by Ben Kinchlow        A supposedly "intelligent" individual asserted in a discussion on morality and ethics that "morality is completely separate from religious principle". I found this assertion interesting, though ludicrous. This position is not possible in our western civilization, and would find itself contrary to the positions held by most, if not all, eastern philosophies, as well.

       Today, in the heated debates regarding stem-cell research, cloning, and special rights for special interest groups, the arguments rage as to whether or not Biblical principles should be considered as a basis for making "moral decisions". There are those who are adamant in their position that religion has no place in the public square, who insist that all decisions... legal, political, social, moral, and economic... should be made apart from any consideration of Biblical truth. Such a position can only be sustained by a determined flight from reason. These individuals subscribe to the theory of evolution, which is predicated upon the "survival of the fittest", and tend not to view their philosophical positions from a standpoint of reason. They make assertions without consideration of the end result.

       One of the most grave warnings in history was issued by George Washington in his farewell speech on September 19, 1796, when he said, regarding national morality, "... let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion." He continued, "Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education... reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. "For example, were we to make legal, moral, political, social, economic decisions without regard to Biblical truth, what would be the basis of the "morality" on which we base our decisions? Morality implies a "standard or rule" or "the quality of being in accord with standards of right and wrong". Absent the Bible, what are the standards of right and wrong? This is the conundrum faced by today's liberal-oriented intellectuals. They insist that our children can make "moral" choices in a vacuum. Their position is "ethical choices can be made without regard to an absolute standard of right and wrong." "It depends on the situation." These "situational ethics" are the shifting sands of the present system of values and the foundation for many of the unethical choices made by public figures today.

       President Washington clearly understood the folly of attempting to substitute education for morality. If there are no absolutes, there is no basis for oaths, the criminal justice system, agreements, or any other form of contractual intercourse. He recognized that morality was necessary for the type of government we enjoy, a Republic. He recognized that the security for our prosperity, our reputations, our life, and the ability of the police to pursue criminals and prosecute in the courts all rest upon the twin Biblical pillars of ethics and morality.

       Remove these supports from western civilization, and we totter on the brink of destruction similar to that of the Roman Empire, which fell not from the hordes of barbarians at its gates, but from the rot at its core. God is not mocked. America is in the balance, and Christians have the power and the responsibility to weigh in for our survival. Do nothing, and we shall surely perish.

       Scripture is unequivocal... "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness... because that when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise they became fools... and even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind (a mind void of judgment) to do those things which are loathsome." [Romans 1:18, 21, 22, 28]

 

?