Why a Separation of ideology and state is necessary.
Everyone
thinks their non-negotiables about beliefs and morality (their absolutes) are so important that other people should embrace
them. The Hindu says, "If only all people would accept that all ways
lead to God, there would be peace." The Muslim says, "If everyone would
accept that Allah is God and Mohammed is his prophet then there would
be peace." The atheist says, "If only people would accept there is no
God then there would be peace." All views lead to tension when people
try to use government education or government funded media to promote
their views. Even more tension is created when people attempt to pass
laws which restrict or disadvantage those who hold opposing views.
Anyone's absolutes, even the absolutes of the relativist who violently opposes exclusivists (they exclude the exclusivists) can be oppressive. Whether
it be an atheistic communist government telling people that they must
believe the governments absolutes or face prison (See Bold as a Lamb by Ken Anderson and The Gulag Archipelago by
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn) or the absolutes of an Islamic extremist
government who will make you pay more tax if you don't accept their
absolutes, or the absolutes of some medieval Christians who tortured
people for what they considered heresy, anyone's beliefs can be
frightening when governments try to enforce them. It is time we abandoned the myth of moral neutrality and adopted a true separation of ideology and state.
Note: I'm using religion and state and ideology and state interchangeably since an ideology and religion are both beliefs.
Some may say, "Don't we already have a separation of religion and state?"
Many believe, that in the west today, there is a separation between church and state, which is simply another way of saying a separation of religion (belief) and state. A separation in which religious institutions or a dominate religious group do not make binding laws for the state and a separation in which the government neither promotes nor opposes one world or religious view over others. Unfortunately, there has never been a true separation of religion and state either in the west or any where else in the world. David Noble rightly points out that "all worldviews contain a theology - that is, all begin with a religious declaration. Christianity begins with 'In the beginning God.' Marxism/Leninism and Secular Humanism begins with 'In the beginning no God.' Cosmic Humanism begins with the declaration 'Everything is God'" (The Battle for Truth, p. 13, 2001, Harvest House Publishers).
Now some will object, they believe humanism is not a religion, but is that how others view it?
If
a Muslim claims Islam is not a religion, that it is a way of life or a
Christian says that Christianity is not a religion it is a relationship
(which I agree with) are humanists inclined to agree? No they will not.
Neither will those who do not hold to the humanist world view accept
that humanism is not a religion. The facts are that many humanists have
called humanism a religion. The literature of prominent humanists
highlights this fact.
The writers of the first Humanist Manifesto (1933)
state that "to establish a religion of humanism is a major necessity of
the present. It is a responsibility that rests upon this generation."One of the authors of the original Humanist Manifesto, John Dewey, wrote A Common Faith
in which he states "Here are all the arguments for a religious faith
that shall not be confined to sect, class or race" (p. 87, 1934, Yale
University Press)[4]. Dewey heavily influenced public education in America and used the class room to promote the religion of humanism. One humanist, G. Richard Bozarth, wrote in the American Atheist
And how does god die? Quite simply because all his religionists have been converted to another religion, and there is no one left to make children believe they need him.Finally,
it is irresistible, we must ask how can we kill the god of
Christianity? We need only insure that our schools teach only secular
knowledge. If we achieve this, God would indeed be shortly due for a
funeral service ("On Keeping God Alive" cited in Legislating Morality by Geisler, N. & Turek, F., p.92, 2003, Wipf and Stock Publishers, Oregon)[5].
Atheists would object strongly if their taxes were being used to
promote Christianity in schools and through the media. They should not
be surprised when theists object to the government promoting an
anti-theistic world view. This, however, creates a problem for the
government because nobody's neutral, everyone thinks they are right.While the government funds the media and education someone's absolutes (their non-negotiable's) will always be promoted[6].As long as government funded education and media exists one world view will always be promoted over another. (Moral neutrality is a myth.)
