What ought to be? Or what is? What will you choose?
Many people have taken stances on issues of morality based on “what is” considered the “law” today, rather than on what ought to be Law based on the liberty and equality of the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.
A few examples of erroneous laws would be:
- The right to an abortion
- Federal or state funded abortions
- A protected pornography industry
- Public nudity
- Commercialized nude dancing industry
These are all examples of industries that in some way, shape, or form, are considered moral from the statutory standpoint of some public officials. They are in turn protected, and anyone seeking by force to put an end to these actions would be criminally prosecuted.
Many would say, “Of course there is nothing immoral about bars or restaurants that have nude dancing, or a doctor killing an unborn child; they are both legal.” Forty years ago our country would have considered the above to be immoral and unacceptable to civil society. I would submit to you that this is a correct moral stance based on “what ought to be”. It ought to be because nature’s God has said to His creation, “Thou shalt not kill”, or “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” and “even if you look on a woman to lust after her, you have committed adultery with her in your heart.” Therefore, this is a FIXED Law that cannot be changed or abolished, regardless of what man may try to do.
All of you would agree that to lie under oath and cause unwarranted incarceration or even death, would be immoral. If we were to change our laws to accommodate those who commit perjury, would it still be immoral? What if we stated that the family of a murder victim was required to pay for the rehabilitation of the murderer, no matter what the circumstance, would that be moral? How about a law that stated a woman was protected to kill her child within 2 weeks after giving birth, would that be moral?
Thomas Paine, in his book “Common Sense,” stated, “A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right…”
Should we judge what is right and moral by “what is” or “what ought to be”?
We have an awesome Republic in these United States of America – a Constitution that promotes protection of morality under Law. Yet if you were to bring our Constitution to Hell and make it the Law of the land you would not make Hell one bit better. Many countries through history in Central and South America have tried to apply our Constitution to their governments, yet they failed. The reason is because people must govern themselves or they will attempt to use any external vehicle of force, even if it be the “law,” to serve themselves at the expense of their neighbor.
John Adams understood this. He said, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
God does not change in His Character or justice. His Law is perpetual, and if we expect to abide under His “Blessings of Liberty” (Preamble of US Constitution), we must judge our own morality by “what ought to be,” not “what is.”