In a recent article, Patrick Buchanan responds to Joe Biden’s flip on the issue of abortion by asking the question: “Are Abortion & Gay Rights American Values?” Buchanan chooses this as the heading of his piece because the left often refer to things like multiculturalism, abortion, sodomy etc. as “core values”. And with good reason. Logically, rights always derive from moral values. There is a moral claim behind every right accorded to humans. The left have their own (im)moral agenda – namely the destruction of Western Christendom – and it is the desire to see this destruction manifested, that drives the “gay rights”, “pro-choice” and “open borders” movements.
Within the framework of historic Christianity, God’s Law and common law have always been the standard for determining any rights and privileges to men. Certain rights are accorded to mankind on account of the fact that they are a mirror image of God’s Law. For example, the right to life is derived from the moral implications of the sixth commandment (“thou shalt not kill”), whereas private property rights are derived from the seventh commandment (“thou shalt not steal”). Furthermore, traditionally European peoples have acknowledged common law as historically shaping national identity in such a way that certain particular rights are acquired on the basis of a particular nation’s historical development. The most famous example of this is perhaps the Anglo-Saxon legal right to trial by a jury of one’s peers, derived from the Magna Carta (See article 39 in the Magna Carta). In the Dutch legal tradition of my own people, we have no such right. This is an example of rights being distinctly non-universal – a fact of life denied by liberalism.
We see then that, properly understood, in the formation of national values, and consequently rights, there are two aspects in play: God’s Law and God’s particular providence over a race or nation. The German Counter-revolutionary political philosopher of the nineteenth century recognized this with his emphasis on the state’s codification of law as the realization of a “moral empire” – a human institution founded upon divine authority, in which the divine law and human nature, i.e. the particular historical-cultural expression of a particular nation, interplay to form a moral legal framework (Stahl, Principles of Law, pp. 98-99[original German: Philosophie des Rechts]).
It becomes evident that these two value systems are irreconcilable. The Marxist values of “gay rights”, “pro-choice” and “open borders” are fundamentally at odds with both God’s Law and the common law of white nations. This is not simply a theoretical fact. It has severe practical implications for ourselves and our kin – the slaughtering of babies in the womb, deadly terrorist attacks, purposefully denying little children the right to a mother and a father etc. How can we possibly ever accept these as “core values?” In his aforementioned commentary, Buchanan seems to recognize this when he concludes with the rhetorical question: “But how, then, do we remain one nation and one people?”
The question is rhetorical because it is obvious that we can’t. White Christians can’t peacefully co-exist in a nation where Talmudic, feminist and Marxist ideas shape the moral framework for our legal system. Since the age of Enlightenment, many of us, blinded by humanistic dreams of pluralism, seem to have forgotten this fact, but this has long been recognized by both Scripture and the Confessions. The famous Dutch theologian, Gisbert Voetius (1589-1676) writes:
[Governments] must make good laws for the purpose of maintaining true religion and hindering all religions damaging to the souls, to limit them … the magistrate should not allow creeds and practices of heretics and blasphemers … A Christian government should not allow the exercise of religions which threaten the foundations of the true Christian religion, but should resist it.(Voetius, Catechisasie over den Heidelbergschen Catechismus (1662), p. 971-972, 987-988 – my own translation from the original Dutch)
The reference to “foundations” is particularly relevant in our own context, as these evidently refer to those moral principles underlying any given legal framework. The second commandment is irreconcileable with any dreams of complete religious freedom in the modern sense of the word. Coexistence with Christ-haters within the same multicultural pluralistic empire is not the Christian way envisaged by our Christian forefathers. It was as unworkable then as it is now. The state and the culture must be Christianized.