Americans have traditionally viewed themselves as a moral and Christian people. Most Americans, officially identifying with the Christian religion, believe that there exists an absolute morality. A standard of universal truth set by God that defines what is right and wrong and how we are supposed to behave. Freedom after all, as mentioned in Religion, Psychology & Darwinism, is dependent upon a religious and moral people who value life and honor God. The ability to self-govern and lead independent lives depends on personal responsibility and the ability to discern between the universal, Biblical principles of right and wrong. This traditional image of America no longer exists. The waters have been muddied, the lines have been blurred and the values have been corrupted to the point where America can no longer reasonably be called a Christian country. Life has little value in modern day America beyond the ways it can be used to push political agendas and gain votes for politicians. Decades of being saturated with Darwinist propaganda in the public schools have brought us to a point where moral relativism, as opposed to moral absolutism, governs the American consciousness.
Moral relativism can be defined in different ways. Allowing a culture, for example, to solve its own moral dilemmas based on their perceptions of morality is but one way. (Tannsjo, 124) Still, this definition does not deny the truth of an ultimate morality, rather, it simply acknowledges the rights of different cultures or countries to govern themselves. On the other hand, moral relativism can also be defined by saying that there is no universal standard for human behavior and that there is no truth. (Tannsjo, 124) Truth is based on an individual’s own perception of what they view as real, based on feelings and their own internal value systems as opposed to God’s word. This is called expressivism or emotivism. (Tannsjo, 124) To put it more simply, morality, and what is deemed right or wrong is subjective and changing in modern American culture.
Moral relativism is related to Darwinism in the sense that a universal morality cannot exist if men were the byproduct of evolutionary processes as opposed to being created in God’s image. In the book “Created from animals: The moral implications of Darwinism,” James Rachels argues that because men have evolved from primates, we are entitled to no more rights or privileges than any other animal, and we shouldn’t be treated any different. (Rachels, 171) He argues that the notion of human dignity and morality, based on the previously believed notion of the existence of God, has changed because of Darwin’s theory. (Rachels, 171) Rachels argues that a new morality based on the concepts of Darwinism, not centered solely on man but one which treats animals and man as being the same is now needed, (Rachels, 172) and that the value of life should not be defined by “God,” but by us. (Rachels, 198)
Has Darwinism effected the morality of the American psyche? Has it changed the value we place on human life? Darwin argued that the advancement of science would illuminate the human mind to the point where theism as a world view would no longer hold any credibility. (Rachels, 221) Sadly, the answer to this question, looking at modern American society, must be yes. Darwinism has affected the value we place on human life and the best way to demonstrate this is by comparing two major social issues, gun control and abortion.
The Democrat Party, an organization that in the lead up to the 2012 presidential election removed the word God from their party platform, (Brody, September 4, 2012) argues for both abortion and gun control claiming to care about human life. What value is placed on human life when the unalienable right to self-preservation is taken and the right to life is denied?
The Bible clearly states in several passages that individual self-defense is not only a right but a responsibility. We have a Biblical responsibility to not only defend ourselves but our families and possessions as well:
If the head of the house had known at what time of the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into. Matthew 24:43
Then he said unto them…he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. Luke 22:36
The right to self-preservation is a natural right inherent in all living things. In the United States constitution, the right to life is upheld as one of our core values which define our nation. When the government unjustifiably denies this right through the passage of laws that only affect the law abiding, they are denying the inherent worth of human beings by criminalizing the act of self-defense and putting those with no respect for life on the same moral plane as those that revere it. Recently in New York, a man was arrested and is being charged with possession of an illegal handgun after defending his home, and possibly his life, against two intruders. (Stimson, May 29, 2019) The State of New York passed unconstitutional laws requiring decent, law abiding citizens to register weapons already in their possession knowing full well that criminals would not comply with the law. This act does not reflect a Biblical based morality but shows instead, the consequences of allowing the value of human life to be defined by men, as it is according to Darwin. From the Darwinist’s point of view there is no inherent difference morally between those seeking to defend themselves and the criminal seeking to inflict harm. Gun control leaves decent people at the mercy of those that have no respect for the law or human dignity. The recent Virginia Beach shooting, as another example, took place in an environment where self-defense was outlawed as the government building was a “gun-free zone.” It also took a full eight minutes for police officers to find and stop the shooter. (Jacobo, June 2, 2019) That is a full eight minutes, where decent people following the buildings no gun policy, were left to the mercy of someone who didn’t care about the law, or human life. By denying individuals the unalienable right to self-preservation, the government usurps the power to not only define human life but decide who lives and dies:
