These days, many people believe that Christians want to impose their morality on everyone else, and that Christians want to deny other people their individual rights and liberties.  However, such people fail to realise that Christianity is what makes democracy possible in the first place.  In fact, were it not for the influence of the Judeo-Christian worldview, democracy as we know it today probably would never have been possible.  To see why, let us compare the effects of the Judeo-Christian worldview to other worldviews.

Let us start by considering where it is that democracy is strongest in the world today.  If one were to make a list of those nations that have the strongest and most vibrant democratic forms of government, with maximum liberty for their citizens, at the top of that list would undoubtedly be nations such as the US, Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand.  All of these nations have one thing in common: most of their histories during the 1700s and 1800s were heavily influenced by Christianity.  It is during that time period that these nations also developed their democratic forms of government (although England developed it earlier).  Is this a mere coincidence, or is there a connection between the Christian heritage of these nations and their democratic institutions?  To answer this question, the history of the United States offers perhaps the greatest clues.

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote these words:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

This was a fairly radical notion in 1776, that all men are created equal.  In many countries in those days, those who were wealthy were generally treated more favourably than those who lacked money were, especially in the realm of legal justice.  From where did Jefferson get this idea that all men were equal?  Obviously, by referring to a Creator, he believed that God is the one who made all men equal, but where does this notion come from?  It comes from the Bible, especially from verses such as Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."  (Incidentally, it is worth noting that verses such as these, especially the clauses pertaining to "slave nor free," served as the inspiration for abolitionists in their fight against slavery.)

Jefferson also referred to the "laws of Nature and of Nature’s God."  Furthermore, in seeking reprieve from the abuses of the king, he appealed not to any human authority, but to "the Supreme Judge of the World."  This was another radical idea.  The prevailing wisdom at that time was that the king is the law.  Jefferson was suggesting that the law is king.  From where did he get this idea that there exist laws in nature to which even kings are subject?  This, too, came from the Bible.  Jefferson saw that in the Old Testament, the kings of Israel were held to the standards of the Mosaic law, and when they disobeyed them (such as when David committed adultery with Bathsheba), they often received severe discipline from God.

As further evidence that the founding fathers took many of their ideas of government from the Bible, one can look at the Constitution’s Bill of Rights.  In the Bill of Rights, one finds that the text of one of the Amendments is taken almost verbatim from a verse of Scripture.  Here is a portion of the Sixth Amendment:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall…be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; [and] be confronted with the witnesses against him."

Compare the above statement to Acts 25:16 (NKJV):

"It is not the custom of the Romans to deliver any man to destruction before the accused meets the accusers face to face [be confronted with the witnesses against him], and has opportunity to answer for himself concerning the charge against him [be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation]."

There can be no clearer evidence of Christianity’s role in shaping our government than in the fact that a portion of the Constitution is taken straight from a principle in the Bible.  So there seems to be some connection between Christianity and democracy, at least in the case of nations like the US.  But I have claimed that without Christianity, democracy would not be possible.  What about all of the world’s other religions and belief systems?  Don’t they lend themselves to democracy?  Let us see.

Let us begin with Islam.  One of the tenets of Islam is that people should, if necessary, use the power of the sword to promote the justice of Allah here on earth.  This presents an immediate problem.  If one is going to accomplish his goals by the use of force, then he cannot let anyone or anything get in his way.  He cannot possibly allow for dissent or protest, for that might prevent him from achieving what he deems the justice of Allah requires.  When that is the prevailing philosophy in the culture, it is not hard to see why there are such phenomena as the Taliban militia in Afghanistan, the repressive regimes of Iran and Saudi Arabia, and the terrorist states of Libya and Lebanon.  It is also what has led to an absolutely barbaric practice currently taking place in Sudan, where those who refuse to convert to Islam are routinely sold into slavery or even killed.  Thus, Islam clearly is not conducive to democracy, as the evidence from the Middle East demonstrates.

Next, let us consider Eastern religions, especially Hinduism.  In Hinduism, the concept of karma decrees that whatever a person’s lot is in this life is based on what he or she has done in a previous life.  Thus, if a person is having a life of sorrow or suffering, it is because he is atoning for evil deeds that he committed in a previous life.  The doctrine of karma also says that if someone tries to help a person who is suffering, rendering such assistance will interrupt the person’s karma and will cause him to suffer even more in the next life.  The ramification of such a doctrine is that no one is allowed to render any humanitarian assistance to a person who is downtrodden or less fortunate, because doing so would interrupt that person’s karma.  In practice, this has led to such phenomena in India as the caste system and the category of the untouchables.  In Hinduism, all men are definitely NOT created equal!  It took a person like Mother Teresa—a Christian woman who didn’t buy into the flawed thinking of Hinduism—to make a positive impact on the conditions of the poor in Calcutta.  Hence, we see that Hinduism does not lend itself to democracy.  Other Eastern religions suffer from similar flaws in their beliefs.

