普世价值是基督教世界独有的（中英文版）

我这么说很多人会反驳道，古希腊、古罗马法律中就有保护生命财产的法律，但是保护生命财产的法律，与明确的平等、自由等普世价值相差实在太远。古希腊的自由，不单单是限制在城邦公民的范围内，而且公民内贵族与平民的身份差别也很明显，即使梭伦的改革，也是以承认财产权为基础的阶层来进行的，而不是否认。而古罗马的自由也只限于共和国公民，同样他们内部元老、贵族、平民的差别十分明显，而且由于有一个私法的存在，使古罗马共和国内人与人之间的关系更加复杂，更加远离自由、平等这些概念。我们还论述过由于人性的贪婪堕落，这些朴素的人权概念在不长时间后就沦丧了，古希腊被马其顿帝国所灭，古罗马共和国也亡于古罗马帝国。古希腊、古罗马灭亡后，一千多年以来人类一直在君主制、等级制社会里挣扎，更不要想出现自由、平等、人权这些概念，不，是字眼也不会出现。

我们简略回顾下本书第二章冗长的内容，作些铺垫，因为我们接下来将从最根本的角度，阐述世俗社会不可能产生自由、平等这些普世价值。这一章的主要内容是，人类依靠本身的力量无法抑制贪婪堕落的本性，人类只有通过信仰才能够获得道德，这里可以理解为人类只有通过信仰，才能获得平等、自由、人权这些概念，而不是理性，所以世俗社会产生不了这些概念的。二千多年前的亚里士多德、柏拉图等理性主义者认为人类根据理性而行事，可是实践中人类从来不是如此，于是从皮浪的怀疑主义开始，就对理性主义进行批判。近代以来功利主义认为人凭感觉行事，根据趋利避害的感觉行事，这才是慢慢触及人类生活的本质，之后是，叔本华的人是意志的表象世界，将人类的思想深入到更深层次的意志，人受意志控制而行事，于是在叔本华的基础上，有了尼采的强力意志、超人，尼采认为人类受强力意志驱动，正是超人引领人类前进，于是人类传统的道德哲学体系，在尼采的最后一击下轰然倒塌，我个人认为尼采之后人类道德哲学已死（如果想了解详情，可以参照本书第二章的内容）。世俗社会的道德哲学，连基本的道德都无法建立？怎么可能产生更先进的，自由、平等这些概念？所以世俗社会根本就产生不了普世价值。

与这些世俗道德哲学相对应的是基督教道德观，对于基督教道德我们在这一章中总结出如下特点，它以信仰为基础，认为道德是天堂、伊甸园的神圣秩序，人们只有奉行美德才能获得拯救，才能获得永生、永恒。并且基督教道德以罚入地狱作为违背道德的惩罚手段，使人们心存敬畏之心，不敢胡作非为。同时基督教道德是绝对真理，不允许辩驳质疑，它以绝对命令的形式要求人们信守，要求坚定地执行，不允许任何的犹豫、游移不定，使执行道德如本能一般的自发与及时，社会秩序也得以有效的建立。由于基督教道德是绝对真理，所以是神圣、不可亵渎的，是责任与义务，是不可推脱的，这些都是世俗道德哲学无法做到的，所以基督教道德观很容易成为社会的基础，而且一直以来都是西方社会的基础。人类几千年历史中其他无数的事实也证明了，人类是在信仰的驱使下行事的，人类所有的行动，都是为了永生、永恒，进入终极世界这个终极目的，这也正是我所认为的，信仰才是这个世界真正的推动力，人类只有在信仰的层面上，才可能建立普世价值，通过信仰才可能获得平等、自由、人权这些概念。我们知道这些概念实际上对应地来自于，基督教的兄弟之爱、上帝之下人人平等、宗教自由，在基督徒眼里，这些是进入天堂的钥匙，正因为如此神圣庄严，他们才会不懈地去追求，甚至冒着牺牲生命的危险。而非基督教世界没有这种追求，又怎么能得到这些普世价值呢？

但是我这么说大家不要误解，这么说并不是要求每一个人都要去信奉基督教，而只是阐明一种事实，而且现在就有很多种宗教，还可能产生新的宗教，我只是认为，如果每一个信徒都能吸取基督教的优点，将兄弟之爱、自由、平等这些概念，融入自己的宗教信仰中，那么这将是一个更美好的世界。

