Who Says Slavery Is Wrong?
I REFER to the letter entitled “Morality needs no religion” published in The Namibian, 10 May 2013, by Jack R Kambatuku.
The main point of his letter was to attempt to state that because Namibia is ‘secular state’ it is it therefore unconstitutional, in any state-run institution, to ‘advance one particular belief above any other’. In particular, the writer is arguing that having the Bible taught in schools, having Christian programmes broadcast on NBC, and requiring office bearers to ‘swear on the Bible’ are all unconstitutional.
While it may be true that the word ‘secular’ appears in the preamble of the Namibian Constitution, the reality is that most ‘secular’ states are not consistent in their application of their secularity. Historical religious practises often play an important role in civil life.
The writer needs only consult Wikipedia to see exceptions to the rule. For example, he does not suggest that we strike religious holidays from our calendars (nor suggest that we keep all religious holidays of all religions of all people present in Namibia). Nor does he propose that our working lives be reorganised so that we no longer keep seven day weeks, with a weekly Sabbath rest (a biblical principle).
Kambatuku’s one overriding assumption is stated in his conclusion: ‘we do no need to believe in a deity in order to be moral beings’. In a way he is correct – but what morality are we talking about? Who defines this moral ‘standard’? Does he fail to realise that many of the ‘moral’ principles in the Constitution have a religious basis with no rational (secular) explanation?
Without an overarching principle, morality is simply reduced to the greatest good for the greatest number of people ... instead of for all people. Let’s take, as an example, the right to life enshrined in the Constitution. Who decides that it should be a right? Surely only those members of society who are ‘productive’ should have the right to life?
Others are simply ‘consumers’ rather than ‘producers’ – and thus are a drain on national wealth. Are they not depriving others of better schooling or healthcare? Would it not be better for the ‘greater good’ of the country if they were eliminated? Think of the mentally retarded or the aged. We would have more wealth and standards in the country would undoubtedly be raised if we simply terminated these people.
History is littered with atrocities as people seek to remove all those who do not live up to ‘their’ (subjective) standard. According to what standard is genocide morally wrong? Indeed, in a purely Darwinist (a-religious) society where the law of the survival of the fittest is allowed to take its course in the human race, this is exactly what we would do. So how do we choose? Based on a vote? And, if so, according to whose moral standard do we decide?
To take another example: we will presume that he believes that slavery is wrong. Why is it wrong? Could we not engage in a massive building programme on the back of those who have not succeeded in their schooling? If they were employed as slaves, we could easily reach the developmental goals of Vision 2030.
Slavery was a generally accepted worldwide practise until the Christian politician William Wilberforce campaigned for its abolition on the basis of biblical standards, but his opponents argued against him on the basis of economic standards. Thank God religiously moral principles prevailed.
So, you are wrong, Kambatuku. We do indeed need to believe in a deity in order to be truly moral beings.
David Greeff
Namibia Evangelical
Theological Seminary