Many
humanists cannot understand why some people have problems with humanism. Perhaps this will help them to understand. Behind every set of values are a set of beliefs. Humanists claim
they hold to universal values and therefore everyone should accept those values no matter what they claim to believe (though Christians, Muslims etc would disagree that humanist values are universal). Humanists glorify humankind and the values which they claim humans hold in common.
Is anyone likely to become a Muslim or Christian because the government engages in "interest manipulation" to promote humanist values? No. Are some who claim to be Muslims, Jews or Christians likely to turn from their beliefs because of the promotion of humanist values? It is worth thinking about. (If the government used the following words in its education, media etc "Love your neighbour as yourself", "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "love your enemy"; what values would it be promoting? What belief system would it be promoting even if it never mentioned the beliefs behind those values? Humanists promote their values with our money even if they never mention humanism in their propaganda.)
In humanism the object of praise (worship) is humanity. What the Muslim, Jew and Christian (as well as others) really object to is glory is brought to humanity first and not to God. Those who believe that glory should first be given to God find the governments promotion of humanist values repulsive. So whether we like it or not, when the government promotes a set of values through the media and education it promotes the belief system which undermines those values.
All governments have been promoting a religious world view while opposing others. This has always been the case. In the Islamic world taxes are used to promote Islam through education and the media[1] (even though many non-Muslims live in those countries and may not like their taxes being spent to promote Islam). In communist countries atheism is promoted as "scientific" and "factual", while all faith is seen as fiction, a fantasy which makes simple minded people feel good[2] (even though many people in the communist world believe that God does exist and believe science supports such a view). In the west the secular humanist world view is promoted through government funded media and education and seems to enjoy critical immunity from government funded organisations[3].
The only solution is to have no government funding for the media or for education[7]. Where would Hitler's Germany have been without Government funded media or education? What about Stalin or the Taliban? (Naturally such a change would have to be brought about gradually.)
If there was a true separation of religion and state, what would it do to reduce tensions in the world? For example, would it make those Muslims or communists, who regard secular humanism as immoral, more willing to embrace democracy?
Much of the Islamic world rejects secular humanism and consequently clings more firmly to Islam. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism is being fuelled in part by the immorality of the west. Even moderate Muslims think their only choice is between a government which promotes Islamic law or one that promotes humanism, whose morals they find distasteful[8].
We are advancing technologically but morally we seem to be in trouble. With advanced technology comes increased moral responsibility. What will the world be like in 50 years time? Divorce is on the rise, there are increased problems associated with gambling, drug addiction and crime. Attitudes toward the elderly are changing and many parents seem unable to handle their own children. What happens to a society when vice increases? Winston Churchill was right, "The further back you can look, the further forward you can see." While there have always been problems never have the problems seemed to be on such a large scale. Can we afford to continue as we are?
Today humanism takes the guise of secularism. Secularism is the idea that religion should be removed from the public square. This is problematic because it leads to a lowering of morals.
Ravi Zacharias points out that secularism has created a pragmatic
mindset "and pragmatism will always find ways to circumvent and misuse
the law rather than revere it" (1996, Deliver Us from Evil,
p.61). The pragmatist is not guided by virtue but the principle "don't
get caught."
People fear religious involvement in public affairs, but the lack of involvement is just as troublesome. Rather than advocating that government media, education etc be more influenced by religion, it would be better if we rid ourselves of government involvement in those areas. Then we can keep our cherished "secular state". But secularism would take on a new flavour. Government would be neutral towards all religions, ideologies and beliefs, yet religion will have a greater influence on the community as a whole. This, I propose, is the way out of our present problem. This is how we can create virtue and start to rid ourselves of this "pragmatic mindset" which is destroying the west today.
"Tacitus wrote, 'The more corrupt the state, the more
laws.' That is what Benjamin Franklin meant when he wrote, 'Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom'"[Emphasis added] (Os Guinness, 2000, Time for Truth, p.86). Obviously, the more virtuous a people are the less force a government has to use to maintain law and order.