我们可以发现，所有这些引领潮流的左派思想家，都生活在逐渐世俗化的基督教国家里，这些国家中仍然有大量的基督徒，将这些概念从土壤中拨出普遍、抽象化后，暂时并没有影响到它们的存在，大多数人都认为这些概念无论是不是来自于上帝，都是理所当然的事。不过这些概念与基督教这片土地是密不可分，是兄弟之爱结出的硕果，他们在逐渐世俗化的基督教国家中，还能暂时存活，也是应该的事，我们假设将它们移植到非基督教的社会里，这些基督教土壤结出的硕果还能够存活吗？答案是否定的。

我们先来看看世俗社会，看看宗教只是世俗政府统治工具的社会的情况。我曾经论述过，人生而有无穷无尽的烦扰、痛苦，这也是佛教与叔本华所认为的人生的常态，我们为了摆脱这些烦扰、痛苦，就从种种快感中获得暂时的解脱，从眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意六根的快感中，从财色酒气、功名利禄、吃喝嫖赌等享乐中。平等、自由、人权这些普世价值概念，对世俗社会的普通人来说没有任何意义，我们不可能通过追求这些普世价值，来摆脱烦扰、痛苦，这些只是一些空洞、苍白的概念，只是最美好事物在人类灵魂深处的幻影，人类在伊甸园生活的一点残存影像，对我们世俗生活没有半点影响。也就是说，对于世俗社会的人来说，根本就没有追求普世价值的动力，因为这些与感官快感、物质享乐无关。这也是我们曾提到的，一些所谓的民主斗士，对所谓的国民性无比悲凉，认为社会对他们巨大的牺牲无动于衷，其实能感到悲凉，只能说明他们不了解世俗社会，因为这才是真实世俗社会的人生，这些普世价值与世俗社会的人生一点关系都没有，世俗社会的普通人认为，普世价值是神经病才考虑的事，他们无法理解正常人为什么要考虑这些。不过对于这些民主斗士，我这里多说两句，正常情况下追求这些普世价值只是为了信仰，与周围人的态度是无关的，如果非要赢得大家的赞誉，那就有点令人怀疑他们追求的目的了。我们可以得出结论，平等、自由这些普世价值即不能产生利益，也不能产生快感，所以在世俗社会里不用说产生这些概念，即使存活的可能性都没有。

让我们再来看看伊斯兰国家的情况，我一再强调，宗教决定西方历史，宗教大于政治，永生、永世的信仰必然大于平等、自由、人权这些政治概念，而根据伊斯兰教的教义，与永生、永世，与进入天堂的息息相关的条件是，刀剑强迫任何人信教，国家与教会的统一，教会即国家，国家即教会。他们的教义中根本就没有平等、自由、人权这些普世价值概念，这些概念只能泛起他们对，灵魂最深处、最美好的事物的一点感动、一点泪光，但是除此之外，不会产生其他更多的东西，或者一丁点的行动，他们不可能为了这些概念付出任何东西，因为这些与他们的生活关系并不大，它们即不产生物质利益，也不能使他们摆脱烦扰、痛苦，更不可能让他们进入天堂，获得永生、永恒。普世价值在这些伊斯兰国家中，根本就没有存在的空间，于是我们看到在中东，许多富得流油的伊斯兰国家，虽然物质生活极其现代化，但是没有任何同样的现代化的政治观念，这些国家是清一色的伊斯兰教徒，虽然教派各异，基督教在这里根本就没有生存的空间，这里没有任何宗教自由的影子。在这些国家，王室有着巨大的特权，根据教义实行一夫四妻制，男人对女人有着绝对的权威，人与人之间没有任何平等的可能，而且永远都不可能，因为教义是这样规定的，至于人权，更是奢望，同样根据教义，教徒只能绝对服从于教会、国家，没有任何可以商量的余地，所以这些普世价值如果移植到伊斯兰世界，将很快干枯而死。

