What If...?

During the presidential campaign of the past fall, several commentators, pundits, and politicians criticized President Barack Obama for being naïve in his view of geopolitics. The idea of sitting down with foreign leaders such as Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad met sharp criticism from the political right as an example of the Democrats’ perceived inexperience with an increasingly dangerous world.

The Democratic platform on social issues also was the subject of much criticism from the political right. Republicans attempted to highlight past failures of social programs that had been the recipients of federal tax money in an effort to show that higher taxes and higher spending was also naïve. The Democrats then countered by arguing that in order to work through the existing socioeconomic problems, that additional government programs would be needed to help alleviate poverty and unemployment.

Liberals do not like their ideals to be trivialized and considered naïve. Liberalism is by its very nature idealistic and hopeful for a better future based on top-down motivated responsibility. Liberalism believes that if a program is sponsored by the government, it will be more effective in motivating the general public than if a set of ideas is generated from the ground-up.

Confessional Christianity has lost any place it ever had in contemporary liberalism. Christianity has beliefs and ideals that are considered by liberals as too divisive and, in some cases, hateful. The sixth commandment is perceived as perhaps the most divisive of the beliefs of Christianity. The sixth commandment states “You shall not commit adultery.” Adultery, as defined in the Bible, is any sexual relation outside of the bonds of marriage. This includes sexual thoughts, words, and actions outside of marriage. Marriage is defined in the Bible as between one man and one woman despite several people in the Old Testament having practiced polygamy.

What if everyone followed the sixth commandment perfectly? At the risk of being naïve, consider the following scenarios that would occur of everyone in the world followed the sixth commandment:

1) Venereal diseases would be virtually eradicated within three generations.
2) No infidelities would occur, thus lowering divorce rates, spousal abuse, and broken homes.
3) Prostitution would be gone.
4) Pornography would be gone.
5) Abortions would decrease substantially as married women do not frequently seek them.
6) Would the Arabian states dislike the west as much?
7) The debate regarding what is and is not marriage would not exist.
8) Teenage pregnancies would be gone (unless they were already married).
9) Fathers would be more likely to be integral in their children’s lives.
10) The government would no longer need to spend taxpayer money on STD prevention.

The concept of following the sixth commandment flawlessly may seem to be too idealistic, too backward, and too divisive for contemporary society, but the effects of its implementation are truly remarkable to consider. This is only one commandment.

Are the intentions and effects of following this "backward" commandment really divisive and hateful?

Would the above scenarios be more restrictive in American lifestyles or more liberating?

Perhaps that is naïve, but at least it is free and does not cost $335 million of public money.