Over the past several days of lawless vandalism and riot, I have attempted to engage in meaningful discussion with several people who are friends, but ideologically we differ. Much from these conversations was meaningful, because I know the people with whom I was talking and we understood that both of us, even when we disagree, were coming from a place of good will.
But not everyone I’ve spoken with over the past several days comes from a place of good will. There are several people with whom I’ve spoken who have been nasty, rude, ignorant, arrogant, and godless. Suffice to say that these conversations were less than productive.
Throughout the unproductive conversations I noticed a trend — and trend that is both disturbing in its intellectual dishonesty, and frightening in its logical conclusions. That is the complete lack of an objective moral foundation for a defense of the looting and rioting. While it would be interesting to look at individual arguments presented in defense of looting and rioting (does it strike anyone else as INSANE that we have to refute the justifications for felony assault?!) it would be very time consuming and tedious and, in the end, would spiral into so many various and sundry rabbit trails that it would take volumes to address every potential counter-argument in a cogent, coherent, and comprehensive way.
So I will not be attempting to address all the individual arguments. Instead I want to address the issue at its core, at its root, its foundation. I want to cut the legs out from under those who attempt to justify the destruction of property and the assault against persons.
The first nagging question I have (you know the kind of question that is never really answered, but is instead obfuscated or ignored) is why is there so much talk about “laws” and really no talk about “right and wrong”? I’ve read or heard “F*** the Police” hundreds of times over the past several days. When I’ve asked (and when I haven’t) “why?”, I’ve been told that the laws don’t work…indeed one person who graduated from a very prestigious university told me that there are laws in this country that allow a cop to murder a black person. Sadly, when I demanded he cite these laws he said he didn’t need to, because that was irrelevant. Blast! I really want to know where these laws are! People need to know about them so we can repeal them!
Well, no, there are no such laws. And if there were it would be wrong. It would be evil. It would be sinful. I’ve been told, and heard, solicitedly and otherwise, that the laws and the legal system needs to change. OK, for sake of argument, let’s say they do. What laws and why? Why are these laws wrong? Why are these laws immoral? Because, in fact, all laws are moral laws. Every legal system reflects a moral code. So, I just want to know what moral system we’re using. Moreover, I want to know EXACTLY what needs to change for our laws/ legal system to be right, good, and moral. Because, as I said, all laws reflect the moral system of those who created the laws.
The attempt to divorce laws and morals is the sad and pathetic and dastardly result of the influences of secularism and liberal christianity (which is just secularism with vestments). People make vapid and vacuous statements such as “you can’t legislate morality” when in fact, that’s all people ever legislate. Laws are created to effect changes in society. Laws reflect a moral code. And when the laws no longer reflect the moral code of the people as a whole either the laws change or the lawmakers do — or there comes social unrest and repression.
So, I really want to know — what is the moral code we’re using? You see, the sad irony is that our society and culture has been running on the moral and ethical momentum of the Judeo-Christian worldview for so long that we don’t even realize how many of the unconscious presuppositions that people hold are either taken directly from Christianity or have been morphed or bastardized into a secularized form of the Christian worldview. But as the Christendom train has been losing steam so has the rigor and precision of the overarching and generally accepted moral code.
People have conflated the Golden Rule with the Hippocratic Oath so that cultural Christians and agnostics and atheists will all say that their moral system is something like, “as long as it isn’t hurting someone else.” Now, I think there is MUCH to be said about the inadequacy of this as our quintessential moral maxim — but that’s for another day. For now, I’ll simply say that “hurting” has become the most squishy, squirmy word in that sentence.
Indeed, in reality, most people don’t really believe that. In fact, as a rule, godless people never live up to their own standards, let alone God’s — but again, that, too, is for another day. No, in reality, most people’s moral compass is about as definite as a weathercock. Right and wrong are not defined by eternal and unchangeable principles, but rather by how they feel in the moment. Because, frankly, if you have a firm and inflexible moral standard, sooner or later you’re going to want to break it, or someone you support politically is going to break it and all the sudden we don’t believe all women and morality doesn’t, really, matter after all.
Granted, many people will not simply admit that they have no settled moral principles — they have to be backed in to a corner and given no escape. And I hope that anyone reading this can see why having a moral system, and thereby crafting laws in light of that moral system, is problematic, deadly, and stupid when the aforementioned moral system is whatever the Hell people feel like in the moment. That kind of moral code has only one overarching principle and that’s Expediency. And I think that human beings are corrupt enough without encouraging lawmakers to act even more expeditiously when creating classes of criminals.
The second question, I think, must naturally follow from the first. Nomatter what people SAY their moral code is, the necessary follow-up question is: why should we follow the moral code you propose?
You see, despite what secularists say, all people believe in sin. Now, not all people consciously believe that sin is primarily an offense against the Creator God, but all people believe that there are breaches of the moral code that diminish your humanity, and your acceptability in society. All people believe that there are thoughts you can think, sayings you can say, and deeds you can do that make you less than what you once were and could have been — thoughts, words, and deeds that require some kind of expiation, some kind of atonement.
The Communists in East Asia sent people to be reeducated about their sins. They would be imprisoned, tortured, and tried publicly (sometimes) whence they would confess their crimes against Worldwide Communism. Then they would be sent of to labor camps to be reeducated (brainwashed) so they can be good Communists.
The Stalinists were much more expeditious, they just murdered the Kulaks, and the Limiters, and the Wreckers, and also just random people, because nothing keeps people on their toes like random, indiscriminate, torture, enslavement, and murder!
Buddhism and Hinduism are nicer, they just require reincarnation in an endless Karmic cycle of rebirth and death and payment for sin…actually that might not be nicer, that might be infinitely worse now that I think about it…anyways.
Islam most certainly has sin, as do Judaism and Christianity.
And contemporary Western Secularism has sins, too. Only these sins are of a more nebulous and far less volitional nature. These sins are sins of privilege (ironically most vociferously argued from some of the most privileged people on earth). Racism is a sin (most of the time); as is sexism (but only sometimes); and Pedophilia (we’ll see for how much longer). Colonialism is totally bad, except when we don’t call it colonialism and we benefit from it. White Colonialism committed by dead people is bad, and so is everyone who is arbitrarily said to be a beneficiary of Colonialism without demonstrating the proper level of self-loathing.
But just for funsies, let’s compare the two major moral systems in America. The Christian and the Secular.
Well Christian morality finds its basis in the Eternal Creator and Sustainer God of the Universe. Secular Morality is based in the feelings of those who promulgate it — it is the Zeitgeist!
Christian morality is based on First and Second Great Commands: Love Yahweh God with all your heart, soul, and strength and love your neighbor as yourself. Secular Morality, even on its best days is based on “not hurting someone else”.
Christian morality is centered on the infinite value of people, made in the Image of God. Secular morality is centered on intersectionality and victimization and a sliding scale of how valueable a person’s opinion is — or at least that’s what it is today!
Christian morality can be verified through the study of the Bible and its interpretation throughout history. Secular morality cannot be verified, except by feelings.
I could go, on, but I think you can see that, if you were to build a society that had a moral system, only a great fool would deliberately choose Secularism. Christians may and do pervert the moral code as give to us by God, but there is always an objective standard whereby to call for redress. Secularism has no such standard.
I ask you today, if you’re reading this and you disagree with me, please consider these two questions: 1) Why are so many who defend the riots avoiding the concepts of right and wrong? and 2) Why should we accept the moral system of the rioters/ those who defend them?