Moralitics

There is not much in our world today which will bring about such passionate "conversations" as those which occur when discussing politics. When it comes to politics there are many (very) differing points of view. Many ideas on policy, economy, health insurance, education, etc. To some a particular idea may seem like the answer to all of our crises, while to others that same idea is the worst possible course of action ever.

During my time here in N.O. I have been able to, thankfully, come in contact with people all across the board in the discussion of politics. With the pending presidential election in November the political buzz has been all the more prevalent. As a result, I have had to make myself more aware, not just of what our two leading candidates stand for, but of what I stand for.

An issue which seems to be reoccurring, perhaps because of the Christian realm in which I live, is the issue of Homosexual Marriage and Abortion. The issue of whether or not these issues are right or wrong does not come up in conversation (often the correctness is already assumed to be understood one way or another), rather the issue of who we should vote for because of their position regarding these issues. These being moral, not political, issues.

Some argue that you cannot legislate morality (which is to an extent true -- people are still going to do what they want), therefore you cannot vote on a candidate based on their stance on these issues alone (which I do agree with to a point as well, because one must look at the full picture). However, the counter attack against such an argument is this: if you say you cannot legislate morality then we could argue against all laws ever created. Every law represents some sort of moral legislation (i.e. the speed limits we have signify our appreciation for the lives of others on the road; or the law not to break and enter signifies our respect of the privacy and individuality of our neighbors -- both of which can be considered morally ethical). Which then perhaps leaves the individual with the former argument stumped. And although this counterattack seems sufficient on the surface, you have to go deeper -- especially as a Christian, there is more to this argument than the legislation of morality.

It perhaps, is not that we cannot legislate morality, rather that we should not have to legislate morality. But it seems that we have to because the Church is missing the mark somewhere. Why must we rely on our government to be our moral conscience? (I am not posing this question to those that do not believe in Christ, this is for the Christian only. After all, "We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers ... (1 Tim. 1:8-9).")

What it comes down to, for the Christian, is that often times we do not allow the Love of God to control the way we live, how we handle life circumstances, or how we communicate to those around us. Because we do not let the Love of God permeate our lives and in turn overflow into the lives of those around us, in that we miss the mark. We allow morality to be taken from our hands and placed into the hands of the government; relying on it to ensure humanity lives according to certain guidelines, and therefore supposing the government is the one which is to ensure we act morally, or live "good" lives. This is the role of the Christian isn't though? (The entire law is summed up in one single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Gal. 5:14) What are we doing outside of voting for an individual to keep morality -- i.e. the sanctity of life or healthy relationships, according to the Word we say we stand upon -- that maintains morality in our world? ("A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that your are my disciples, if you love one another." John 13:34-35)