Relativistic Logic

It's amazing how sloppy the logic and reason can become in the absence of a Christian worldview.

A key component of a Christian worldview is that, since God's values are transcendent and immutable, we can count on certain truths in life. In the Christian worldview, truths are logical, they make sense, and they are consistent both with one another and the world around us.

The secular worldview is based on the wisdom of man, whatever seems reasonable at the moment. It shifts like the sand, and what may be "right" or "fact" today is tomorrow "wrong" or "myth."

Want to see an example?

Consider this reprint in the Rapid City Journal today of the "third party" story I posted on last night.

The Journal has a feature called "Rapid Reply" which operates much like the comment system of many blogs. It allows readers to leave their thoughts about the story.

While some made comments that, while opposed to Bob Fischer's position and mine, are nevertheless reasonable and appropo to the topic. For instance, some disagreed with supporting a third party over John McCain for fear it would hand the presidency to the Democrats--which it likely would.

Others, however, were pretty intolerant of Christianity (usually most people who hate Christianity pride themselves on being tolerant--even though they usually aren't).

How about this comment:

Please take yourself, your church and furniture store and move to Saudi Arabia...Or just keep your religious beliefs to yourself and stop trying to make laws to change how the rest of us think and act. I am just fine with my own morals, I don't need yours forced on me!

Or this one

...the religious right is not entitled to the presidency...

Or this

...you need to look beyond your ultra-right conservatism and vote on real issues...

Or this

UNBELIEVABLE!! Fischer have you ever heard of the separation of church and state??

I'm sure Fischer has heard of it, since secularists have been trying to use a phrase not in the Constitution to override the right of free religious expression for about 60 years now. The commentator obviously has no understanding of the doctrine of separation of church and state, either in it's appropriate or inappropriate context, since it's totally inapplicable here even in the commonly accepted inappropriate meaning. Since when has "separation of church and state" been heralded even by secularists to mean that a religious person can't vote, organize and advocate as they see fit?

For the person who said Fischer needed to "look beyond your ultra-right conservatism and vote on real issues," I wonder if he/she ever considered that our religious and philosophical beliefs (whether they be Christian, conservative, or whatever) DO speak to "real issues." And those issues include not only taxes, defense, and health care, but the value of human life and the preservation of marriage--the cornerstone of a healthy society. Since when did "real issues" become so narrow as to encompass only those issues which are myopically considered to exclude any religious or moral input?

That same commenter also says, "The evangelical movement is, was, and will ever be a lost cause because this movement cannot justify any of its platforms without relying on 'faith.'" The wise person will realize that not only are the positions of evangelicals based on transcendent religious values (the most important foundation, since they do not change with whim or who's in power), but that moral choices usually have "real life" consequences. For instance, gambling addictions usually result in poverty, children outside of marriage usually results in poverty, etc.

Or this comment:

McCain scares the heck out of religous zealots, because he displays tolerance towards others. God forbid we reech across the isle and shake hands with a...dare I say it 'Gay person'. Many Christians would have you believe that this would lead to certain death and damnation.

Really? The Bible says Christians are not so much to avoid unbelievers who are sinning, but DOES say NOT to associate with someone who calls himself a Christian but is willfully living in sin. And the same passage in the Bible which says God does not approve of homosexual behavior also says there were former homosexuals in the church. So obviously one can leave this sin behind and join the fellowship of God and his church.

And nowhere does the Bible say the penalty for being homosexual, or being friendly and cordial to a homosexual, will result in certain death (though given the short life expectancy and health risks of homosexuality, an indirect result might be argued). And the Bible is also pretty clear that practically any sin can be forgiven, thus avoiding damnation, but a failure to accept the grace of Christ will result in damnation.

It was at this point that I left a comment myself, pointing out the intolerance of some of these hypocritical commenters:

Judging from some of the comments on this article, it seems some folks don't believe Christians have a right to be active and participate in the political process. Okay for liberals, okay for "moderates," even okay for secular conservatives...but not Christians.

How did "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" devolve into outrage that Christians might want to see their values promoted in the public square (as everyone does, regardless of what their values are)?

If our nation was to be a country where religious values could not "contaminate" government, why would the people who gave birth to this nation and set up its government have believed overwhelmingly in the role of religious values in government? Why would President George Washington have said, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports"? Why would John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, have said, "...it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

This anti-Christian sentiment which would confine faith to the irrelevance of a Sunday morning pew is all the more reason Christians should be active in the political sphere.

No matter who is elected, someone's values will prevail in this country; should it be the values which say Christians should not have the same rights as everyone else, and are no longer welcome in the country they founded? "

Of course, rather than simply accepting logic and reason, the intolerant secularists had to come out and embarrass themselves with even more flawed logic and inaccuracy.

" Why is it that "Jesus", "Christianity", "Christian", "Bible", "Yaweh", or "Jehovah" specifically aren't included in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or Declaration of Independence? The generic words "Nature's God", and "Creator" are used instead.

The Constitution also says that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification for office or public trust.

It was done this way intentionally. To accept ALL religions and religious beliefs. Including no belief, if one was so inclined.