If we continue down our present path the government will either be forced to increase the degree of punishment for crime or it will eventually collapse under anarchy; then the violent will gain power. Either the government will become tyrannical or it will be overthrown by tyrants. Sadly, then, their will be law and order.
The
essence of government is force: whatever its end, its means is
compulsion. Government forces people to do what they would not
otherwise choose to do, or it forces them to refrain from doing what
they would otherwise do. So, when we say "government should do x," we are really saying, "people should be forced to do x."
It should be obvious that force should be used only for the most
serious reasons, such as preventing and punishing violence. The
frivolous, improper, or excessive use of force is wrong. We used to
call it tyranny. Unfortunately, too many people think that calling for
the government to do x is merely a way of saying that x is desirable.
And so we are increasingly forced to do things that are not genuine
social duties but merely good ideas. The result is that the role of
state coercion in our lives grows greater and greater (Joseph Sobran,
cited in The Absolutes by James Robison).[9]
How do we create a society in which those who care the most have the greatest influence?
At
present those who have the greatest influence in government are not
necessarily those who care the most about others. Those who run for
government or lobby governments are often thinking only of their own
interests. How are we to empower those who care about those outside
their little group rather than those who are only thinking about what
personally benefits them? I believe the answer lies in creating a true
separation of religion and state.
Now
some will say disapprovingly about what I have suggested in Our Future? (others approvingly), "if that was done in
the west Christianity would become dominant." In the short term yes, but what would
happen if that was done in countries which are predominately Muslim or
Hindu? I think the Christians would fair far better in those countries
once the government stopped promoting one religious view over another.
(There is much room for improvement according to Patrick Sookhdeo. See
footnote 16) Once there was no
longer any state interference, I believe the Christian world view would
gradually become the prevailing world view in Hindu and Muslim countries. I
believe this because I think the Christian world view leads to economic
prosperity, humanitarianism and justice, more so than any other
religion. Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps another world view is superior to
the Christian view, if that is the case a Hindu, Humanist, Buddhist,
Islamic or some other world view might become or remain the dominant
view. That's ok if one of them does. The point I am trying to make is
this, in time we would see which world view is most attractive to the
people when the government no longer uses tax payer's money to promote
the view they think is best for the people.
One
person suggested that a true separation of religion and state, as I
have suggested here, would lead to a fractured society, one in which
minority groups, due to a lack of decent education, would congregate in
areas which would then become slums. Is there some truth to that?
I think there would be groups who would be poorer than others, just as there is now[15]
. An example of this is Muslims in the west, they tend to have lower
employment rates than non-Muslims. Like wise, in
Islamic countries non-Muslims tend to be poorer and inhabit the same districts [16].
Regarding education, in Islamic countries non-Muslim children sometimes attend Muslim schools. Like wise, some
Muslims choose to send their children to Christian schools. A similar
kind of thing happens in the west. Under the separation of religion and
state which I have proposed this kind of thing would continue.
Misguided causes
As a society we have mistakenly believed that the government can solve all our social problems. We long to live in a society where people have pure motives, keep their word and protect the vulnerable and weak; in short we long to live in a society in which we feel safe. We long for love, not more programs. This is the one thing the government cannot do; it cannot make people love and care for each other. When the government tries to provide for the needs of the unemployed it would seem that love is discouraged rather than encouraged, after all isn't the government going to take care of everything so why should I bother to help those in need? (Many people believe that all unemployed people should be given money no matter what their personal problems may be. But when the government does this is it truly being kind? Everyone knows what happens if you give an alcoholic money. And what happens if you give money to an unemployed father who likes to smoke pot and play his X box all day? (an X Box is a computer game) Will giving him money make him a better father? Will giving him money help his little boy? Not likely, it will probably make things worse. Some will say, "if the government does not give the unemployed and disadvantaged money who will?" People who say such things obviously believe that ordinary people are not capable of taking care of each other without government intervention. What little faith they have in people.)
There are many within our society who volunteer their time to help others. These people can exercise the kind of discernment needed to genuinely help those who are disadvantaged rather than simply handing out money as the government so often does.
