“Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there? Why then is there no healing for the wound of my people?” — Jeremiah 8:22
I’ll tell you why: because the Gileadites buy into baseless fearmongering and propaganda: “They cling to deceit and refuse to return” to their Maker.
Is the maker of the fictional Gilead a propagandist?
That would seem to be the case, if Margaret Atwood’s piece for The Atlantic, “I Invented Gilead. The Supreme Court Is Making It Real,” is anything to go by. Atwood recounts that in developing her novel The Handmaid’s Tale, she imagined “Gilead” as an American theocracy in which
women had very few rights, as in 17th-century New England. The Bible was cherry-picked, with the cherries being interpreted literally. Based on the reproductive arrangements in Genesis—specifically, those of the family of Jacob—the wives of high-ranking patriarchs could have female slaves, or “handmaids,” and those wives could tell their husbands to have children by the handmaids and then claim the children as theirs. . . .
. . . . There are a number of [theocracies] on the planet today. What is to prevent the United States from becoming one of them?
Would any of us want it to? Would any of us want the Bible to be “cherry-picked” and the pickings turned into laws?
Atwood’s contention in this article is that the United States is now in danger of that very thing—because of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade.
The problem with her view is that it misunderstands both the nature of legislation, generally, and the meaning of the First Amendment, specifically.
The article bombs.
All Laws Are “Religious”
Every law-code, without exception, is predicated on “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, . . . often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”
That’s a partial definition of “religion” at Dictionary.com.1
In other words, all laws are religious: they’re always based on the culture’s dominant faith—its beliefs and convictions about the meaning of life; what’s right or wrong; how people ought to treat one another.
And if that moral foundation just so happens to be true, then it doesn’t matter what century we’re living in. Right remains right; wrong is still wrong.
“That, Ms. Atwood,” as Yoda would say, “is why you fail.”
Atwood demonstrates that she doesn’t understand the universal truth about legislation when she goes after the Supreme Court.
Their annulment of Roe v. Wade rests on the argument that abortion isn’t a constitutionally protected “right,” and therefore the 1973 decision was inappropriate because it went beyond the Supremes’ constitutional authority. Thus the issue has now been returned to the states, to which it originally belonged.
Atwood seems to argue that Constitutional considerations are irrelevant because the Constitution is the relic of a bygone era. She points out that
the original does not mention women at all. . . . Women could neither consent nor withhold consent, because they could not vote. . . . If we start overthrowing settled law using Justice Samuel Alito’s justifications, why not repeal votes for women?2
This is a faulty argument for one simple reason: whatever the Constitution affirms about men on the basis of their value as human beings—that can and should logically also be applied to women, since they are human beings of equal value.
How do I know this?
Because the Bible tells me so.
I’m not being trite: it’s Biblical revelation that establishes the equal value of women and men.
When we look beneath the surface (and not that far), we discover that both the Constitution proper and its amendments derive from a moral compass grounded in a Biblical worldview, and that worldview therefore carries more weight than the Constitution itself. While not all of the Founders were necessarily Christians, they were operating largely within a Judeo-Christian framework.
So, while the Constitution itself is an 18th-century document, it rests on, and is given force by, a paradigm that spans all of history. This neutralizes Atwood’s complaint that “Justice Alito wants you to be governed by the laws of the 17th century . . . . Is that when you want to live?”
Ms. Atwood, I want to live in a culture that upholds abiding, truth-based moral principles. Principles that aren’t fickle; aren’t subject to ideological whims and human “feels.”
And so if any changes are made—or amendments added—to the Constitution, it should only be to bring it that much more in line with the worldview that grounds it. Ignoring or rejecting or overhauling the Constitution would mean jettisoning its Biblical foundation and sticking a competitor in its place.
That competing framework would be every bit as “religious” as the one it’s replacing—because all laws are religious, no matter who legislates them.
An alternative Constitution wouldn’t be “new,” either. Nobody's going to reinvent the metaphysical wheel. Whatever Western intellectuals and creatives, like Margaret Atwood, want to replace the West’s Judeo-Christian foundation with, it will be some form of naturalism—the belief that Nature is supreme, rather than a supernatural Creator.