伊斯兰世界不可能产生平等、自由、人权这些概念的，另一个重要原因是，教会拥有军队，教义允许通过杀戮来征服异教徒。一个拥有军队的教会，一个允许杀戮的宗教怎么可能有平等、自由、人权这些普世价值？当信仰与刀剑结合在一起时，绝对是极其恐怖的事，因为我们知道信仰是追求永生、永恒，终极世界这些人类最根本的问题，没有任何妥协商量余地的问题，刀剑原本是解决争端的最终武器，只有在所有协商未果的情形下使用，但是在伊斯兰世界刀剑是解决争端的第一武器。用刀剑解决争端也有它的好处，就是直接、简单、有效，一手经书，一手剑，不服从就杀，不服从的杀光后，剩下的就服从了，多么痛快。就算你心中不服，为了求生委曲求全假意服从，但是接下来你的后代，也会被他们的教义同化，看到儿子成为屠杀基督徒的伊斯兰教徒，只能让你更加的欲哭无泪，更加的屈辱。但是更多时候，伊斯兰人用刀剑传教征服时，别人也同样刀剑相向，以刀剑保护自己，而且伊斯兰人同样也将刀剑用于内部的教派纷争，自身内部教派血腥的残杀不逊于异教之间的战争，于是伊斯兰世界长期战争不断，从未停止过，所以这样的国家怎么会有普世价值？

我们再看看东南亚一带的情况，这些东南亚国家由于长期被基督教国家殖民统治，被置入了平等、自由等普世价值概念，可是当殖民统治被推翻，基督教宗主国撤离后，这些国家的非基督教也就获得新生，蓬勃发展，由于这些东南亚国家原来也曾是伊斯兰教的殖民地，而且伊斯兰教以刀剑传教，效率高、效果好，很快这些国家的伊斯兰教徒就占据人口的大多数，这时情形就完全不一样了，根据宗教大于政治，信仰大于普世价值等政治概念的理论，这些国家就根据伊斯兰教的教义，逐渐实施教会法，实行教会与国家统一，国家即教会，教会即国家，此时他们也就完全抛弃平等、自由、人权这些普世价值，这些在他们眼里空洞如无物，他们实施宗教亵渎法，不允许对伊斯兰教说三道四，这些东南亚国家发展下去将如何？可想而知了，我就不继续述说了。

我们对任何一个讲求普世价值的政治家，唯一要求就是同等付出，你要别人付出，那么自己也要有相当比例的同等付出，不可能别人牺牲生命财产，而你却坐享其成。例如，我们可以要求奥巴马住在芝加哥，而不是搬到华盛顿，当然他可以住在豪华别墅里，拥有戒备森严的保安，你也不可能要求他像一般黑人一样生活，这也不现实，但是他那么爱黑人，那么追求人人平等，不生活在芝加哥又要生活在哪里？或者要求默克尔家里也收养几名难民，她那么喜欢难民，那么追求普世价值，总不能让同胞人饱受难民的骚扰，而自己却像没事一般吧。

判断一个政治家是真正的信仰，还是以普世价值、“政治正确”之名，寻求自己的利益，可以将他提出的主张与圣经内容相对比，因为平等、自由这些普世价值来自圣经，如果一个政治家鼓吹的内容，与圣经差别太大的话，绝对是值得怀疑。例如，当一个政治家将同性恋、变性人权利置于一般人之上时，那么基本可以断定他就是个虚伪的政客，挥舞着道德大棒为自己谋利，因为这些与圣经的内容相差太多。你可以主张尊重同性恋、变性人的权利，但是你将他们的权利至于一般人权利之上，并且到处鼓吹他们的生活方式，那绝对就有问题了。我们不应该对同性恋、变性人持仇恨的态度，但是也不可能去美化他们，让一般人也成为同性恋、变性人，这就与圣经出入太大了，也绝对违背人伦常理。我们一般人由于知识所限，很难分辨什么是信仰？什么是普世价值、“政治正确”？怎么办？不用担心，只要将这些政治家提出的主张与圣经对比，就一目了然了。

这些左派政治家到处鼓吹普世价值，希望建立一个普世价值的新社会，只能说纯属白日梦，只能给人类带来无穷无尽的灾难，因为根本就没有什么普世的价值，所有这些普世价值都是基督教世界所独有的，离开基督教信仰这个条件，这些普世价值、“政治正确”只能是无源之水，很快就会干涸的。

These leftist thinkers did not know that there was no so-called universal and abstract good. Schopenhauer criticized Kant’s moral concept from this point and created the philosophy of will. Kant thinks morality is good, far from a specific good but a universal and abstract good. This definition is, of course, impeccable rationally, but it is useless in practice. Because all the good in life has specific content, there is no universal and abstract good. Therefore, Kant’s moral philosophy is complacent in philosophy and useless in real life.

