“Perfect love doesn’t consist only in loving the sinner: equally important is hating the sin.” – Nelson Foendoe, LWI’s president and author.
Many times, we have argued that integrity is closely connected to your worldview; that is, the sum of your beliefs, convictions, and assumptions on which you base your life. Usually, most worldviews agree on major moral issues such as killing, stealing, and related matters. However, when we look more closely, we see that there are some critical issues where the disagreement between different viewpoints becomes too wide. This is especially true when discussing social inclusivity; that is, the goal in social policy to ensure no one is excluded from social benefits and rights.
What is the basis of this idea? The starting point is that discrimination is wrong: we disapprove of treating similar cases differently. However, to agree on what counts as equal or different, we can distinguish between the causes of inequality. This allows us to identify factors such as race, gender, financial situation, digital access, and education. A common way to differentiate is whether the person was free to choose their position. The reason is that if your position results from your own choice, you are expected to face the consequences. Using this standard, race discrimination is wrong because a person wasn’t free to choose their race. Things become more complex when we consider issues like education, because it involves not just free choice but also mental ability, environment, and many other factors.
Another difference that often emerges but many people overlook is rooted in applying absolute rather than relative morality. The Judeo-Christian worldview is founded on an absolute morality. As a result, some viewpoints are non-negotiable because certain behaviors are deemed inherently wrong and an assault on the holiness of the Creator. In the Judeo-Christian worldview, it is called sin, and sin is an absolute concept. That means sin is still considered to be sin even when you are unaware, uninformed, or were obligated to choose it.
But there is a key condition that accompanies the absoluteness of sin: the Creator distinguishes between the sin and the sinner. The sin is condemned, but the person(the sinner) can receive mercy from Him. This is what all critics overlook.
The conclusion, therefore, is that in the Judeo-Christian worldview, practicing inclusion in any aspect of life requires acknowledging the absoluteness of certain moral principles. You might have a tendency to steal (kleptomaniac), but inclusion doesn’t mean we will change the law that prohibits stealing. The law remains in place, but we care for the person to help restore them according to the absolute morality of the Creator.
To purchase message us at info@lwi-foundation.org.
LWI Newsletter – Inklusividat i integridat
“Amor perfekto no ta enserá stima e pekador so: mésun importante tambe ta odia e piká” – Nelson Foendoe, presidente di LWI i outor.
Hopi bia nos a trese dilanti ku integridat ta íntimamente konektá ku bo ‘worldview’; esei ta e totalidat di bo kreensia, konvikshonnan i kosnan ku bo ta asumí pa funda bo bida riba dje. Por lo general mayoria ‘worldview’ ta riba mésun liña tokante asuntunan moral mayó manera matamentu, hòrtamentu i asuntunan relashoná ku nan. Pero ora nos pone mas atenshon, nos ta mira ku tin algun asuntu krítiko kaminda e desakuerdo entre e diferente puntonan di bista ta bira muchu grandi. Esaki ta bèrdat en partikular ora nos ta atendé ku inklusividat sosial; esta, e meta den maneho sosial pa sigurá ku niun hende n’ ta keda ekskluí di benefisionan i derechonan sosial.
Kiko ta base dje idea aki? E punto di salida ta ku diskriminashon ta robes: nos ta desaprobá ku bo ta trata kasonan igual na un manera diferente. Pero pa yega na akuerdo kiko ta igual òf diferente, nos por hasi distinshon entre e kousanan di inigualdat. Esaki ta laga nos identifiká faktornan manera rasa, sekso, situashon finansiero, akseso digital i edukashon. Un manera komun pa diferensiá ta pa wak si e persona tabata liber pa skohe su posishon. E motibu ta opvio: si bo posishon ta resultado di bo mes eskoho, nos ta ferwagt ku bo tin ku karga e konsekuensianan. Usando e kriterio aki, diskriminashon di rasa ta robes pasobra e persona no tabata liber pa skohe su rasa. Kos ta bira mas kompliká ora nos konsiderá asuntunan manera edukashon pasobra no ta trata di djis eskoho liber ma tambe kapasidat mental, ambiente (ku b’a lanta den) i hopi otro faktor.
Un otro diferensia ku hopi bia ta bin dilanti ma ku hopi hende no tin bista pe, ta sinta den uso di moralidat apsoluto enbes di relativo. ‘Worldview’ Hudeo-Kristian ta fundá riba moralidat apsoluto. Komo resultado djesei, algun punto di bista no por wòrdu negoshá pasobra sierto komportashon ta wòrdu konsiderá inherentemente robes, en echo, komo un atentado riba santidat di e Kreador. Den e ‘worldview’ Hudeo-Kristian, nan ta wòrdu yamá piká i piká ta un konsepto apsoluto. Esei ke men ku piká ta keda piká asta ora bo no ta konsiente, no tabata sa òf a wòrdu obligá pa skohe p’e.
Pero tin un kondishon klave ku ta kompañá e echo ku piká ta apsoluto: Kreador ta hasi distinshon entre e piká i e pekador. E piká ta wòrdu kondená pero e persona (e pekador) por risibí mizerikòrdia serka djE. Esaki ta loke e oponentenan no tin bista pe.
E konklushon pues ta ku den e ‘worldview’ Hudeo-Kristian, aplikashon di inklushon den kualke aspekto di bida ta rekerí rekonosementu ku sierto prinsipionan moral ta apsoluto. Bo por tin un tendensia pa hòrta (kleptomania) pero inklushon no ta nifiká ku nos ta bai kambia e lei ku ta prohibí ladronisia. Nos no ta mishi ku e lei pero nos tin atenshon p’e persona pa yuda restor’é segun e moralidat apsoluto dje Kreador.