You're free to think, believe, and live your life however you want. You, and others like you, cross the line when you force and legislate your beliefs on me and others like me to live our lives according to your mandates. "

Rather than retype and rephrase what I said in response, here is the next comment I left:

To re: Bob Ellis - You claim "creator" and other such language describing God is "generic." What was the religious faith of the men who wrote those words? Were the Muslims? Buddhists? Practically all of the Founders recognized Christianity as the preferred religion, even relatively nominal ones like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin called themselves Christians and/or promoted prayer and other Christian values.

If I said "My Lord," (which isn't "God" or "Jehovah") would you think I was talking about Lord Fauntleroy, or Lord Vader? The context and source make it pretty obvious for anyone interested in knowing.

Besides, that one day of the week (Sunday) exempted from bill consideration in Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution is a holy day for only one religion that I know of (hint: it isn't Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, or secularists).

That religious test you mentioned in the Constitution: does that restrain government from establishing an official test, or does it prevent a person from voting according to their values? Does the Constitution define and restrain individuals or government?

Christian doctrine shaped the very way our government was set up. The system of checks and balances, for instance, is a reflection of the Christian doctrine of the fallen nature of man, that humans tend toward evil. Secularists believe we are evolving to a higher moral plane and those old checks and balances are no longer necessary; that's why they're working to undo things like federalism and separation of powers. Which set of values will we legislate?

Everyone "force[es] and legislate[s] [their]beliefs" on others when their beliefs are in the majority and adoption of those beliefs as law follow our republican (small "r") and constitutional form of government. How do you think laws have been passed in this country for over 200 years? Every law we pass reflects our beliefs and values.

I'd rather my values win out in the electoral process (just as you'd prefer your values). They are the values that created our nation, made it the great place it is, and can save it from the deterioration it's experiencing. Those values have proved they work. Values that promote a lack of restraint and moral fortitude, show contempt for private property, and disregard for human life have wrecked many a country. It's your right to choose those values, but it's my right to oppose them in the political process.

Then we had one of the Christian self-emasculators weigh in with some unbiblical illogic:

I'm a Christian. I have strong beliefs. But I refuse to force my beliefs down anyone's throat. The Bible says we shouldn't judge other people. I don't. The way I see it, when the Bible says we should or shouldn't do certain things, God is talking to us as INDIVIDUALS. When God said it is an abomination for a man to lay with another man, he's tellin ME not to do that. What others do is their business. I won't judge another, because we ALL sin in some ways. And I believe that when He says "Do not take the name of the Lord, thy God in vain", He's not talking about something you might say when you hit your thumb with a hammer, but rather using God's name to promote your own agenda. THAT is taking God's name in vain. "

Here was my brief reply to this:

To "I'm a Christian too" - You might want to go read the Bible again regarding that part you missed about judging things as right or wrong--it's in there (try Ezekiel 3:18-21, 1 Cor 6:3, Matthew 5:13-16 and Galatians 5:19-21 for a start), and God told us which are which. Does your non-judgmentalism and "the Bible only speaks to me" apply if I want to come murder you or steal your car? Remember, these are religious values. Should we un-legislate them? My car is pretty old and I could use another one, cheap (just kidding).

I could have taken issue with his dismissal of taking God's name in vain, but if I pursued every flaw and inconsistency, things would get pretty long (like this post).

In case you're wondering, those passages I cited tell the person who ostensibly believes the Bible (i.e. what used to be known as a "Christian"), both individually and in aggregate, that certain things are definitely wrong, that God's people (having received and acknowledged His truth) have a duty to warn others about wrong things, that we are to use judgment in ascertaining what those wrong things are, and that we are to allow the light of the truth we have received from God to shine forth so that others can learn the truth, too (remember that un-saltiness and "light under a bucket" part?).

Do people not bother to think ANYTHING through anymore, not even people who call themselves Christians?

This comment wasn't worthy of response, but I found it cute, in a sad, misguided sort of way:

Excellent post. If all Christians (evangelicals and fundamentalists, specifically) thought and lived their lives like you do, I doubt very much we'd have the problems we have today.

In other words, if Christians would just shut up and ignore all those passages I just cited (Ezekiel 3:18-21, 1 Cor 6:3, Matthew 5:13-16 and Galatians 5:19-21), things would be so much better. Life would be great if Christians would just refuse to be the salt of the earth that God commanded them to be. We wouldn't have all these problems (like a high divorce rate, high out-of-wedlock-births, STDs, a million aborted children every year, people dying of AIDS, children struggling emotionally and academically because they have no stable home life, people assaulted and raped and robbed and murdered every year, etc.) if these crazy Christians would just shut up and hide their light under a bucket.

You know, you don't have to agree with Bob Fischer's efforts to explore a third party option, even if you are a conservative and even if you're a dedicated, Bible-believing Christian. But is it so much to ask that arguments to the contrary at least be logical, consistent, factual and relevant, as a few were?

I suppose this is to be expected, though, in a world that has rejected absolute truth in favor of moral relativism. If nothing is true unless I want it to be, then I can make up my own truths, even my own facts and my own history. I can even harmonize all my made-up facts and truths with my own brand of logic; if I say it's consistent, then it is, and who are you to question it.

And it isn't even something new. We've seen it before, in the Israeli period of the judges, if nowhere else, when people simply did "what was right in their own eyes."

When we live that way, no one is safe. But it looks like that's the kind of world some people are insisting on.