In My Opinion
By L.N.P.

It's All Relative

Rather than grapple with the problem any longer, I decided to go grocery shopping. Because of my long-standing bouts with IBS (I almost wrote about THAT, too, so be thankful!) I've had to totally change my eating habits and am now shopping at places like Follow Your Heart and Whole Foods, where the food is organic and I can buy all kinds of healthy stuff to put into my delicate digestive system. Had I gone to Ralph's, I wouldn't have heard Dr. James Dobson talk about Reagan; I would have arrived before he aired. But, in the amazing way that God works in MY life, I drove on past Ralph's and thus heard the broadcast. And in so doing, everything I'd considered writing about came together. Perfectly.

Prior to his death, here's what I knew about Ronald Reagan. He was considered the Great Communicator. He was a fierce opponent of communism and was undoubtedly the person most responsible for bringing down the Berlin Wall. Regardless of one's political persuasion, he was well liked for his up-beat personality and respected for his optimistic vision for America. He was extremely conservative (which in my pre-Christian life was not at all reassuring to me). And, he suffered the prolonged and dreadful deterioration brought on by Alzheimer's disease. (Yes, I also knew he'd been an actor, Governor of California and that he adored his wife, Nancy).

But what I didn't realize-and wouldn't have been impressed with had I realized it twenty years ago-was that Ronald Reagan, although flawed in many ways, had a strong sense of good and evil; he actually knew the difference! He understood and embraced Judeo-Christian principles and he held fast to his moral convictions. It wasn't popular, but he was pro-life and remained that way. He supported prayer in schools, saying that although no one should be compelled to participate, "the freest country on earth should never have permitted God to be expelled from the classroom."

During the segment I heard on Dr. Dobson's program, he played a speech that Reagan delivered in 1982. In it, Reagan said something that I believe today with all my heart, and that I also believe is at the basis of whatever is wrong with our country. He said that the 1st Amendment was NOT written to protect people and laws from religious values; it was written to protect those values from government tyranny. Wow! That's a pretty intense statement, and it goes to the core of why so many seem to be confused about so much. We've lost our understanding of the 1st Amendment. And, we've lost our moral underpinnings, the very principles upon which our country was founded and in which Ronald Reagan still believed.

O.K., so let's break that down a little. I began this column by writing that people seemed to be in a state of total confusion, not knowing what to believe. I think the reason for this is that we have elevated "moral relativism" to an almost sacred place in our society. By that I mean that in this country, there IS no absolute truth, no absolute good or evil; no morality upon which we can all agree. Instead, we have become a society of secular humanists, assuming that people are capable of making individual ethical decisions that will somehow end up being…..well, I guess the objective would be that they'd end up being good. From the official Secular Humanist website, I took the following definition: Secular humanists rely …. upon the application of reason, the lessons of history, and personal experience to form an ethical/moral foundation and to create meaning in life. For secular humanists, ethical conduct is, or should be, judged by critical reason, and (our) goal is to develop autonomous and responsible individuals, capable of making their own choices in life based upon an understanding of human behavior.

Cool. But of course, everyone's personal experience is different, not everyone can truly grasp the lessons of history or the complexities of human behavior, so that pretty much leaves us with a free for all, right? Let's just get stupidly simplistic for a moment. Imagine that a large enough group of autonomous men got together and spent weeks engaged in critical reasoning, and, after comparing their personal experiences, made the choice to form a society wherein raping women (or pedophilia, or wife-swapping, or incest) was the norm; it "created meaning in life." Ridiculous, right? Well, let's answer that in a minute. Right now I'm going to switch gears.

Exactly what does the First Amendment to the Constitution (also known as The Establishment Clause) say? Based on all the recent court cases, and the incidents we've heard about such as the one where an entire high-school yearbook had to be re-printed because one of the photos pictured a group of kids wearing religious t-shirts, or a teacher was ordered not to wear her cross necklace to school, or the Ten Commandments was barred from a judge's courtroom, we'd swear that the First Amendment prohibited the public display of any religion. But here's what it really says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. That's it, in its entirety. Nowhere does it say that there MUST be a wall between church and state, although the majority of you would probably swear that it did. Nowhere does it imply that school children shouldn't be able to engage (or choose not to engage) in a moment of prayer at the beginning of their day, just as the members of Congress do! I don't see a single implication that an orthodox Jewish teacher should be barred from wearing his yamulke to school, or that a practicing Christian shouldn't be allowed to wear a cross. It simply PROTECTS the rights of all citizens to freely practice their religion, while stating that no SINGLE religion can be forced upon the people by the Federal government. Why is that so confusing? What are people so afraid of?

