Voters often feel that they have to choose between their economic interests and moral or social concerns. Some politicians assume that people will choose their economic interests unless they feel that cause is hopeless.
I don’t think that’s true. Moreover, I don’t think that would be appropriate.
First, ask yourself which of these worlds you’d like to pass on to your children: The first is a world with great economic prosperity – every physical need and most wants are fulfilled. But in this world anything goes – crime is rampant, “sexual immorality” is considered an oxymoron, and ideas like honesty, faithfulness, and charity are considered old fashioned.
The second is a world where people work hard to make ends meet, put just enough food on the table, and have few if any luxuries. However in this world a child can walk down the street with no danger, marriage is strong, porn is unheard of, and people treat each other with love and respect whether they know each other or not.
Which world would you like to pass on to your kids? I think most people would choose the second. I know I would.
Beyond the legacy question, many hold the belief that it’s “better to be poor than a liar.” For Christians, if the choice must be made between prosperity and morality, the latter must be the choice.
Of course, I don’t think it’s necessarily an either/or situation. I think we can have economic prosperity and a solid, moral society. And so do many “bitter” voters.
------------
This is also posted at RedBlueChristian
6 comments:
Isn't your second world the very one that Islamic theocracies promise? Would you be happy in Saudi Arabia?
Yes, Vinny, every Christian longs to live in a country that outlaws Bibles. Seriously, I think it's a stretch to say I'm describing an Islamic theocracy. Was it the "porn" comment?
Some might think I'm pining for some romantic notion of the 1930s, but that's not it either. All I'm trying to describe is an affluent, a/immoral society vs a poor, moral one.
Would you honestly prefer an the first "world" to one where "people treat each other with love and respect whether they know each other or not?"
I think Islamic theocracies try to achieve a world in which a child can walk down the street with no danger, marriage is strong, porn is unheard of, and people treat each other with love and respect whether they know each other or not. However they achieve it by outlawing and repressing any thoughts and practices that are contrary to the government sanctioned orthodoxy.
OK, I'll grant that what I described in very generic terms might describe what Islamists say they want to create.
Does that have anything to do with the question at hand -- namely which is better to choose, if one must, between prosperity and a moral society?
I guess my point is that I think that government's capacity to provide a more moral society without resorting to repression is fairly limited. I think that one of the prices of freedom is that some citizens will make choices that offend other citizens values.
government's capacity to provide a more moral society without resorting to repression is fairly limited
I can't argue with that. This was responding to a presidential candidate's (possibly unintentional) suggestion that people cling to their moral views when their economic needs aren't met. I'm just saying that, if you have to choose, that's the way to go. I don't think you have to choose, but I also don't think the government is all that good at tending to either issue.
Post a Comment