Similarly, the leftist thinkers put the nation as universal and abstract concepts, such as universal freedom, equality, human rights, etc. As a result, the so-called universal values are also extraordinarily void and groundless. Because in real life, these universal values have actual contents and profound soils. They all come from the ground of Christianity. They come from the brotherly love of Christianity, the equality of all people under God, and the religious freedom of all sects. For more than 5000 years in human history, apart from the Christian world, other human societies have never had such concepts of equality and religious freedom, all of which come from the Christian world. And even in Christian countries, these concepts appeared very late. As for religious freedom, we know that although the separation of church and state was widespread in the middle ages, the concept of religious freedom came into being only to ensure fair competition among all sects after the birth of Protestantism. The concept of equality was also formed after Protestantism’s “everyone is equal under God.” Jefferson put forward that all people are created equally in the declaration of independence. Then the concept of equality was widely accepted. The concept of human rights was even later until Hegel abstracted a universal and abstract concept of human rights. Before the emergence of these concepts, brotherly love lay widely in the Christian world, which was the only soil that could create these concepts. The universal values of equality, freedom and human rights were also the gradual evolution of brotherly love.

The love of brothers makes us impossible to be superior to our brothers and restricts brothers’ freedom. When it develops to a certain extent, the concepts of equality and freedom come into existence naturally. Of course, I am just briefly discussing it here. If you want to know more about how brotherly love evolved to equality and freedom, you can re-read Chapter 7 of this book, “Ruth and Calvin.” In the five thousand years of history since the existence of humans in ancient Egypt, the concept of equality and freedom has never appeared in other societies. The soil full of brotherly love is unique to the Christian world, and other human societies never have such similar soil, so it is impossible to bear these concepts. Equality, freedom, and other universal values are not generated and abstracted from empty, but the fruits of the soil of brotherly love, the fruits of which developed to a certain extent. Even today, it is a problem whether these universal values can exist universally and whether these concepts can survive in non-Christian society?

When I say these, many people may retort that there existed laws to protect life and property in ancient Greek and Rome, but the laws to protect life and property are far from clear universal values such as equality and freedom. The freedom of ancient Greece was limited to the citizens of the city-states, and the status difference between nobles and civilians was noticeable. Even Solon’s reforms were carried out on the basis of the recognition of property rights rather than denial. The freedom of ancient Rome was also confined to the citizens of the Republic. Similarly, the differences among the 

elders, nobles, and civilians were very obvious.

Moreover, due to the existence of private law, the relationship between people in the Republic of ancient Rome was more complex and far away from the concepts of freedom and equality. We have also discussed that due to the greed and depravity of human nature, even these simple human rights concepts were lost in a short time. The Macedonian Empire annihilated ancient Greece, and the ancient Roman Empire also abolished the ancient Roman Republic. After the fall of ancient Greece and Rome, human beings had been struggling in the monarchy and hierarchical society for more than a thousand years, let alone the concepts of freedom, equality, and human rights. Not only that, their words did not appear.

Let’s briefly review the lengthy content of the second chapter of this book and make some preparations because we will explain from the most fundamental perspective and infer that a secular society can’t produce universal values such as freedom and equality. The main content of this chapter is that humans can not restrain the nature of greed and degeneration by their own power. Only through faith can humans obtain morality. It can be understood here that only through faith can humans get the concepts of equality, freedom, and human rights rather than through rationality. Therefore, secular society can not produce these concepts. More than 2000 years ago, Aristotle, Plato, and other rationalists believed that humans acted according to reason, but it was never exercised by humans practically. So people began to criticize rationalism from Pirang’s skepticism. In modern times, utilitarianism believed that people act by senses and follow the sense to seek benefits and avoid damage. Such theories slowly touch the essence of human life.

