When I was at the University of Washington, one of the slogans they tried to grill into the students was, “Valuing diversity.” The concept being that all people ought to value, respect, and honor the cultural diversity that exists in the world and on campus. This concept obviously isnt isolated to UW. Basically, whatever people express as a part of their culture is just fine, and their rights to express those things ought to be protected. It’s a nice concept, but even those who hold to and enforce such a view don’t abide by it.

Take for example the item in the news about the woman in Saudi Arabia who was raped by some 7 men, but was also convicted of a crime under Islamic law for being in the company of a man that was not her relative when this incident happened. From FoxNews.com,

“RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — The Saudi judiciary on Tuesday defended a court verdict that sentenced a 19-year-old victim of a gang rape to six months in jail and 200 lashes because she was with an unrelated male when they were attacked.”

This incident sparked some international outrage. Some of our Presidential candidates are now using it as a platform. Before I say what I’m going to say understand that I do think this was horrible. The 200 lashes, the rape, all of it. But, in a world that “values diversity” how can anyone be critical of this? Who are we to judge? On what basis can we claim that this was wrong of the SA government to do? If we are to honor and respect other cultures, if we are not to enforce our views and morality on others, why is it OK to come out and say that this was wrong? Talk about hypocritical.

If people who hold to this view were intellectually honest they would realize this. They say they are standing up for human rights, but what is the objective basis for what are considered rights? Who decides this? Is it the majority who decides what rights a person should have? My concern isn’t with any particular human rights issue, my concern is the process by which one determines these rights. At one time in the not-so-distant past women didn’t have the right to vote. How did this change? With a vote. Black people had far fewer rights that whites. How did that change? A vote. Homosexuality was viewed as an immoral lifestyle. Generally speaking society has accepted it as a moral lifestyle that deserves the same recognition and rights as straight people. How is this changing? With votes of popular opinion and ballots. So what is to stop adult sexual acts with children, or children’s sexual acts with each other from being considered a human right? A vote? But what if in , say, 50 years popular opinion changes and these activities are seen as the rights of people to express? Does that make it right?

The reality is that, just because something is voted in or determined by the powers to be legal or illegal, that doesn’t make the thing right or wrong. It just makes it legal or illegal. So really, it isn’t wrong to steal, it’s just illegal. It isn’t wrong to murder, it’s just illegal. It isn’t wrong to rape, it’s just illegal. Do you feel as uncomfortable reading that as I do writing it? Do you see the problem with it? Inside every human is a sort of innate sense of morality, an absolute sense of right and wrong. Our Creator put that there. It is one of the ways in which we are made in His image.

The logical consequence of relative truth and/or morality is “anything goes.” What those guys in Saudi Arabia did to that girl and what their courts did to that girl isn’t right or wrong, it just is. Terrorists aren’t right or wrong. Some might say, “But there has to be some kind of standard.” I agree. But how do we decide what that standard is? A vote? We are right back to where we started. We need an objective source of truth and morality. We need one enforced upon us. Without it we become like a child that grows up with no training or supervision.

The reality is that there is an outside, objective source of absolute truth and morality. His name is God. Not just any old God, but the one revealed to us in the Bible. The one who created Heaven and Earth by an act of His will out of nothing. There is equality in Him. There is freedom in Him. There is justice in Him. There is love in Him for He is love. There is peace in Him. Everything that the world is looking for is found in Him and can only be found in Him. It’s that “only” part that trips most people up.

The world needs saving. Anyone who says otherwise is either living with their head in the sand of is blindly optimistic. God loves the world. He proved it by sending His Son Jesus to save the world, not condemn it. That was the first time. God is only going to let things go so far before it requires condemnation and judgment. When Jesus comes back the second time it is going to be to set things straight. We need it.

Who are we to judge? No one. Jesus is the righteous judge. I’ll leave it up to Him and go by what He says.