Discrimination is evil and destructive because it is rooted in prejudice but discernment is just and constructive because it is rooted in compassion - to treat everyone exactly the same is as cruel as arbitrarily treating everyone entirelydifferent (Booker T. Washington, former slave and leader of the civil rights movement 1856-1915, Emphasis added).
Obviously individuals and voluntary organizations can exercise greater discernment when helping other people as they are more intimately involved than government can ever be. These are the kind of people who know the limits of government and the great advantages and rewards when individuals voluntarily help others. These are the kind of people who ought to have the most influence in society at all levels, including government.
(This is a work in progress. Written by B. Hooper 16/08/05. Last edited on 01/05/08).
[3] I've never seen the SBS or the ABC broadcast a show which attacks atheism or humanism (The ABC and SBS are both government owned and funded). In today's world Humanism and Atheism are the reigning world views among the elite and as such are treated as sacred. Because of this we are not likely to see productions like Icons of Evolutionor Unlocking the Mystery of Life on those stations. Neither are we likely to see a book like Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson being used as a text in universities or high schools. If the concept of irreducible complexity was taught in biology not many people would believe macro-evolution fifty years from now. The theory of macro-evolution ought to be challenged in education as there seems to be no scientific evidence which supports the theory (according to Phillip Johnson, professor of Law). See also
Note: Many people seem to confuse humanitarianism, the humanities and humanism as if humanitarianism and the humanities always equate to humanism (or rather some purposefully confuse these terms to sell the humanistic world view). So for those who aren't clear humanitarianism is giving aid to the poor, the sick, hungry etc (a good thing which Hindus, Muslims, Christians etc take part in without holding the humanistic world view); the humanities encompass the study of the arts (literature, music etc, which is also a good thing that many non-humanists pursue) and humanism which is the heady belief that there is no higher authority than man and that man is the measure of all things (which does not necessarily encompass humanitarianism or the humanities e.g. Stalin held to a form of humanism. Fortunately, not many humanists believe what he believed.).
[4] Other books have been written claiming that Humanism is a religion. Julian Huxley wrote a book entitled Religion without Revelation, K. Kolenda wrote Religion without God and there is a magazine called the Religious Humanist.
[5] Do the sceptics dare put atheism under the spot light? See Can man live without God by Ravi Zacharias
[6]
The surest signs of a healthy society are open and free debates. We must be able to agree to disagree. In a democracy protecting the rights of our adversaries is as important as protecting the rights of our advocates (Thomas Jefferson, 1743-1826, cited in The Absolutes by James Robison).
We must not try to get the government to impose what we believe to be absolutes on society through government funded education and media. James Robison understands this clearly, in his brilliant book, The Absolutes, he states:
The powerful truths of the absolutes cannot be imposed. They must be received and embraced freely.
The government must not attempt to promote an absolutist view or relativistic view regarding morals and religion in education and the media. Both views are potentially oppressive and it is unfair for others to have the government force those views on them when they do not accept them.
We all think our beliefs are right regarding religion. Even those who claim not to know what is right regarding religion think they are right. Listen to what they say and you will quickly discover that they do in fact believe that there is a right and wrong and they believe their view happens to be the right one. In a public discussion post-modernists and relativists will say others are wrong for claiming to be right. They will say Christians are wrong for saying Jesus is the only way to God. But they can only say others are wrong if they themselves think they are right (at the very least they think they are closer to the truth than others). "All denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind". And since relativists like to denounce certain views they do not in fact think all views are equal (their words betray their true belief). If all views are equal, as relativists claim, then the view that Jesus is the only way to God is just as valid as any other view and relativists have no right to say Christians are wrong for saying Jesus is the only way. (Relativists also seem to confuse subjective truth claims with objective truth claims.) There are no true relativists only people who claim to be. (See Relativism by Beckwith & Koukl; The Absolutes: Freedom's only hope by James Robison and The Myth of Moral Neutrality)
[7] Some assume that the problems in many Islamic countries are caused by the private schools. Assuming private schools are the problem then naturally public schools are the answer. But if this is true why don't we have a lot of problems with our private schools here in Australia? There are many non-government schools in poor countries in Asia and South America which do not have serious problems (i.e. encourage their students to take the law into their own hands or overthrow governments).