Question number two. Is America a democracy or a republic? Although the majority of you might quickly answer "democracy," you'd be wrong. A democracy means majority rules. That means that when an issue comes up, like our ridiculous "raping women" example, everyone gets to vote on it, and the majority wins. So whatever the majority of the popular feeling is about a particular subject at a particular time becomes the law. Our founding fathers knew that, and that's why they decided to form a "republic." A republic is "rule by law," and our particular republic was founded on laws that were considered immutable-not subject to the popular feelings of that or any day. And just what laws could the founders have considered immutable? The ones in which they believed-the transcendent principles of good and evil, of right and wrong that were found in the Judeo-Christian Bible. In the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. What that meant was that murder (and rape, pedophilia, or incest) would ALWAYS be wrong, regardless of popular feelings.

Now that brings up an interesting sidebar. People believe that the abortion issue (hot button alert!!) is about the right to choose vs. the right to life. Advocates on both sides are passionate in their beliefs. But let's pretend for a minute that it wasn't about one right vs. another, but that it was about killing an unborn human being. What I mean is, let's say that every single medical professional, regardless of his/her religious persuasion, could somehow prove that human life begins at conception, or at four weeks, or eight weeks. From that point on, that's a human being growing inside another human being. (Now, needless to say, as a Christian I already believe that, just as Ronald Reagan did, but not everyone shares that view). So, let's say the time comes when everyone believes that. Will pro-choice advocates continue to say that it's the woman's body; it's her choice and the government has no right to intervene? Or would the debate then become: is murder EVER right? (Please note that I'm saying murder, not killing, as in self-defense or war). In a society based on moral absolutes, the answer is obvious. In one ruled by secular humanism, the majority could still decide that murder is right in some cases, based on critical reasoning, experience and the fact that destroying the life of that unwanted child might help create meaning in the woman's life. In that same society, we could go back to our ridiculous example of raping women, or molesting children, and ask the same question. Are those behaviors EVER right? How would we know?

I'm going to return to secularhumanism.org and quote from their "declaration." As secular humanists we believe in the central importance of the value of human happiness here and now. We are opposed to absolutist morality, yet we maintain that objective standards emerge, and ethical values and principles may be discovered, in the course of ethical deliberation. What I want to know is, why do we have to wait until ethical values MAY be discovered, when the very foundations of this country were built upon the existing ethical values found in the Judeo-Christian Bible?

And finally, again from their declaration: Secular humanist ethics maintains that it is possible for human beings to lead meaningful and wholesome lives for themselves and in service to their fellow human beings……. Possible? See, that's the point. It shouldn't JUST be possible. It SHOULD be our moral obligation. It's what gives meaning to our lives. It's required by God! And that brings me to the subject of spiritual hunger. I honestly believe that this country is not just spiritually hungry; it's starving. There is no place our citizens won't look to find meaning in their lives, no place they won't turn for inspiration, comfort, lifting themselves up, turning themselves on..…….and that includes drugs, self-help books, eastern philosophies, self-esteem seminars, life coaches, analysis, new age "religions," tantric massages, astrological charts, tarot readings…..the list is endless. I should know; I tried some of them myself. But what I've noticed now is that most of the people who try these things are the same people who are trying another thing six months later, and something else a year after that. They're starved for something to believe in, they search endlessly for the meaning of it all, but they never find it.

I guess that’s what confuses me most. In the search to find meaning in life, to feel strongly about their moral values, to understand the best way to serve their fellow man, to know that they’re making good ethical decisions, none of these people turns to the one Book that contains all that they are seeking. Fortunately, our founding fathers weren’t worried about being politically correct, so they based our system of government on the principles of that very Book. I think that must be why the country is mourning Ronald Reagan with such intensity. They might not have voted for him, but they recognize that he was a man of integrity, a man who took the teachings of the Bible and, to the best of his ability, lived by them.

I've chosen to end this column with two quotes. The first is from Edward Tabash, a spokesperson for secular humanism. On the occasion of Ronald Reagan's death, he said, "Reagan represented the worst kind of simple-minded blind faith belief in the fairy tales of religion. In this regard, his presidency should serve as an example of what our nation must avoid."

The second quote is from Dr. James Dobson, a spokesperson for Focus on the Family. " Mr. Reagan has gone on to meet his reward. Many millions of us mourn his passing and are thankful for the impact he made on this nation. My lifelong prayer has been that when that moment comes for me, I will hear those words from Jesus Christ, Well done, thou good and faithful servant. Thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things. I believe Ronald Wilson Reagan was greeted by the Savior with those words of welcome when he reached the portals of heaven. I hope to meet him again someday in that bright land that will know no night."

Of course, you should feel free to choose which quote you find most fitting. Just as in life, the ultimate choice belongs to you.

Send me your opinions at LParis@netlistings.com