Exchanging big laws for little ones...

(Tim) This question from a reader, followed by my answer.

An honest question, no snark, from someone seeking to further understand your viewpoint here: If one's religious beliefs compel them to denounce those of the homosexual persuasion I can understand that regardless of whether I share those beliefs.

However, we live in a country that does not have a state-endorsed religion. With that in mind, how does someone such as yourself, Mr. Bayly, advocate legislating your religious beliefs? The military is an extension of the government and I'd just as rather see my church stay out of such things.

Once again, thanks in advance for your explanation. I truly do seek to better understand a viewpoint other than my own on this issue.

Dear Lynn,

Love of sinners and their victims is what causes Christians to denounce the wicked sexual perversion known as sodomy, just as love of sinners and their victims causes us to denounce murder, rape, and incest.

These awful crimes against God and man are all the same...

causing terrible suffering and death among those giving themselves to the sin and those they are predators against.

Today, most men refuse to see what's as plain as the nose on the end of their faces. They live in denial and refuse to shed tears with young women whose step-dads bedded them for years, trashing their beauty and innocence right under the nose of their wife. They live in denial and refuse to shed tears with the young mother whose boyfriend said he wouldn't marry her, but he would pay for the murder of her child, so she succumbed to his wicked bloodthirst and murdered her little one.

I could go on, but you get the point. All law is the enforcement of morality, from the IRS code to the proscription against smoking in parks that's recently taken the country by storm. And the talk about separation of church and state either applies to all enforcement of morality behind legal code, or we grow up and realize we will enforce morality, and it's just a questions of whose?

If I were to guess, I'd think you believe the only morality that should be enforced is what's not commanded in God's Moral Law revealed in God's Word, the Bible. Thus, it's perfectly fine to enforce Al Gore's law against carbon emissions or the mayor's law against smoking in city parks, but wrong to enforce any laws against, say, the slaughter of little babies.

So today there's a fad of turning away from the laws and tragic suffering and death caused by abortion and sodomy, while everyone's agreed that police should pull us over and give us a ticket if we don't have our seat belt on or our toddler isn't in a booster seat.

This is to replace big laws that matter with little laws that matter very little. Booster seats do little to nothing to protect children, stats show, and smoking in city parks is harmless to anyone other than the smoker, himself. But you will write in and ask me quite seriously why I'm forcing my religion on others by opposing lethal sexual perversion.

As you meant it sincerely and weren't being snarky, so I'm writing sincerely and am neither angry nor prejudiced. I speak simple truth out of love for sinners and their victims--which most certainly the sodomite and his young prey is and is.

We Christians love sinners and oppose sin because God in Christ Jesus first loved us and commanded us to love others.

Comments

I agree with Pastor Bayly. All laws are moral judgements. When Christianity is the dominant worldview, the laws forbid the things revealed by Scripture to be eternally damaging as best we can understand that revelation. When secular humanism (with its materialistic, no after-life worldview) dominates, there is no guidance other than protecting health according to the best understanding or, more likely, the lastest fad. Given that choice, though a practicing scientist, I will choose the much more reliable revelation, thank you very much.

Aside from the obvious fact that all laws legislate morality, here's the problem with arguments against legislating morality because "we live in a country that does not have a state-endorsed religion."

Worship of secularism is perhaps the most wicked thing imaginable.

Ultimately, for universal morality to exist, it has to come from a Primary Source. There is no way humans can say that one person's morality (or one society's morality) is superior to another without comparing both to a standard that sits above man, whether that standard is created by Gaia, Allah, the Dalai Lama or any number of gods and goddesses.

If there is no supernatural, there is simply no way to argue objectively that our morality is in any way superior to that of Nazi Germany.

Of course, we know that the only true God is the God of the Bible. All of the others are figments of man's imagination and those who worship the false gods and goddesses are actually worshiping demons.

There are universal standards of right and wrong. Ultimately, those standards are spelled out for us in the Bible.

If we abandon adherence to universal morality, then we are left with the whims of rulers or the shifting sand of popular opinion to determine what is right and wrong.

A society that is inclusive and pluralistic and guards human rights now could quickly degenerate into a society where we are killing millions in concentration camps or where a sudden outburst of violence results in neighbors hacking neighbors to death and leaving 800,000 dead.

Or we could have a society where we kill 50 million unborn children in 36 years.

Tim's point about little laws is important. We live in a society where we can kill our unborn children at any time up until birth with no sanction from government. We have a President who believes it is morally acceptable to kill a newborn baby.

So what are we up in arms about? What is the newest moral crusade? Well, we can't have people sprinkling some salt on their food.

It is perverse.

> With that in mind, how does someone such as yourself, Mr. Bayly, advocate legislating your religious beliefs?

The Bible says in the [banned] 10 Commandments that we shouldn't kill or steal. I suppose the government should stay out enforcing those religious moral issues? [Conveniently, the government can now engage in stealing and call it morally good.]

Add new comment