It is very interesting to note the amazing inconsistency of the “secular” nations that are opposed to the Uganda Anti-Gay Bill. If you have not heard about this proposed bill, you have missed a fire-storm of controversy. In short, many in the Ugandan government wish to advance a bill that would make homosexual conduct a crime punishable by death. However, after international protest, the bill had the death penalty penal sanction removed, with the criminality of such actions being left in tact.
When this proposed bill was first introduced in 2009, the international community raised its collective voice in hatred at such a proposal. Yes, the international community was and is up-in-arms against such a bill. But, is this consistent with their own standard of ethics – a secular standard that looks to the greatest good for the greatest amount of people (utilitarianism) – or, a standard that is subjective in nature which is based on the opinion of current society – a standard that lacks any sort of objective force behind its claim, because it rejects Biblical law and the God who gave that law – are they being consistent?
We are told in our “post-Christian” culture that morality is relative, it is subjective and based off of the will of the people, or the individual person, who, according to his own opinion, can determine right and wrong, good and evil for themselves. This is also the case with the governmental institution, who, according to their own standard, creates and enforces laws that comport with the ever-changing, evolving society. Such is the case with our own American society, which, despite 200 years of laws largely based off of Moses, has morphed into something that would be unrecognizable to the founding (Christian) fathers. According to our society, there is no longer a need for the law of God in society, because we have something better now, because we have discovered the truth about our origins and it ain’t from God. Rather, we evolved from slime and we are nothing but a random bag of proto-plasm that has no inherit worth. Hence, we can adopt changes in society that comport with the will and good of society…all of society because ethics evolve, they change with the culture as we become more advanced.
OK, here’s the punch line. Evolution simply means “change,” but it does not dictate which direction that change goes. After-all, it’s a random, chance universe that is not directed or governed by God.
Noting all of this and considering that ethics are simply the collective opinion of men in an evolutionary universe, why would it be wrong to enforce this Ugandan law? What if the evolutionary change in Uganda has them moving in a direction that forced them to purpose such a law? Hay, that’s THEIR subjective opinion. So what if it conflicts with other subjective opinions? After-all, in an evolutionary universe, which states that we are nothing more than biological machines, can the people of Uganda really help what they are purposing? Meaning, in an evolutionary universe, man makes decisions based on electrochemical response. All we have in this system is internal and external stimuli, causing a chemical reaction in the brain (there is no mind, there is only matter, remember). As a result, we truly cannot have a will that makes choices, because we are bound to the physical universe, we are bound to the system of electrochemical predestination. Hence, given the secular, evolutionary worldview, the people of Uganda simply cannot be held responsible for the bill which they are attempting to pass. It’s in their genes and environment to take such actions – they are being stimulated to do so. Also, what if this is what is good for their society? Remember, it’s the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. What if, in Uganda, this is the greatest good for their greatest amount of people? If that is the case, is it wrong and of so, according to who? According to other people who do not live in their society? If this is the case, then what makes their societal standard correct and greater than Uganda’s? Remember, ethics and moral norms are ever-changing and contingent on society. Who is the United States or the international community to force their morality on Uganda (bet you have heard that one before;-).
Moreover, again, why is this a bad or evil thing in the secular mindset? Some may say, because it violates international human rights. To which I say, so what, their just bags of proto-plasm. International human rights is simply the collective and subjective opinion of a group of people anyway. Who cares, the universe certainly does not (remember, we’re evolved). What makes their subjective opinion more important then the Ugandan opinion? Moreover, what if Uganda is simply moving ahead at a faster pace along the evolutionary scale – would not the subjective opinion of the collective international community be moving against what “mother nature” has deemed survival worthy, if this is the case?
Finally, consider the source of the objection. I find it a bit ironic that countries that have introduced and ratified legislation to MURDER UNBORN BABIES, object to such a thing. In short, it is wrong, evil and a violation of human rights to jail or put to death what the Bible deems as an abomination, but, it is perfectly alright to execute an unborn child, because, after all, it not really a baby, it’s simply a fetus (as Peter Hitchens rightly stated, it is common for the murder to dehumanize their victim prior to killing them).
If all of the above arguments seem nonsensical, there is a good reason for that, they are. The claim of good and evil, right and wrong in an evolutionary universe are simply that, claims that are subject to the personal interpretations of mans opinions or whims. Opposed to this is the system of Biblical law which offers a standard of absolute morals. It is an objective standard that is reflective of the character of the Law-Giver Himself. This is the only possibility view one can come to if he wishes to declare an absolute standard of good and evil, right or wrong and anything else is simply opinion. It is a standard that all of the kings of the earth will be judged by and on that day when presidents, kings and leaders are standing before the throne of God, do you really think that the Lord will ask their subjective opinion on international human rights?
Finally, as Christians debate whether the law of God and its penal sanctions, in their full force, are to be enforced today, let us remember, regardless of exegesis and opinion, that the law is holy and just. We may come to differing conclusions on how that law is worked out in a society. However, it is imperative that we recognize that it (THE LAW) is the standard of righteousness for both the individual and society. Despite all of this, one thing is for sure, the United States and the rest of the international community, is in no position to give ethical guidance to anyone, because it no longer has an objective foundation to stand on regarding its ethical claims – 48 million abortions says it all.
This video say’s it all…
Applied-Apologetics 