Then, Schopenhauer thought that humans are the representational world of the will, which deepens human thought to a deeper level of the will; people are controlled by will. Therefore, based on Schopenhauer’s view, Nietzsche’s will to power and Superman emerged. Nietzsche believed that humans were driven by the will to power, and Superman leaded humans forward. Thus, the traditional moral philosophy system collapsed before the last blow of Nietzsche. I personally consider that after Nietzsche, human moral philosophy is dead (if you want to know more, please refer to Chapter II of this book). The moral philosophy of the secular society can’t even establish basic morality? How can it produce more advanced concepts of freedom and equality? Therefore, the secular society can not produce universal value at all.

Comparison to these secular moral philosophies is Christian morality. As for Christian morality ( I summarize its characteristics in the following chapter, the third chapter of this book) , it is based on faith, and It believes that morality is the Divine Order of heaven and Eden. Only by pursuing virtue can people be saved and obtain eternal life. Moreover, Christian morality warns that violating morality will be punished in hell, making people feel awed and daren’t do anything wrong. At the same time, Christian morality is an absolute truth that can not be refuted and questioned. It requires people to obey and execute firmly. It does not allow any hesitation and vacillation, so that the execution of morality is automatic and timely, and social order can be effectively established. Since Christian morality is an absolute truth, it is sacred and inviolable. And it also is a responsibility and obligation for the believer and is inescapable for them. All these can not be achieved by secular moral philosophy. Therefore, Christian morality can easily become the foundation of society and has founded Western society all along. Countless other facts in five thousand years of human history have also proved that humans are driven by faith. All human behavior is for the ultimate purpose of immortality and eternity. This is also what I think; belief is the real driving force of the world. Only based on belief can humans establish universal values; only through faith can we obtain the concepts of equality, freedom, and human rights. We have discussed that these concepts actually come from Christian brotherly love, equality under God, and religious freedom. In the eyes of Christians, these are the keys to access to heaven. Because of such holiness, they will pursue Christian morality unremittingly and even risk their lives. How can the non-Christian world get these universal values without such pursuit? What can drive non-Christians to get them?

However, I don’t want to be misunderstood. I don’t mean that everyone should believe in Christianity, but clarify a fact. There are many religions now, and new religions may emerge. I just think that if every believer can absorb the merits of Christianity and integrate the concepts of brotherly love, freedom, and equality into their own religious belief, Then it will be a better world.

We can find that all leftist thinkers leading the trend live in Christian countries that are gradually secularized. There are still a large number of Christians in these countries. Thus, these concepts can be pulled out of the soil and generalized and abstracted to universe concepts. Their existence has not been affected for the time being. Most people believe that whether these concepts come from God or not, they are all taken for granted. These concepts are inseparable from the soil of Christianity; they are the fruits of brotherly love. Therefore, they can survive temporarily in the gradually secularized Christian countries, which ought to be. However, when we transplant them into non-Christian society, can the fruits of the Christian soils survive? The answer is negative.

Let’s first look at the secular society, look at a society in which religion is only a tool of secular government. I have discussed that human life is full of endless troubles and pains, which is also the normality of life in the view of Buddhism and Schopenhauer. In order to get rid of these troubles and pains, humans get relief temporarily from all kinds of pleasures, from the pleasures of eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind, and the satisfaction of wealth, fame and fortune, the enjoyment of eating, drinking, whoring and gambling. The universal values of equality, freedom and human rights are meaningless to ordinary people in secular society. We can’t eliminate the troubles and pains by pursuing these universal values. These concepts are just empty and pale, just the illusion of the most beautiful things in the depths of the human soul and a remnant image of human life in the garden of Eden; it does not influence our secular life.

In other words, people in secular society have no motivation to pursue universal values because they have nothing to do with sensual pleasure and material enjoyment. We have mentioned that Some so-called democratic fighters feel extremely sad about the so-called national character. They moan that the secular society is indifferent to their huge sacrifice. In fact, they feel sad only shows that they do not understand the secular society, because indifference to universal values is the real life of the secular society. These universal values have nothing to do with the people in the secular society; ordinary people in secular society consider that universal values are only concerned by psychopaths. They can’t understand why ordinary people think that. However, I would like to say a few words more to these democratic fighters. Under normal circumstances, the pursuit of these universal values is driven only by faith and has nothing to do with other people’s attitudes. If they want to win everyone’s praise, it’s a bit doubtful about the purpose they are pursuing. We can conclude that the universal values of equality and freedom can produce neither benefits nor pleasure. Therefore, it is needless to say that they can’t survive in a secular society.

