Hemant Mehta, who promotes himself as "the friendly atheist," had thoughts on the recent election, and I couldn't help but notice how once again, the self-contradictory morass of godless thought was painfully exposed.
Mehta is a form of evangelistic atheist - one who doesn't just lack belief, but rather wants to proselytize it to the culture around him, creating disciples, and ridding society of what he considers the corrupting influence of superstition.
At times he can be intelligent and thoughtful. Yet, whenever matters turn to philosophy, Mehta finds himself hogtied by his contradictory worldview - one that shamelessly proclaims "there are no absolutes except for the absolute that says there are no absolutes." It's a predicament that no self-respecting thinker should abide.
I was reminded of this self-imposed logical handicap when I read Mehta's explanation of why "white, born-again, evangelical Christians" came out in large numbers for the candidacy of Donald Trump despite his numerous moral failures.
To be clear, I'm not writing to suggest that born again, evangelical Christians should have voted for Donald Trump. I've made my thoughts on that known a number of times in a number of forums. No, I'm just amazed that someone as bright as Mehta can fail so profoundly in his professed understanding of why they did.
Mehta's conclusion seems to be that Christian Trump supporters want immediate access to power, which Trump has promised them. They aren't seeking long-term solutions, because they believe that Jesus will rescue them from the disaster Trump will create, so they're just living for the moment.
Does Mehta not realize the degree to which he and his allies commit this same offense instinctively? It's a stunning lack of self-awareness.
First of all, notice that the progressive atheist, who lacks any foundation for moral or ethical judgment, freely complains about the alleged moral failures of a presidential candidate. Why should it matter? If ethics are as relative as Mehta's worldview suggests, who is he to condemn Donald Trump or those who support him? What makes Mehta's moral opinions more authoritative than those with whom he disagrees?
Secondly, Evangelical Christian voters seem to believe that the country has been led far away from godly morality by secularist politicians who crave power. Like Mehta himself, these politicians worship no god but themselves. They are the ones who idolize power, because if there is no eternal God, politics becomes religion itself, and manmade governments become the ultimate arbiters of good and evil, right and wrong - government becomes god.
It is the soul like Mehta's, who has no hope beyond this temporal world, that becomes obsessed with the trappings of earthly power.
They are the ones who rise and fall with every election.
They are the ones who give blood, sweat, and treasure to make sure they have a place in the throne room, a seat at the banquet table of their government king.
They are the ones who despair when their group is out of power, and rejoice when their group attains it.
That's the awkward reality of what Mehta is doing here in this post.
He's condemning Christians for acting like him!
To the degree that evangelical Christians mimic the world's lust for power, I would agree they have become as idolatrous as that world. It's just strange that what Mehta is really lamenting, then, is that Christian voters have started acting like him and his progressive, godless brethren.
God's invisible qualities - of which our internal impulse towards justice, fairness, and logic is a monumental one - remain in plain sight. Why self-professed scholars refuse to submit to Him, and choose instead to peddle shallow musings that lack any moral authority, remains one of the greatest affirmations of the Apostle Paul's stinging, divinely inspired indictments: "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."
Mehta may be right about evangelical Christians compromising their morality to attain power. But if he is, he has managed to offer a stinging indictment of his own worldview, his own philosophy, and yes, his own faith.