If we wrongly diagnose the problem there is no way a cure can be found. It is important the real problem be accurately diagnosed if we are to find a real solution.
There are 3 major problems with the countries that have schools which encourage violence toward those who hold different beliefs.
There is not true freedom of religion. For example, in Pakistan if someone writes into the newspaper about how they converted to Islam from another religion they will be praised, even celebrated but if someone were to write into the newspaper claiming that they turned from Islam to another religion, the public outrage would be so great the person would be lucky if they escaped with their life. (Such outrage is seen as justified, therefore the extremist element is encouraged.)
There is not true freedom of speech in those countries. Anyone is free to publicly critique the Bible or some other Holy book but they are not free to critique the Quran. Freedom of speech is stifled because it is safe to critique some things but not others. (It is not safe to speak out and attempt moral reform in such countries; and so the status quo is maintained.)
There is not equality under the law. Because people are treated according to what they claim to believe certain groups know they can abuse others with minimal if any punishment (in fact they are often praised for their ill treatment of others).
So the problems in these countries stem not from the private schools but from the fact that there is not a true separation of religion and state which (naturally and always) encourages an extremist element. If all the schools in such a country are public, then the ideology which the government wants promoted will be promoted. If there is not freedom of belief, freedom of speech and equality under the law, can such a government be trusted to promote the values it denies its citizens? Obviously not, so public schools are not the answer. Until there is a true separation of religion and state where the government treats everyone and all religions equally under the law; problems will persist whether you have private or public schools.
Another problem with many schools today is that children are taught what to think not how to think. There is a difference between education and indoctrination. Education is being taught how to think indoctrination is being taught what to think. The western schools are just as guilty of this as schools in communist or Islamic countries. In education today children and adults are taught what are considered facts and then they are told to remember those facts. That is indoctrination (unless it is to do with objective laws such as maths, physics, chemistry etc). I'll give you an example.
At a class in Uni, a friend of mine watched the film by Michael Moore, Fahrenheit 9/11, which the class debated after the film. (This illustration is not an attempt to determine whether or not Michael Moore is trustworthy. It is simply to illustrate a point.) This sounds like education but is it? For it to be education the students have to investigate the claims Michael Moore is making before the debate begins otherwise the debate will be held with the students assuming that everything Michael Moore espoused is true, when that may not be the case. Therefore it is indoctrination whether or not Michael more is trustworthy or not.
The class should have been told to investigate Michael Moore's claims to find out what things are true and what things are false. If the students did that they would have been in a position to debate the issue instead of merely repeat much of what Michael Moore claimed. After watching the film the teacher should have told the students that they will be having a debate about the film in the following week; the class will be divided into teams and every student given the chance to debate for and against what Michael Moore has claimed. This would have given the students the chance to seriously consider the arguments for and against Moore's position (that's education).
Indoctrination happens at university on all kinds of issues e.g. euthanasia, mental health, Darwinism, political issues etc. Unfortunately, the view of academics, which is assumed to be true by teachers and students, is often politically or religiously motivated. Assumed truth, including truths which academics assume to be true, is often not true at all. If students are not encouraged to investigate the accuracy of the claims being made it is indoctrination even if it happens to be the best explanation.
A true education is about discovering new things (acquiring knowledge) and learning how to discover things worth discovering. The quality of information obtained is more important than the quantity. Learning a lot does not make a person wise and it may not mean they are properly informed. Some of the most dangerous people in this world are those with a lot of knowledge but very little wisdom. They believe people they should not while not believing those they should. They seek out the wrong sources for information while ignoring others. Academia is guided by prejudice just as much as any other part of society. (It is time Universities and schools started to be places of education rather than places of indoctrination. Whether you agree with me or not, I am sure you would agree that if we spent more time investigating what was true and false when academics and journalists make claims we would be able to make better decisions on important issues (e.g. elections). And there would also be more understanding and less tension in this world. (For a more in-depth look at the importance of education listen to Michael Bauman's lecture The Meaning of Meaning.)