But since naturalism has been done to death—literally, it’s resulted in the deaths of millions over the course of history3—if Atwood’s viewpoint were allowed to control legislation, not just over abortion but all societal concerns, she’d have us living in a culture that originated long before the 18th or 17th centuries!
This is why time frames are utterly meaningless. What matters is whether a viewpoint is true and good, not when it originated.
An example can be found in Atwood’s own reference to “the laws of the 17th century.” Those laws included the prohibition of murder. Should we thus legalize murder in order to avoid being like those 17th-century primitives? Going further, what about the judicial principle of “innocent until proven guilty”? What about the Constitutionally protected freedoms of conscience, expression, and association?
All of these principles and laws are traceable to a Creator who made us all equal in value to one another, therefore establishing how we ought to treat one another.
Any reasonable person will recognize that truth and goodness aren’t restricted to any particular century or culture. They are timeless and universal, because they are grounded in a Good and Truthful God.4
This means that if murder was wrong then, it’s wrong now.
This means that if the unborn are human beings, then abortion is murder—and God has said: “You must not murder.” (Exodus 20:13)
Therefore we must not abort the unborn.
Atwood’s argument implies that allowing open season on the unborn is morally superior to legislating their protection. But this is a religious argument. If Atwood had her way, we wouldn’t be any less religious. We’d just have a different religion—paganism, though of course the pagans wouldn’t likely call it that—with different laws, and those laws wouldn’t recognize the human value of babies.
And then somebody could come along generations later and use Atwood’s own argument against her: “We need to outlaw abortion! Do we really want to live under the primitive laws of the 21st century?”
See how that works?
We need to base our laws not in time, but in the Timeless.
“But That’s a State Religion!”
“Wait a minute,” Atwood might say to me. “If you’re making a religious argument in favor of anti-abortion laws, you’re violating the First Amendment.”
That amendment, attached to the Constitution in 1791, says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.5
From this Atwood infers: “There was to be no state religion.”
But this argument fails, for two reasons. First of all, I’ve just demonstrated that any legislation—including Roe v. Wade—is inherently religious because it presupposes a metaphysical viewpoint of right and wrong. Therefore Atwood’s own position is religious—yet obviously we wouldn’t equate that with a violation of the First Amendment.
Secondly, we must understand how the writers of the Second Amendment were using the term “religion.” They were opposed to control by/of institutions—not the input of ideas. The Amendment wards against both the creation of a state church and a monopoly on governmental power by any single religious or philosophical institution.
There is Biblical support for this insofar as Christians in leadership are concerned:
Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves.” [Luke 22:25-26]
It is not for [us] to judge those outside the church. . . . God will judge those outside the church. [1 Corinthians 5:12-13]
In the context of I Corinthians 5, to “judge” means to exercise church discipline: i.e., hold accountable to Christian standards those who have freely chosen to join the ranks of God’s people.
Christians in the realm of secular governance must not, by contrast, hold society to uniquely Christian standards. It would be unBiblical to demand, say, that every citizen be baptized, or that a particular church be tax-supported.
But note very carefully the distinction between institutions and ideas. Remember: religious ideas always, without exception, inform legislation. But legislation shouldn’t be controlled by a religious institution: a particular religious subgroup or its priesthood putting everyone else under their thumb.
So, Atwood and I would be on the same page when it comes to living under a “Christian” regime: we both don’t want it.
I’ve actually argued to fellow believers numerous times that a Christian-governed society is not a good thing. We know this because it was tried in the wake of the Roman empire, with disastrous results that still reverberate. Among those outcomes is the fact that Christendom descended into legalism and cruelty, which to this day prompts many unbelievers to reject the Gospel out of hand.
If you’re a non-Christian, please consider the fact that not everyone who claims to represent Jesus actually does.
But since—as I hope is clear by now—all laws are based on a culture’s dominant worldview, which is religious, then why should we block input from the Biblical worldview? Why can’t a senator or congressperson stand up and say, “Here’s my perspective on this issue, based on my Christian convictions”?
