My Cart
Your Cart is Currently Empty
GET $10 OFF YOUR FIRST ORDER USING CODE FIRST10 AT CHECKOUT
Following the recent presidential election, the votes in most locations were counted rather quickly. We knew within the first day after the election who had won. But the presidency was not all that was at stake in that election. There were down-ballot elections in virtually every category from U.S. Senator to U.S. House of Representatives, to state legislators, and even city and county commissioners. Even with most of these, the results were known in a rather short period of time.
But there were a few jurisdictions where the counting dragged on for even weeks after the election. Some of these were situations where the count was just slow due to incompetence, poorly devised systems, or, perhaps, even some attempts at fraud. And there were a few where the vote was so close that a recount was necessary ā which necessarily took more time.
One of the places where a recount was warranted was in Pennsylvania where the vote for the U.S. Senate candidates was so close that a recount was mandated by law. The Republican candidate was leading by enough to be declared the winner, but not enough to avoid a recount. The outcome was not seriously in doubt, but the law is the law and a recount was required.
However, when the recount was declared, there were three counties that wanted to change the rules and count ballots that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had already declared invalid. To justify that stand, Bucks County commissioner Diane Ellis-Marseglia said, āPeople violate laws any time they want. So, for me, if I violate this law itās because I want a court to pay attention. Thereās nothing more important than counting votes.ā In other words, for Ellis-Marseglia, the rule of law is a meaningless concept. What defined ārightā for her was her own opinion.
So where does this kind of thinking come from? What made Ellis-Marseglia, and the leaders in those other counties, think it was okay for them to ignore the law?
At this point, letās drill straight down to the bottom line. There is a set of worldview beliefs that provide a justification for Ellis-Marsegliaās point of view. Atheistic Naturalism is based on the belief that the natural universe, operating by natural laws, is all that exists. When it comes to defining morality, the natural result of Naturalism is that there is no such thing as objectively true morality. In order for objective morality to exist, there must be some objectively real moral law giver (God) to hand down the true morality.
On a macro level, since Naturalists donāt believe in God, it is impossible for there to be that kind of transcendent law giver. The automatic implication of that for society is that humans must make up morality for themselves. With that as a starting point, the ones who are able to exert power over society get to make the moral rules.
On the other side of the ledger, Americaās legal tradition was founded upon the notion that God does exist and has revealed to mankind what is moral and what is not moral. This belief is founded upon the conviction that the Bible is Godās revelation, and that human beings should follow its moral teachings.
At this point, we need to dig a little deeper to understand the mindset that this belief engenders. The fact that Americaās legal system is based on theistic worldview concepts does not mean that the specific laws that are implemented necessarily come from the Bible. At this level of understanding, we are not dealing with specific laws, but with a particular mindset that became a model for the structure for the legal system itself.
When it comes to Christian Theism, God is recognized as an objectively real authority source who should be obeyed. Thus, people who believe in God should accept the authority source and live according to what God has revealed.
When that mindset is used as the pattern for creating a legal system, we end up with a situation where the law itself becomes the authority source. So just as believers in the Bible should obey Godās revelation, believers in the American system of justice should obey the law. When people decide for themselves that they do not need to obey the law, they have moved away from the theistic mindset and into a naturalistic one.
And that is exactly what happened in Pennsylvania. The people who wanted to ignore the law actually took it upon themselves to substitute the naturalistic authority source (their own opinion) for the one the American legal system is based upon (the law itself). With that as their underlying belief, their opinion trumped the law. In essence, their opinion became the new law by default.
Many people chafe at the fact that American society was established upon biblical principles. They donāt want biblical morality to be acknowledged in any way ā even if destroying it would crate massive societal disruption, turmoil in the legal system, and totalitarian tendencies. They are only interested in their own selfish outcomes.
If naturalistic beliefs ultimately do take over American society, evil and chaos will become the norm in society. Only Godās way leads to peace and order. That is just the nature of reality.
Freddy Davis is the president of MarketFaith Ministries. He is the author of numerous books entitled The Truth Mirage, Rules for Christians Radicals, Liberalism vs. Conservatism, and his latest book Shattering the Truth Mirage and has a background as an international missionary, pastor, radio host, worldview trainer, and entrepreneur. Freddy is a graduate of Florida State University with a BS in Communication, and holds MDiv and DMin degrees from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is a popular speaker, particularly on the topic of worldview and its practical implications for the Christian life. He lives in Tallahassee, FL, with his wife Deborah.
To set up an appointment to speak to a Literary Agent:
Email: Alfredo Baguio
Call: (702) 605-4354
0 Comments
Leave a Reply