[8] Humanism often creates tension, for example, when the government uses our money to promote so called "art", which is meaningless to most or just plain offensive. (It seems that the greatest art came into existence without government funding. Men like Shakespeare and Mozart became famous because of their talent not because they received money from the government. If a person is truly talented those who believe in him or her will offer support.)
[9] A good person will obey a just law no matter what the punishment is. Even if there is no punishment a good person will obey a just law.
When a wicked person keeps the law, they are only doing it because they are afraid of the punishment the government will impose. And even then they will try to break the law if they think they can get away with it.
Just laws cannot change wicked people into good people. Just laws, when properly enforced, can reduce criminal activity, but they cannot motivate people to pursue the highest ideals (love, peace, honesty, courage etc).
George MacDonald, the great 19th Century author, wrote:
"to try too hard to make people good, is one way to make them worse; the only way to make them good is to be good."
Most of us are lazy; we are not willing to pursue virtue. We want others to be good and try and make others behave the way we want them to behave toward us; but if we are not good we will make this world a more hostile place despite our sincerest efforts. (There is nothing noble about trying to get others to treat us the way we would like to be treated. Even a child can throw a temper tantrum when he doesn't get his own way.)
Good people appeal to our conscience; they show us what is good by way of example. Good people inspire what is good in us if we are able to accept what they say and learn from their example. (But if we are unable to accept what they say we will grow to hate them because they make us look bad. This is what happened to the Pharisees when confronted with Jesus. "With humility comes wisdom."- Proverbs)
The law, while informing us about what is right and wrong is unable to inspire us to be good, only a person can do that.
The law is simply the standard which tells us what is right and wrong.
(Note: The laws role in telling us what is right and wrong is very important. If the law of the land is unjust it will fail to teach people what is right and wrong. When this happens the standards within society begin to change. The law is a teacher. For more about the importance of the law see Chapter 15 in To Everyone an Answerby Michael Bauman entitled "Legislating Morality" and the book Legislating Morality by Norman Geisler)
[10] The type of punishment we as a society are prepared to use will be determined by our view of what happens to a person after death. For example, if we believe that after a person dies nothing happens to them, they simply cease to exist, then the death penalty is the worst possible thing that can be imposed on a person for when they die all hope for them also dies. If we believe a person might end up in hell where they will suffer forever with out hope then to put someone to death is the most inhumane of all punishments. If, however, we believe that after death a person falls into the hands of a God who hates sin but loves them then the death penalty is not such an awful thing. If you believe that God will destroy sin and that the only way He can destroy sin is by destroying the evil desires which cause people to sin, then putting a murderer to death is not only the best thing for society it is the kindest thing we can do for the murderer as well. This is my own view on what happens after death (See "A Mystery" on the following).
Whether we view man as a machine or moral agent will also influence how we think criminals should be treated.
[11] See Legislating Morality, Ch 5 & 6 by Geisler & Turek.
[11a] Governments must go beyond simply making and enforcing laws. There needs to be changes to the process of being heard. Why should someone have a better lawyer because they have more money? Why should the amount of money you have determine whether you are heard? No one should have to pay to go to court and appeals should not be excessive (e.g. should not cost more than either 20% of a person's yearly income and no less than $10 000; it would be silly for someone like Bill Gates to make an appeal and only have to pay $10 000). Paying a lawyer ought to be regarded as just as bad as paying a judge.