This does not mean:
Bible-believers get to control society; or,
Bible-believers get to block the input of other elected officials speaking out of their convictions.
It just means that Christian ideas get a seat at the legislative table.6 Christian leaders get to argue their case, and others may accept or reject that case.
One of the best examples of this is the 46-year campaign by English parliamentarian William Wilberforce against slavery in the British Empire. This bold follower of Jesus wasn’t shy about expressing his rationale, arguing in the House of Commons on 12 May 1789, that
when we think of eternity, and of the future consequences of all human conduct, what is there in this life that should make any man contradict the dictates of his conscience, the principles of justice, the laws of religion, and of God? Sir, the nature and all the circumstances of [the slave] trade are now laid open to us . . . . [T]his House must decide, and must justify to all the world, and to their own consciences, the rectitude of the grounds and principles of their decision.
Wilberforce was openly arguing on the basis of Scriptural principles that slavery is immoral and ought to be rejected. He wasn’t arguing that a particular church or denomination should control the State.
“I’m innocent in my head, like a baby born dead”
It’s a universally acknowledged truth that babies are innocents. We demonstrate that we intuitively recognize this when we put stickers on our vehicles that say “Baby Onboard.” Our hearts know that innocents are more deserving of our protection and care than anyone else.
Maybe pregnant women should have the message “Baby Onboard” affixed to their maternity wear.
Laws against murdering humans in utero are grounded in the faith that affirms the equal value of all human beings, regardless of where they’re located.
Conversely, legislation that permits murder of the unborn is legislation founded on faith that “God doesn’t exist,” or is “irrelevant,” or has been “misunderstood”—such that our choice to kill the unborn can be justified as a “good” or “neutral” thing. Margaret Atwood calls a “dictatorship” the protection of the most helpless and innocent among us; protection that is one of the most obvious and basic moral principles in all the fabric of reality.
Here’s what the Bible says about the Margaret Atwoods of the world, and of the decline of a culture:
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,
who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness,
who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter..
[Isaiah 5:20]
Anyone in favor of Roe v. Wade; anyone enraged that it’s been overturned—is the opposite of innocent. They’re supporters and perpetrators of mass murder. Their hands are drenched with more blood than Gilead.
The unborn are no less human than Margaret Atwood or myself or anyone else. What is less human is our perverted moral compass that facilitates the rationalization of great evils like baby-murder. In the past God has destroyed whole civilizations over child-sacrifice. He’ll do so again. And we will richly deserve it.
I can imagine Atwood saying one day, when the blinders are removed from her eyes and she finally sees the light: “We only wanted to make the world better. . . . Better never means better for everyone. It always means worse for some.”7
The full definition also includes the phrase “especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies[.]” Bear in mind that while most people will immediately assume this refers to “God” or “gods,” the truth is that even atheists believe in a Supreme Being that is eternal and all-powerful. For them, that entity is Nature.
Italics mine.
The link I provided in that sentence looks only at the approximately 100 million dead attributable to communism—a brutal, naturalism-based ideology—in the twentieth century. But over the course of history, wherever nature instead of nature’s Creator has been worshipped, it has resulted in a staggering measure of human suffering.
For a broader look at the subject of modern-day communism—and naturalism always leads to the State being the ultimate power over society—see the website of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.
See the essay “Illustrations of the Tao,” by C. S. Lewis (1943). Lewis demonstrates that even in cultures infected with paganism/naturalism, much of God’s light still shines through. This light is reflected in various laws or practices that otherwise different cultures have in common.
This doesn’t mean that atheists or adherents of other religions are “for” theft, rape, murder, etc. It means that only the Bible explains why such things are wrong. Those who reject the Bible simply don’t have adequate explanations for morality.
For more on the development of this amendment and the Bill of Rights as a whole, see “First Amendment,” History.com (4 Dec. 2017; 25 Sept. 2019 [accessed 28 Sept. 2022]).
And any other branch of government or any government agency.
Spoken by the character Fred Waterford, in episode 1.05 (“Faithful”) of The Handmaid’s Tale.