weapons and live in peace.
Furthermore, this world view requires that evolution be true. The idea that any being created the cosmos is untenable since it might imply a universal purpose and accountability of mankind and therefore bring people shame, guilt or need of rescue because we all know innately that life should not be as difficult and painful as it is.
These tenets form the foundation of a world view that must be accepted by faith. As such it is a religion and this country’s universities are it’s cathedrals and seminaries.
If your point of view is that moral truth is entirely individual (whatever works for you) then no one should have the power to impose a standard upon you that you don’t like and if you feel that “freedom” threatened, your choices are to either ignore them, get rid of them, or destroy their influence in society – at all costs. But the one thing you can’t do is argue logically with them because you don’t believe in any common standard to work from. Alan Keyes attempts to argue logically and I think he is technically very good at it. While I laud his effort, I fear it may be fruitless for two reasons. First our culture has not been taught to understand and value the method of logical deduction and second is largely committed to a world view that repudiates universal moral standards and assumptions which are the foundations upon which any logical argument is erected.
The left cannot argue logically about morality with someone who has a different standard than they they do because in their minds whatever works for you is true for you and whatever works for them is true for them and the two truths don’t have to agree. A proverb of Solomon comes to mind: “Like a lame man’s legs, which hang useless, is a proverb in the mouth of fools.”1 Now by argue, I mean to engage in persuasive discourse with those who think differently. The left does build arguments, in the sense that they build cases for each other to listen to and to indoctrinate children with. But when they come up against serious disagreement they must fight with personal attack and manipulation. They must ruin the reputation of people who disagree at all costs to maintain their “freedom”. I saw this in the demonstrations of the ’60s and it hasn’t changed.
I mentioned manipulation. The liberal elite long ago decided that they know what is best for everyone. For example they have decided that we must stop using oil. (For those of you too young to remember, this is the same mantra as the student demonstrators in the ’60s. They were taught in school that the United States exploited the rest of the world for oil and resources so they decided we should all return to poverty.) The left screams that Christians should not bring their beliefs into politics, yet they are and will enforce their religious beliefs upon all of us at any cost.
Another ramification of this world view is that to maintain their brand of so-called freedom in a country founded on the rule of law, a person must manipulate the definition of the words used to express the law. That’s just what many of our judges have been doing for so many decades it is now the norm. This is another reason we can’t engage in logical argument. If you don’t believe me, just watch congress for a while. If liberals seem to be loosing an argument they will manipulate appearances and the meaning of words. They understand that the media will only report sound bytes and clips and then go on to something more titillating so there won’t be any accountability.
I think one reason they get away with it is because their concept of government appeals to people who don’t see themselves as capable or willing to become self sufficient. There is a strong element of American society who find it easier to blame others and depend on government.I must admit that it is tempting to blame “those in charge” for everything just as many of the youth of the ’60’s did. But the more government interferes and controls, at least in the manner that the Democrats have been doing it, the more it makes people feel like victims who need a fix.
The fact is that this “liberal” world view has been worked into every level of society and every political party in one degree or another. Studies show that it has infiltrated those who say they follow the Bible which does in fact present a universal standard (unless you redefine the words or attack the authors). It may be that the momentum toward this philosopy is now too great to change without serious damage to national unity. But I think that Christians should at least understand that the current issues in politics are symptoms of a very serious fundamental difference in world view and my fear is that too many people who call themselves Christians have so compromised with it that they cannot see the light of the good news of Jesus Christ anymore.Footnotes
- Proverbs 26:7 [↩]