Moral Values

One liberal said that allowing poor people to prevent childbirth (i.e. free abortions) is a good moral choice because those people cannot afford to have a child.Most reports I see say this election was decided because of moral values and that has many on the liberal side trying to justify many of their positions as moral positions. One liberal said that allowing poor people to prevent childbirth (i.e. free abortions) is a good moral choice because those people cannot afford to have a child. Taking the life of an innocent child to save a few bucks is not a good moral choice. Others say that providing healthcare to those who do not have it is a good moral choice. I agree that helping those in need is indeed a good moral choice – but is it the government’s responsibility? Liberals will argue against legislating morality but isn’t that what government funded healthcare is? Taking care of the poor and needy is really the responsibility of the church – not the government. Most of those who are in favor of government funded healthcare are also in favor of abortion. How can those people say they are taking the moral high road when they are for killing innocent children?

Moral values must be in agreement with what God says.Moral values start with the utmost respect of life. Moral values must be in agreement with what God says. God is against hands that shed innocent blood. God is against the perversion of homosexuality. God is against adultery. God is against selling out for the sake of the pocketbook.

Subscribe to be notified when a new post is published.

2 Responses to “Moral Values”


  1. Yes, taking care of those in need is a responsibility of the church, but how often do we see our churches doing so? Not that I believe it is for the government. If we, as Christians were to set the example, then maybe we could change things. If the church was giving and helping the poor so much, it couldn’t be ignored, the government would no longer try and step in. And think about the message that would send about Christianity! I’m excited to think that such a thing could be possible.

  2. I’ve changed my position on this just a little since I originally wrote it four years ago. I still don’t think it is the government’s responsibility, but now I don’t think it is the church’s responsibility either – at least not the church as a body.

    The church’s purpose is the spreading of the gospel. However, individual Christians have the liberty to help the poor on their own or even to join with other like-minded people to help the poor. Helping the poor really isn’t a church ministry but it can be the ministry of individual Christians. The church as a body has become side-tracked from its mission: preaching the gospel.

    As a clarification: when I reference the poor here, I mean the poor outside the church. The church does have a responsibility (and we see examples of it scripture) to help the poor that are within the church.


Got something to say?