Saturday, September 29, 2007

Of Morality, Politics and Tolerance

I've been thinking recently about the confusion that exists on both sides of the culture war between morality and politics. This confusion, or better stated, blending of the two makes rational discussion of how the legal structure of a country should (or should not) respond to moral questions.

First, some definitions. Morality refers to the personal choices one makes based on a standard of right and wrong. Some of these standards may be personal. For instance, I do not drink alcohol at all. That's a moral standard for me, but I would not be willing to say it would be wrong for everyone. Why? Because there is not definitive Biblical guidance on the subject, beyond not drinking to excess. Other moral standards are absolutes and should be held as absolute. The taking of a human life, stealing, lying, hating another, worshiping any God but Yahweh, etc. These are Biblical absolutes. These are the sort on which there can be no personal compromise. In other words, I can say, "Well, I don't drink, but if you don't feel guilty about it, go ahead." (Which is consistent with the guidelines in Romans 14). But I can't say with a clean conscience, "Go ahead and lie to get that contract. I wouldn't do it, but if it works for you fine."

Now, of course, I may well make a choice which violates my own moral standards. I may take a drink because of peer pressure or I may lie to get that contract, but I will feel the pangs of conscience over doing so.

The Law (which is formulated in most western cultures through some form of representative democracy through a political process) attempts to influence human behavior in such a way as to ensure the survival and prosperity of the society as a whole. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution states this principle well:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."


The emphasis is on society as a whole rather than on the control of the individual. As a practical matter, though, to provide for justice, domestic tranquility, the common defense, the general welfare and ensuring liberty, laws are often made which attempt to influence the moral choices people make such as forbidding robbery, controlling corporate monopolies, banning rape, prohibiting drunk driving, etc.

Laws attempt to be a practical response to a perceived societal need. Two individuals may see the same need, yet disagree about how to resolve it. For instance, a married couple may be facing financial difficulties. The wife may have taken a hiatus from her job until her children reach school age. She may feel the best way to resolve the financial problem is to go back to work. Her husband may think taking a second mortgage on the house is a better solution. They both agree on the problem, but disagree about how to solve it. Neither in such a situation would accuse the other of wanting the family to go under financially, they would simply be disagreeing about how to solve the problem.

Unfortunately, in the current culture war mentality such can be the case. As a Christian, I feel abortion to be a sin. However, I do not believe putting desperate women in jail for making a tragic mistake will solve the problem. I believe that we will do better by making the case against abortion as a personal choice rather than as a legal issue. Now, other pro-life Christians disagree with me believing that only the penalty of the law will bring about a solution. I respect their position, but cannot agree with them. Yet, I don't consider them evil people. I would hope that they could say the same about me.

In the culture war, though, such is wishful thinking. Whatever the issue abortion, death penalty, war, prayer in the schools, homosexuality both sides prefer to demonize the opposition instead of finding our common ground of understanding and debate without rancor the practicality of different approaches to helping people make the proper moral choices and how the law can and cannot help in that process.

This brings us to the issue of tolerance. Tolerance does not mean agreement. It means to be willing to allow a diversity of viewpoints to be shared without vilifying the proponents of those points of view. This is especially important to do when the point of view is being expressed by a fellow Christian. We must remember, just because a Christian disagrees with a particular legal solution to a moral question does not mean s/he doesn't have a moral standard. S/he may just not feel that enshrining it in the law is the best way to solve the problem.