Can We MAGA Unless We MAMA — Make America Moral Again?

“Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.” So said George Washington during his Farewell Address on September 17, 1796. They’re powerful parting words, but also, today, controversial ones. They’re met now with protestations such as “Whose God?!” and “You can be moral without God!”

Well, perhaps, but it certainly doesn’t show in contemporary America — not on the collective level, that is.

One man who might agree is Reverend Jim Harden, who warned recently about our moral crisis. Writing at Newsmax (and stating the obvious), he pointed out that this crisis “can’t be solved by courts alone.”

Harden opens talking about the Lindsay Clancy case. As most know, Clancy was on trial for almost six weeks for brutally strangling her three young children. The case ended in a mistrial, with 11 of the 12 jurors deciding to find the mother “not criminally responsible.” A judge subsequently rejected a request for an acquittal.

The case has divided Americans somewhat, and it’s currently unknown if there will be a new trial. But Harden has a different focus: “How did we get here?” He then continues:

Consider this question: Why do we mourn the killing of a child outside the womb while accepting the intentional ending of a child’s life inside it?

That contradiction points to a deeper crisis in how America defines human life, dignity, and responsibility.

For generations, the American understanding of human nature rested on a biblical premise, that every person is endowed by their creator and therefore possesses inherent dignity and moral responsibility.

That worldview has increasingly been challenged by materialism, which is the idea that human beings are ultimately nothing more than physical organisms shaped by biology, chemistry, and the environment.

Science can describe how the body functions.

It cannot, by itself, tell us why human life has value, what makes an action morally right or wrong, or why anyone should be held accountable for wrongdoing.

That distinction matters to the justice system.

A society believing human beings are moral agents can reasonably hold them accountable for their actions.

But if people are viewed primarily as products of biology, circumstances and chemical processes, personal responsibility becomes increasingly difficult to define.

In other words, it’s said that “politics is downstream from culture.” Seldom pointed out is that politics and culture — and courts — are downstream from morality and faith.

Culture of Death, American Style

Once again, many will dispute this, but our secularizing society’s actions tell a different tale. It used to be that pro-abortion figures would say they want prenatal infanticide to “be safe, legal, and rare.” Many would claim it saddened them, or that they were personally against it, but they wouldn’t impose that on others.

Those times are long gone.

Consider a story from just today. Commentator Eric Utter reports:

There is a Florida-based group called “Stand With Abortion Now” (SWAN) that is offering a large selection of custom apparel on its website, tees and sweatshirts with touching and inspiring messages.…

Examples are:

• “Fetuses fear me.”
• “Kill the babies.”
• “Abort billionaires.”
• “I’ll still love abortion in hell.”
• “I don’t care if abortion is murder.”

I don’t know how large SWAN’s market is, but it clearly exists. One example is the motormouth woman below, who says “I don’t care if abortion is murder. Like, I still think it should be allowed.” (I don’t know if the video was sped up or if she’s on uppers. The good news: The speed-talking keeps the video down to 24 seconds.)

Know here, however, that for many years now, prenatal-infanticide proponents have increasingly embraced the abortion-as-murder position. Not surprisingly, this is also increasingly reflected in law. That is, at least 10 states have now enshrined “abortion rights” into their constitutions. In New York, in fact, the provision essentially makes prenatal infanticide available throughout a pregnancy.

There’s another interesting reality, too: Comparing these 10 states with our 10 most atheistic ones reveals a five-state overlap. Coincidence?

Harden certainly wouldn’t think so.

As Your Heart Is Molded, So Shall You Do

Harden’s point is one I’ve made for years. Consider the implications of believing we’re not divinely created beings of flesh and spirit, but are mere cosmic accidents. We are then just organic robots — some pounds of chemicals and water.

And what do you do with a robot, a thing, that has become unproductive and/or burdensome?

You terminate its function.

What, too, could be wrong with doing so? For the human organic robot is just then, as botanist Lawrence Trevanion once said, “an object that perceives.”

This brings us back to Washington’s warning and the debate it sparks. That is, in an atheistic universe, what could be wrong with anything?

Now, theists and atheists generally talk past each other when arguing this point. It isn’t, however, that “Atheists can’t be moral,” but something else. Read on.

This all can be clarified with a bit of Philosophy 101. As to this, I’m going to present a couple of my patent arguments. As I wrote last year:

Number one:

What is the origin of what we call “right and wrong”? There are only two possibilities: Either man determines it (social-construct theory), or something outside of man does. Let’s consider each thesis’ implications.

Regarding social-construct theory, imagine that 90 percent of humanity said it preferred chocolate over vanilla. This wouldn’t mean that chocolate was “right” and vanilla “wrong.” Nor would it mean that chocolate was better in any objective sense. It would simply mean that people happened to like chocolate better. But, question:

Would it be any more logical saying murder was wrong, if we say this for no other reason than the fact that 90 percent of humanity preferred others not kill in a way we call unjust?

So what can we say about the idea of murder’s wrongness being simply a function of man’s collective desires? It would then fall into the same category as the collective desires regarding flavor: that of taste — or preference.

… As to the second argument, consider: A man I know of actually told someone close to me, “Murder isn’t wrong. It’s just that society says it is.” While this statement is disturbing to many, it also accords with what [researcher Dr. George] Barna found most Americans to believe. For how could they refute this proposition? I know what I could say:

That’s not true because God exists and has established unchanging, absolute moral law.

Of course, someone could disagree with my premise. But the logic is airtight.

If you don’t believe in God, however — or suppose He’s just some flower-child-like “force” who essentially says, “Hey, dude, whatever works for you” — what could you say? For your premise is the same as that murder-justifying man’s.

That is, it is only society that says murder is wrong because society is all there is to say anything. For ours then is a universe devoid of God or, at least, of God’s will regarding human behavior.

So, again, it’s not that “you can’t be moral without God.” It’s that if God and His will (Truth) don’t exist, no one can be “moral” — because “morality,” properly understood, can’t exist.

This explains, too, why people are increasingly behaving as if it doesn’t exist. As the paraphrase of Fyodor Dostoevsky goes, “If there is no God, everything is permitted.” Insofar as God is purged from people’s hearts, the devil will slither in.