[12] It is necessary that the government does not provide health care, education, welfare and assistance to the media because all of these things can be used and are (whether we like it or not) to promote a particular ideology within society. Governments are very aware of this and sociologists are always trying to create what they regard as the 'ideal' society. Here is a very clear example:
"churches may conduct worship services when licensed by the government but may not give to the poor, carry on education, or teach religion outside of church. State publishing houses in turn cannot publish religious literature; schools cannot teach religion but must actively teach atheism; and the government has embarked on a campaign to discourage orthodox religious participation and aggressively promote atheism" (Charles Colson, Kingdoms in Conflict, 1987, p. 115, citing Soviet policy between 1918 & 1929).
The transition from government ownership to private ownership regarding education, welfare, the media and health care would have to happen gradually. Of course, NGO's would have to accept some regulations; for example no medical facility could refuse treatment in the event of a medical emergency. Obviously those groups most willing to help others despite racial or religious differences would have the greatest impact on the public.
[13] I personally believe that whenever an individual or group of individuals create or destroy credit capitalism is undermined. In other words I believe private banks are detrimental to society. Many years ago the federal government tried to nationalize all banks in Australia (make them government owned). Naturally the private banks opposed this strongly (which is understandable when you consider their profits). Let us imagine for a moment that all banks were government owned, what would happen if interest rates were too high? If they were too high there would be more money to spend on roads etc as all interest collected would go into revenue. What would happen if interest was too low? Business would boom and it would be easy to buy a house.
[14] As a Christian I believe politicians should not attempt to implement a biblical law based on the Old Testament, rather members of parliament should attempt to implement the moral law which is common to all mankind and does not distinguish between race or religion. Many misunderstand the moral law and think it is something invented by people, but it is not. The moral law is also known as natural law. It does not tell us what we do but what we "ought" to do. Natural law, our deepest sense of right and wrong, is in us from birth; it is neither taught to us by our parents or the culture in which we live (the customs of our culture are taught but not natural law). Our parents appealed to this law when they said things like, "How would you like that if someone did that to you?" Which of course is a meaningless thing to say unless they were appealing to some standard which we knew deep down was right (See "Right and wrong as a clue to the meaning of the universe" in the first section of C.S. Lewis' book Mere Christianity for a clear concise description of natural law. See also What we can't not know by J. Budziszewski. It is interesting to note that Lewis and Budziszewski were once committed atheists. See the first chapter of Legislating Morality by Norman Geisler to see how natural law ought to apply to government.). Note: A true theocracy is not possible before Christ's return. Christians must not attempt to implement one. See Ch 7 of Legislating Morality by Norman Geisler and Kingdom's in Conflict by Charles Colson for more on this important subject. In Deliver Us From Evil Ravi Zacharias points out what kinds of decisions are made in society when natural law is rejected and relativism is embraced. In The Lamb and the Fuhrer: Jesus talks with Hitlerhe makes some very interesting points about the need for a true separation of religion and state.
[15] When a group of people are poor it causes them to look closely at why they are poor. If they are being treated exactly the same as everyone else then it should cause them to look closely at what it is they believe and why they believe it, especially when people from other religious groups volunteer their time and money to help them. (This already happens when Christian groups such as World Vision help Hindus, Muslims etc.) Beliefs are powerful, they influence the way a person lives. If a person believes that the world owes them a living they are more likely to be lazy. If a person believes that they should be grateful for what ever they have and that they should work with their hands so that they might have something to give to others then they will work hard and be kind. Beliefs influence behaviour. (To see how a religion can influence a persons attitude to education and work read Islam and Science by the Muslim professor Pervez Hoodboy. Mr Hoodboy has a B.Sc. (Electrical Engineering), B.Sc. (Mathematics), B.Sc. (Solid State Physics) and Ph.D. (Nuclear Physics) from MIT. Mr Hoodboy's book is excellent; unfortunately he has bought into a few popular myths. See 6 Modern Myths by Philip J. Sampson, Ph.D. sociology).
[16] See A People Betrayedby Patrick Sookhdeo to see how this has happened in Pakistan. There are some very important differences between the Islamic communities in the west and the non-Muslim communities in Islamic countries. See Who are the real victims.