Let’s look at the situation of Islamic countries. I have repeatedly stressed that religion determines western history; religion outweighs politics. The belief in immortality and eternity prefers political concepts such as equality, freedom, and human rights. According to the teachings of Islam, the conditions that believers can go to immortality, enteral life, and access to heaven are using the sword to force other people to believe in Islamism and the unifying of the state and the church; the church is the state, and the state is the church. Their doctrines have no universal value concepts such as equality, freedom, and human rights. These value concepts can only bring a little moving and a few tears; anyway, they are the most beautiful things in the most depth of their souls. However, universal value concepts can’t cause other feelings or actions for Islam apart from that. Islamic can’t pay anything for these concepts. These concepts have little relation with their lives; they can’t produce material benefits, nor can they throw off their troubles and pains. Let alone push them to go to heaven and get immortality and eternal life. There is no room for universal values in these Islamic countries. Therefore, we can see that in the Middle East. Although many rich Islamic countries have extremely modern material lives, no modern political ideas exist. These countries are all Islamists; although they are different sects, there is no space for Christianity to stay alive alike; there is no sign of religious freedom. In these countries, the royal family has huge privileges. According to the doctrines, they perform monogamy. Men have absolute authority over women. Equality is impossible between people and will never be possible because the doctrines stipulate that. As for human rights, it is even more impossible. Similarly, according to the doctrines, believers can only absolutely obey the church and the state; there is no margin for negotiation. Therefore, even if these universal values were transplanted into the Islamic world, they would soon be dried up and die. Today’s Islamic countries can prove this.

Why can’t the Islamic world have such concepts as equality, freedom, and human rights? Another important reason is the church has an army, and the doctrine allows to conquer the heretics by killing. How can a church with an army and a religion that allows killing have universal values such as equality, freedom, and human rights? It is absolutely a terrible thing when faith is combined with the sword. We know that faith is the most fundamental matter of human beings; there is no room for compromise and negotiation in pursuing immortality, eternity, and the ultimate world. Sword is originally the ultimate weapon to solve disputes, and it can only be used when all negotiations fail, but in the Islamic world, the sword is the first weapon to settle disputes. The use of swords to resolve disputes also has its avails: that is, direct, simple, and effective. one hand with scriptures and the other with swords; if you disobey them, you will be killed. After the disobedient are eradicated, the rest will be obeyed; how happy it is! Even if you don’t accept it in your heart, you stoop to compromise and pretend to observe in order to survive. However, your descendants will be assimilated by their doctrines. Seeing your son become an Islamist who slaughters Christians will only make you cry your heart out and get more humiliation. However, when the Islamists spread and conquered with swords, opponents also largely fought against and protected themselves with swords. Moreover, the Islamists also use swords for internal sectarian disputes. The bloody killing of their own sects is no less than the war between pagans. Therefore, the long-term war in the Islamic world has never stopped, So how can such a country have universal value?

Let’s continue to take a look at the things in Southeast Asia. These Southeast Asian countries have been colonized by Christian countries for a long time and have been infused with universal values such as equality and freedom. However, when the colonial rule was overthrown and the Christian suzerain withdrew, the non-Christianity in these countries was reborn and flourished. These Southeast Asian countries were also Islamic colonies earlier, and Islam spread by swords, which was exceedingly efficient and effective. Soon the Islamists in these countries made up the majority of the population. At this time, the situation was completely different. According to my theory, in which religion outweighs political concepts, faith prefers universal value; in line with the teachings of Islam, these countries gradually implemented the church law and unified the church with the state. The state is the church, and the church is the state. At this time, they completely abandoned the universal values of equality, freedom, and human rights, which were empty in their eyes. They implemented the religious blasphemy law and didn’t allow to make irresponsible remarks on Islam. How will these Southeast Asian countries develop? As you can imagine, I won’t go on.