Each of us has a natural right-from God- to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? (Bastiat, 2)
Abortion is another hotly debated issue being argued on the basis that it is a fundamental human right. States across the country are passing extreme, late term abortion laws that should concern all Christians. Arguing for the right to terminate a pregnancy for any reason de-values human life as our most innocent are deemed to have no value. Writing for The New York Times in 1997, Steven Pinker argues that the reasoning which justifies, in our minds, the killing of babies is derived from, again, evolutionary processes where women once had to choose between killing their newborn or possibly face death themselves. (Pinker November 2, 1997) This is an example of science illuminating the human mind and reducing theism to almost nothing as this argument is, in many ways, being made today. Even those who claim to be ardent defenders of the unborn will use the stipulation “unless the birth threatens the health of the mother.” The problem with this kind of reasoning is that it is not based on any moral absolute and the health of the mother can be defined in any way deemed convenient for the moment. Also, it has been argued that any circumstance which may warrant abortion during pregnancy, including health of the mother issues, may warrant killing the baby after birth. (Giubilini & Minerva) The argument is becoming not one of when human life begins but one of when does the human life earn the title personhood and when is it considered viable? (Giubilini & Minerva)
Abortion has ties to the eugenics movement. (Thomas, May 28, 2019) Eugenics was, and is being used as a means of controlling the population and weeding out what eugenicists saw, as societies undesirables. Margaret Sanger, an advocate of birth control recognized the potential for this. (Thomas, May 28, 2019) While she was more in favor of birth control than abortion, (Thomas, May 28, 2019) she argued that poor minority communities be targeted with birth control programs. Today, there are more abortion clinics found in black and Hispanic neighborhoods than anywhere else. (Ertelt October 16, 2012) In New York City in 2012 there were 31,328 black babies aborted and only 24,758 that were born. (Chapman February 20, 2014) This seems to be an extension of Sangers “negro project” where she convinced poor black neighborhoods that controlling their own populations is the only way to solve what she viewed, as their social ills. (Thomas, May 28, 2019) Believing that poor minorities and other “less than desirables” be targeted for birth control or abortion is an extension of Darwinist thinking. The push for eugenics is based on the belief that some races are more evolved than others and therefore, more worthy of life.
Darwinism and moral relativism have brought America to the point where life is no longer valued beyond our own definitions. Under the guise of fighting for human rights and protecting life, the hard-political left is making arguments that lead to death instead. The belief that abortion is a human right is sure to be expanded on in the future, as is the issue of gun control. Both gun control and abortion deny the inherent dignity associated with being human while also denying the individual the inalienable, God given right to exist. Without God and an absolute morality, human beings possess no value beyond that of a pig or a frog in the minds of the Darwinists. If America does not have a change of heart and continues down this path, we may face a grim future.
Chapman, W, M. NYC: More Black Babies Killed by Abortion Than Born. CNS News. February 20, 2014. Retrieved from https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/nyc-more-black-babies-killed-abortion-born
Brody, D. Exclusive: Democrats remove ‘God’ from party platform. CBN News. September 4, 2012. Retrieved from https://www1.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2012/09/04/democrats-drop-god-from-party-platform
Bastiat, F. The Law. Irvington on Hudson NY: The foundation for economic education inc.  1987. 2 Retrieved from https://fee.org/media/14951/thelaw.pdf
Ertelt, S. 79% of Planned Parenthood Abortion Clinics Target Blacks, Hispanics. Life News. October 16, 2012. Retrieved from https://www.lifenews.com/2012/10/16/79-of-planned-parenthood-abortion-clinics-target-blacks-hispanics/
Giubilini, A. & Minerva, F. After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live? The Journal of Medical Ethics. November 25, 2011; 39:261-263. Retrieved from http://static.publico.pt/docs/sociedade/JMed%20Ethics-medethics100411.pdf
Jacabo, J. Officers engaged Virginia Beach gunman 8 minutes after 911 call came in, Police Chief says. ABC News. June 2, 2019. Retrieved from https://abcnews.go.com/US/officers-engaged-virginia-beach-gunman-minutes-911-call/story?id=63432818
Pinker, S. Why they kill their newborns. The New York Times. November 2, 1997. Retrieved from http://www.gargaro.com/pinker.html
Rachels, J. Created from animals: The moral implications of Darwinism. Oxford University Press. 1990. 129-173 Retrieved from http://jamesrachels.org/CFA.htm
Stimson, B. New York man facing illegal weapons charge after killing two burglars in his home says gun was his father’s. Fox News. May 29, 2019. Retrieved from https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-york-man-faces-illegal-weapons-charges-after-killing-2-burglars-in-his-home
Tannsjo, T. Moral relativism. Philosophical studies. 2007. 135:123–143 Retrieved from https://www.uni-erfurt.de/fileadmin/public-docs/Philosophie/TheoPhil/Schmechtig/Taennsjoe%20Moral_Relativism.pdf
Thomas, C. Abortion and Eugenics. First Things. May 28, 2019. Retrieved from https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2019/05/abortion-and-eugenics