Throughout the abortion debate over the actions of the Mississippi and South Dakota legislatures, it’s been interesting to see how quickly pro-abortionists have denounced anyone with a Judeo-Christian view of human life as religious extremists who project their belief system into politics.
This accusation highlights an important truth: Everyone has a belief system that shapes their world view. Call it what you will, religion, philosophy, or personal principle, each one of us has a code by which we answer the existential questions of why are we here, how we should live, and what our society should allow.
From the Pilgrim’s Mayflower Compact (almost 400 years ago) to the Declaration of Independence and throughout most state constitutions, the Judeo-Christian philosophy was the underlying foundation of American society. Only in my lifetime have Americans who publicly acknowledge a belief in the God of the Bible been declared a danger to the republic.
Today, moral relativism is the new cultural creed. In our post-modern world, there’s no such thing as good and evil, right and wrong, and those who believe in absolutes are reviled as simpletons. On the issue of abortion, relativists seek cover in ambiguity and complexity as an excuse to do nothing about the killing of the unborn while the teachings of Moses that have stood for several millenniums are considered no more valid than the latest philosophical fad.
Join a movie star-endorsed cult or sit cross-legged in front of a statue in Tibet and you will be called an enlightened soul on a spiritual journey. But take your kids to Sunday school at a Baptist church and you’ll be branded a religious nut.
The cardinal sin in the relativistic post-modern West isn’t to have a religion—it’s just to have the Judeo-Christian religion. To a secular humanist, it’s not offensive to have a moral compass—it’s only offensive when that moral compass is aligned with the Holy Scripture.
Obviously, in a pluralistic society like ours, there will be many different viewpoints on morality, and each of us will see an issue like abortion through the lens of our own conscience. But when someone takes a position contrary to the philosophy of relativism, they are usually accused of trying to legislate morality.
Ironically, government legislates morality all the time. Every law that prohibits rape, theft, or murder makes a moral judgment that those actions are wrong and will not be tolerated. Anyone who thinks civilization is possible without restraining evil by force is kidding himself.
So how then does a democracy determine whether a practice like abortion should be outlawed along with child abuse or criminal neglect? Ultimately, the will of the people through our elected representatives will decide the future of abortion in America. Granted, this does not guarantee that the correct outcome will result (particularly after the courts become involved), but at least it ensures that the will of the people is expressed through legal and peaceful means.
The controversy of abortion will not go away. In a free and open society, those on both sides of the debate shouldn’t be afraid to explain how they came to believe what they do about life within a mother’s womb. If someone is an atheist or secular humanist who thinks that man ultimately has the power to decide life and death, he should say so. Likewise, practicing Catholics and evangelicals like myself should also be honest about how we came to a pro-life position. Rational beings need a rationale, and as Americans we have the right to express ours with the hopes of making a difference.
Craig Ziemba is a military pilot who lives in Meridian.
Reader Comments
Posted: Friday, March 14, 2008
Article comment by:
Rev Spitz
"don't believe in abortion , don't have one" is that like, don't believe in shooting babykilling abortionists don't shoot one? SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal hell because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life. http://www.armyofgod.com
Posted: Thursday, March 23, 2006
Article comment by:
John Sage
I love it when the privelaged majority with voices in the government starts crying about beind persecuted because the minority would like to have rights as well.
When your moral compass is TRULY aligned with the scripture (including things like love thy neighbor and turn the other cheek) there is nothing offensive. When you claim it is aligned with the scripture but choose to ignore those pesky rules about compassion love and tolerance, that's when it gets offensive. Read your freaking book, not just the pages that say "You're right and they're wrong" and then take that to mean you can force everyone else to your viewpoint.
You're not the only one with an opinion, a belief system or a moral compass. Try to respect ours and we'll respect yours. and for cyring out loud, if you don't like abortions, don't have one!
Posted: Thursday, March 23, 2006
Article comment by:
John Nelson
Mr. Ziemba would do well to remember that beliefs are just that, BELIEFS. If he chooses to BELIEVE that a non-viable fetus is a human being, deserving of of the same rights as those who have taken their first breath of air, fine. Just don't demand that others believe as you do, and don't compel them to behave as you do, guided by your beliefs.
As for moral compasses, Mr. Ziemba is again incorrect. What is offensive is the act of attempting to align everyone's moral compass with your own, and insisting that such an arrogant act is justified by scripture. Beliefs, again.
It has been said before, but it certainly bears saying again; If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. Otherwise, stop telling the rest of us how to believe.
Posted: Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Article comment by:
Dan
If Mr. Ziemba wants to know why people of his views are not treated with respect, he should read his own article. He assumes that anyone who does not share his views must be a moral relativist and not possibly acting out of principle or faith. He assumes that Christians and Jews (many of whom, in my experience, see the "Judeo-Christian" label as a farce) must hold the same views that he does. If he sees his opponents as crude and insulting caricatures, can he really be surprised when he is subjected to the same treatment?