Therefore, universal values without belief turn into “political correctness” ,which can only be used by hypocritical politicians. This is the same reason that after human morality leaves away from belief, it is just synonymous with empty, pale, and can only produce hypocrites like Obama. Of course, you can only criticize hypocritical “political correctness”, and you cannot criticize human morality and universal values. After all, they are truths from the depths of the universe and are untouchable bottom lines. Because when morality is connected with belief, it is sacred and solemn and used to practice, we dare not even talk about it at will. However, when the universal value has nothing to do with belief and becomes a concept, it also becomes a pronoun for false and empty, which can be used to produce profits. Thus, politicians like Obama can wield the moral stick of universal value and “political correctness” to criticize others and achieve superiority. Because of the pursuit of universal value, they become great politicians and leaders of this society, satisfying their boundless vanity and pleasure. This is the real reason why leftist politicians refer to “equality, freedom, Human rights “in all their words. These leftist politicians do not pursue universal values for the sake of faith, so they may not sacrifice anything for these concepts. It is just generosity by costing others wealth. Obama can express his countless love for black brothers in his speech, but at the first opportunity, he leaves Chicago, where black people garner and moves his family to Washington, where rich white people gather. When Merkel was asked whether she could raise several refugees, she firmly answered, “never.”. This is the genuine attitude of leftist politicians toward universal values, which is extremely hypocritical. This is also the fate of equality, freedom, and human rights when they leave the embrace of Christianity, and they become similar to Confucianism in ancient Chinese society. Their role is to produce hypocrites, who are on the moral high horse. The fundamental reason for this phenomenon is that society is becoming more and more secular and far away from Christianity, which is more and more similar to the secular society of atheism.

We can see that leftist politicians such as Obama and Merkel seem generous and practice universal values, but they are all in a haughty manner, which only causes great harm to the country and society. For example, “equality for all” is an alleged universal value, a concept of “political correctness,” and a pleasant thing from heaven left behind in our subconscious. People feel it is mighty and lofty and believes that it is humans’ ultimate aim. Most of us dare not oppose this concept. But why do we feel strange when we think of such mighty and lofty concepts as the ultimate aim of humans? Because these concepts do not stand by belief, they can not be achieved in reality under the present conditions. No religion thinks that all people’s rights are equal. It just is a hypocritical concept inferred by the politician, and even can be said, fantasied by the politician.

Our requirement for any politician who stresses universal value only is to pay equally. If you want others to pay, you must pay a corresponding proportion. It is impossible for other people to sacrifice their property, even lives, and you sit idle and enjoy the benefits. For example, we can ask Obama to live in Chicago instead of moving to Washington. Of course, he can live in a luxury villa with tight security. You can’t ask him to live like an ordinary black man; this is unrealistic. However, how much does he love black people? How eagerly does he pursue equality for all? If he doesn’t live in Chicago? Where does he live? Or we can ask Merkel to adopt some refugees, how much she likes refugees! How ardently she pursues universal values! She can’t let refugees harass her compatriots, but she seems nothing.

To judge whether a politician really believes in universal values and “political correctness” or seeks his own interests in the name of those, we can compare his proposition with the content of the Bible because the universal values come from the Bible. If the proposition advocated by a politician is much different from the Bible, it must be questionable. For example, when a politician puts the rights of homosexuals and transgender above normal people, it can be concluded that he is a hypocritical politician. He waves a moral stick solely for his own benefit because their options are too different from the Bible’s contents. You can claim to respect the rights of homosexuals and transgender, but if you put their rights above normal people and preach their way of life everywhere, there is absolutely a problem. We should not hate homosexuals and transgender, but it is impossible to beautify them and abet becoming them. This is too different from the Bible and absolutely contrary to the common sense of human relations. Because of the limitation of our knowledge, it is difficult for us to distinguish what faith is? What are the universal values, and what is “political correctness of empty and void”? What should I do? Don’t worry; compare these politicians’ ideas with the Bible.

These leftist politicians preach universal values everywhere and hope to build a new society with universal values. It can only be said to be daydreaming and bring endless disasters to humans because there are no universal values in essence. All these universal values are unique to the Christian world. Without the condition of the Christian faith, these universal values, “Political correctness,” can only be water without a source; fish out of the water and will soon dry up and die.

