The secularists pressing us to accept an entire rewrite of our moral code have a few go-to tactics. One of their favorites is the so-called ‘victimless crime’.
What they won’t admit is that the secular moral framework they insist that we should work within is no less ‘theological’ in nature than the ones that Christians, Muslims, Jews and other religious groups work within.
Secularists pitch a fit whenever religious people invoke moral standards that they are expected to abide by. At the same time, they don’t hesitate to present an ever-evolving list of rules the rest of us need to abide by.
One of the dodges they use to avoid talking about moral issues they cannot issue a positive affirmative defense for is by invoking the concept of the ‘victimless crime’.
Who cares if someone does ‘x’ so long as nobody else gets hurt?
On the surface, that’s a compelling argument. It’s how the secularists have advanced, for example, their various generations of the sexual revolution, as well as related topics, especially abortion.
We see it in action with bumper-sticker phrases like: “Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one!”
What they don’t realize (or care) is that their argument is just as rigidly inflexible and authoritarian as it would be for a religion with strict moral edicts on food or drink expecting irreligious people to abstain from (for instance) beer, pork or beef.
The God we know from Christian (and Jewish) scripture actually debunks the issue of the supposed ‘victimless crime’.
Here’s one example from Leviticus 19.
11 “You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; you shall not lie to one another. 12 You shall not swear by my name falsely, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord.
13 “You shall not oppress your neighbor or rob him. The wages of a hired worker shall not remain with you all night until the morning. 14 You shall not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block before the blind, but you shall fear your God: I am the Lord.
15 “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor. 16 You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand up against the life of your neighbor: I am the Lord.
17 “You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. 18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.
Let’s examine a pattern in this text.
Verse 11-12: covers theft, fraud, and false oaths.
Verse 13-14: covers oppressing/robbing neighbor, fair payment of wages, fair treatment of people with disabilities
Verse 15-16: covers equality before the law, an impartial court system, and slander
Verse 17-18: covers your personal relationships with others, with special attention paid to your attitude.
You will notice that there are several instances on this where somebody could claim it was ‘a victimless crime’… particularly by today’s (shall we say) ‘flexible’ moral standards.
In modern society, it’s almost seen as a virtue to show intentional bias against wealthy people, or in absolute deference to the poor — whether the facts of a case lead you in that direction or not.
We also see the perpetually aggrieved sporting a list of people who it isn’t merely acceptable to ‘hate in your heart’, but it is seen as a political/moral obligation to do so.
We have reported countless examples of people who, for no other reason than wearing a MAGA hat have found themselves a lightning rod for cursing or even violence. One of the more famous examples of that was when the Industrial Media Complex descended like a ton of bricks on Nick Sandmann and some other teenage students who had taken a school trip to D.C..
What’s the real harm if you lie under oath, like certain Cabinet officials have recently accused of doing, or if you make fun of a deaf guy who can’t hear you, or if you hold a grudge to your dying day?
The answer to that question is contained in this same text.
It’s the same reason that so many Christians and Jews are unwilling to yield ground on various so-called ‘culture war’ issues.
“I am the Lord”.
The secularist can claim all day long that in a question between holding the line morally on some of these ‘victimless crimes’ or yielding so as to mollify the hurt feelings of the aggrieved activist, religious people are morally obligated to let the hurt feelings of the aggrieved be the deciding factor in our moral math.
That secular claim is — fundamentally — a theological assertion that Christians and Jews need not accept.
God himself has given the counter-argument to it.
The secularist may look around and find nobody who is ‘injured’ by any of these decisions. But anyone who takes their Christian or Jewish faith seriously is faced with a bigger reality than the feelings of some random stranger.
God puts himself in the position of the defender of the brother, the blind, the deaf, the oppressed, the worker, the accused in court, the rich, the poor, the slandered and the neighbor.
Whatever you may do to the detriment of that other person is no different than doing it directly to Him. That simple fact is an absolute game-changer to any moral framework, if you dare to take it seriously.
Jesus said the same thing in different words in Matthew 25 when he said:
Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Not only did Jesus lay out the direct connection between our treatment of others and our heart toward the God who made us, he took it further, and tied it to considerations about our eternal destiny.
The secularists insisting that we live by the light of their moral framework puts their godlessness and the command of Almighty God in direct conflict.
For them to demand we abandon the command of God to accept the command of man is, in a very real sense a religious demand that we give THEM obedience owed to God alone.
It was wrong when Babylonian kings demanded it of the prophet Daniel and his friends.
It was wrong when Romans demanded it of first-century Christians.
It is still wrong now.
The abrasive message of repentance John preached 2000 years ago is still confrontational and offensive today — but it is also life-changing.
In our putrid, worldly culture that has turned away from God, this book is a must-read for every Christian.