I would like to respond to a point mentioned in Cheryl Hunt’s letter to the editor published in the 3 August, 2005, edition of the Caymanian Compass.
Ms Hunt brushes on a number of issues in her letter but I will start by addressing the question of the role played by Christianity in a democracy and how this intersects with the freedom of speech and other rights.
It is first of all important to note that we are indebted to Christianity for giving us the language that enables us to have this discussion pertaining to rights.
The idea of universal moral claims inherently possessed by all individuals has long been recognized by the Christian church and far predates the likes of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson, instead finding its origin in the decretists of the 12th century. It is no coincidence that this concept arose in the-then Christian environment of Western Europe.
The Christian faithful recognize the reality of objective truth, that some things are right and some things are wrong, independent of what anyone else might think or however many people might think it.
Hence it was Christians who developed and defended such concepts as the right to defend oneself in court existing as a consequence of one’s humanity, not at the whim of a king.
Such a position is clearly in direct opposition to relativism, the idea that what is good for you is fine but is not necessarily what I find to be good and neither good should be promoted over the other.
Religion and politics are independent spheres of human activity but that it not to say that Christianity has nothing to offer politics.
It is the role of Christianity to offer moral direction to society, including the political area.
This is does not mean that Christianity is to stand in the place of the political process.
But politics divorced from Christianity will soon depart the realm of moral objectivity and descend into relativism.
Take National Socialism (Nazism) for example which was freely established by democratic process; the Aryans were superior to everyone else by decree of Hitler. Or the atheism of Marxism: Stalin and Mao killed 20 million and 40 million people respectively for no more reason than that they had decided that that was the appropriate action to take.
Then there is the more contemporary barbarity of partial birth abortion where birth is induced in the third trimester and the child killed as his or her head projects from the birth canal. These things only become tenable when the objective moral order is dismissed and man endeavours to establish his own right and wrong.
Some evils are more clearly evident than others and relativism together with a lack of proper understanding of the use of freedom provides the slippery slope for the subtle forms of evil to enter our society.
Moral failures, such as allowing people to display their bodies as mere objects for sale in the windows of establishments of prostitution, not an uncommon sight in a growing number of Western cities, and the widespread availability of pornography are just two examples.
The idea as sexuality being something sacred between a man and a woman united in marriage, not for sale or public display, has been swept under the carpet as the mere opinion of a select radical few. Instead it has been promoted as good business that harms no one.
This last is a lie, but is also the consequence of society not being aware that its freedom has a particular end, and that end is to implement the truth regarding the good.
To paraphrase John Paul II, the good is to be implemented in personal life, the family, and the social and political sphere and in the national and international arenas.
The good to be accomplished by human freedom is, as Aristotle pointed out a while ago, that of the virtues. In striving to this end man brings about his own freedom in the truth, for there is no freedom without truth.
Christianity then continuously reminds the political sphere and society generally of its responsibility to truth and the proper use of freedom.
The church’s responsibility is not to micro manage society; this is proper to individuals, individual churches, social groups, businesses, etc, the principle of subsidiary properly being applied. Sometimes we may not get the practical implementation of the good or the protection of the good quite right, but let’s not too hastily divest ourselves of Christianity, that which holds our society together and gives it meaning.
Tristan Abbott
Related Videos