We can see that leftist politicians such as Obama and Merkel seem generous and practice universal values, but they are all in a haughty manner, which only causes great harm to the country and society. For example, “equality for all” is an alleged universal value, a concept of “political correctness,” and a pleasant thing from heaven left behind in our subconscious. People feel it is mighty and lofty and believes that it is humans’ ultimate aim. Most of us dare not oppose this concept. But why do we feel strange when we think of such mighty and lofty concepts as the ultimate aim of humans? Because these concepts do not stand by belief, they can not be achieved in reality under the present conditions. No religion thinks that all people’s rights are equal. It just is a hypocritical concept inferring by the politician, and even can be said, fantasying by the politician.

The purpose of these politicians is to highlight that they are greater than ordinary people. Although “equality for all” seems an incomparable universal value, it can’t win support from most religious believers. After all, religious belief is an essential matter in human society. Therefore, the “equality for all” concept is plausible and can’t be implemented. Without belief, they are just saying. These politicians never want to practice it; they just use it as a moral stick to strike others. And, at present, the unconditional “equality for all” has harmed society. In recent years, the continuous black riots in the United States obviously come from this “equality for all”. Another example is “homosexual rights,” which are also a universal value and “politically correct”. The minority of homosexuals require equal rights, the requirement is from equal rights for all, from the remnant but decent impression coming from human’s subconsciousness and seems proper. However, it is problematic from the perspective of faith because no religion recognizes homosexuality as normal; it’s harder to connect with holiness. Since all religions exclude homosexuality, it is doomed to be difficult for most people to receive it. After all, religious belief is an essential matter in human life. More people believe in religion rather than believing in the right of homosexuality. Moreover, homosexuality is contrary to the human natural physiological phenomenon; most people are hard to accept it. It is absolutely correct to protect homosexuals’ rights and not harm them. This is also the most realistic thing under the current conditions. However, leftist politicians demand that homosexuals’ rights will be unconditionally equal to normal people for the sake of universal values. They promote homosexual education in elementary schools and believe that homosexuality is a normal phenomenon; it is all wrong. Doing so had hurt the rights of most people and made many ignorant children curious to try this so-called normal phenomenon. How harm and trauma does it cause to normal children, and how much perversion does it bring to society? For the sake of their so-called greatness, these leftist politicians have ruined many social climates and mutilated many teenagers. If we want to investigate them further, they are already committing a crime.

Our requirement for any politician who stresses universal value only is to pay equally. If you want others to pay, then you must pay a corresponding proportion. It is impossible for other people to sacrifice their property, even lives, and you sit idle and enjoy the benefits. For example, we can ask Obama to live in Chicago instead of moving to Washington. Of course, he can live in a luxury villa with tight security. You can’t ask him to live like an ordinary black man; this is unrealistic. However, how much does he loves black people? How eagerly does he pursue equality for all? If he doesn’t live in Chicago? Where does he live? Or we can ask Merkel to adopt some refugees because of how much She likes refugees and how eagerly she pursues universal values. She can’t let refugees harass her compatriots, but she seems nothing.

To judge whether a politician really believes in universal values and “political correctness” or seeks his own interests in the name of those, we can compare his proposition with the content of the Bible because the universal values come from the Bible. If the proposition advocated by a politician is much different from the Bible, it must be questionable. For example, when a politician puts the rights of homosexuals and transgender above normal people, it can be concluded that he is a hypocritical politician. He waves a moral stick solely for his own benefit because their options are too different from the Bible’s contents. You can claim to respect the rights of homosexuals and transgender, but if you put their rights above normal people and preach their way of life everywhere, there is absolutely a problem. We should not hate homosexuals and transgender, but it is impossible to beautify them and abet becoming them. This is too different from the Bible and absolutely contrary to the common sense of human relations. Because of the limitation of our knowledge, it is difficult for us to distinguish what faith is it? What are the universal values and “political correctness of empty and void”? What should I do? Don’t worry; compare these politicians’ ideas with the Bible.

These leftist politicians preach universal values everywhere and hope to build a new society with universal values. It can only be said that it is daydreaming and bringing endless disasters to humans because there are no universal values. All these universal values are unique to the Christian world. Without the condition of the Christian faith, these universal values, “Political correctness,” can only be water without a source and will soon dry up.