Some may object to the above characterisation of Hinduism’s effects by pointing out that India is a democratic nation.  That is true today, but for most of India’s history, that has not been the case.  Remember that India has only been a democracy since the middle of the 20^th century.  Furthermore, India did not develop its democratic form of government on its own; it copied the British model of a parliamentary democratic republic.  It is largely because India has embraced western democracy and moved away from being guided by Hinduism that it has made great strides in becoming a more equal society rather than a caste-based society.

Finally, let us look at atheism.  Atheism says, with absolute certainty, that there is no God.  But in making such a statement, atheism has contradicted itself logically.  To say with absolute certainty that there is no God, one would have to know everything there is to know in the universe.  Yet if a person knew everything there is to know in the universe, that person would, by definition, be God.  But what does this have to do with democracy?  Here is the issue: atheism cannot coexist with what Jefferson said.  Jefferson said that man's unalienable rights come from his Creator, i.e., God.  If liberties come from God, then no government has the legitimate authority to take away those liberties.  Jefferson said as much in the Declaration when he wrote:

"To secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to ALTER or to ABOLISH it" [emphasis added].

In the Judeo-Christian view, as embodied by Jefferson, people have the right to get rid of any government that infringes on their God-given liberties.  Atheism does not offer any such protection.  If there is no God, then our liberties do not come from Him.  Instead, they must come from the government.  But if the government gives us our liberties, the government can take them away just as easily.  This is what led to the Communist regimes of the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and the East European countries that used to be behind the Iron Curtain.  There is not an atheist nation on earth that has been a strong and vibrant democracy.  Hence, atheism clearly is not conducive to democracy.

Thus, one is left with the original assertion.  The Judeo-Christian worldview is what makes democracy possible in the first place, and without it, we would not have democracy as we know it today.  The evidence of nations and governments over the past 200 years clearly supports this assertion.  It is true that in ancient times, there have been non-Christian societies that have had some form of democracy.  For instance, Athens in the 6^th century BC headed off a political rebellion when Solon introduced a constitution that gave all citizens the right to vote.  However, this was done purely as a politically expedient pragmatic move and was not grounded on an ideology that gave democratic practice moral authority.  As a result, Athenian democracy soon perished.  Only the Judeo-Christian worldview can produce a long-term, sustainable democracy, because it is the only worldview that recognises the fact that there is a God with an absolute moral authority to which all people—president and peasant, prince and pauper—must submit.  Thus, only under the Judeo-Christian worldview can one hope to have a form of government that treats everyone equally and allows them to enjoy their God-given liberties.

At this stage, some people may have one remaining objection.  They may say that educated and enlightened people can form a government that operates based on the consent of the majority, and that they do not need to rely on Judeo-Christian principles to do so.  However, it is not enough merely to have majority rule.  Our nation’s founding fathers spoke of the "tyranny of the majority."  By this, they meant that if ideas were not influenced by transcendent and universal moral principles, then people could come up with some very bad ideas, and if they attracted enough votes, adopt those ideas.  But the mere fact that a majority of people approved of an idea would not necessarily mean that it was morally right.  For instance, is slavery wrong only because the majority of people these days think it is, or is it inherently morally wrong?  If it is the former, then we are left with the untenable position of saying that in the pre-abolitionist days, slavery was not morally wrong, because the majority of people thought it wasn’t, and that if people’s opinions changed again, it would be acceptable to reinstate slavery.  This is an example of "tyranny of the majority," and it is doubtful that anyone today would seriously defend this position.  Therefore, one is forced to conclude that slavery always has been, always is, and always will be inherently morally wrong, because it violates absolute moral principles.  Remember that Jefferson spoke of the "laws of Nature and of Nature’s God."  According to Jefferson, these were universal laws and moral principles that overrode all other man-made laws.  Man-made laws that violate the laws of nature will still be immoral laws, whether they command little support or majority support.  An example of this comes from an infamous 20^th century episode.

Germany in the 1930s was one of the most educated and culturally sophisticated societies in the world at the time, having had such notable people in its recent history as Beethoven, Wagner, Goethe, Hegel, and Karl Marx.  In spite of that, Hitler was able to carry out a plan to try to exterminate an entire race of people.  After the war, those who were primarily responsible for this genocide were tried at Nuremberg for crimes against humanity. Even in current times, the member nations of NATO have launched plans to try many of Slobodan Milosevic's men for crimes against humanity based on what they did to the ethnic Albanians. Why?  What right did other nations have to condemn the actions of sovereign nations and try its proponents on a criminal charge of crimes against humanity?  The answer is that the actions of the Nazis and Milosevic’s men violated the laws of nature and of nature’s God.  That is to say, their actions were per se morally wrong, even though some of their countrymen may have approved of them.

That is why it is not enough to hope that enlightened and educated people can create democracies in a vacuum.  If societies do not recognise the Christian fact that liberties ultimately come from God and that there are transcendent moral laws that supersede man-made laws, such societies can degenerate into a "tyranny of the majority" and make possible atrocities such as the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis.  Hence, we see that the Judeo-Christian worldview is indeed the one and only force that makes democracy and liberty possible.

Home Who am I? What are my values? A Nation's Heritage E-mail me