Americans were embroiled in a heated debate throughout the recent presidential election about some form of government imposing a standard of morality. Some feared that one party would impose conservative moral values, so they voted against that party. Others feared that the other party would appoint activist judges who would "legislate" liberal moral values from the bench, so they voted against that party's candidates.

A battle over the same issues, but in a different guise, took place in the Netherlands on the same day as the American election. The result was bloody.

As filmmaker Theo van Gogh rode up to his building in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, a shot rang out, and he tumbled to the ground. Seriously wounded, he managed to get to his feet and stumble the remaining few feet to his building before falling again. Van Gogh's attacker pounced on him, slit his throat and stabbed a knife into his chest to pin a five-page ranting call for all Muslims to kill the "infidel enemies," meaning those of the Western culture.

The prime suspect is Muhammad Bouyeri, a 26-year-old Dutch Moroccan with ties to al-Qaeda.

Van Gogh produced films on the mistreatment of women in the Islamist culture, claiming the religion itself promoted violence against women. His work inflamed the anger of the 1 million Muslims now living in the Netherlands, a figure that grows by 30,000 every year. The last straw was a film titled Submission, released last summer.

Van Gogh's murder was a brutal, immoral and criminal act. But it represents more than an isolated attack by a single Muslim assailant on a lone critic of Islam. It was a battle over one group attempting to force its standards of morality onto another.

Normally the Netherlands is the liberal free expressionist's dream. Almost anything goes—literally. In Amsterdam, anyone may order marijuana and hashish from a public restaurant menu. Heroin and cocaine have been decriminalized for all practical purposes for many years.

Never mind that drug addiction and drug-related crime have skyrocketed since drugs were decriminalized—the important thing to those who demand "social freedoms" is that no law defines drug use as wrong.

The country is infamous for prostitutes, which number about 30,000 (about 10,000 are in Amsterdam alone, where they display themselves in storefront windows for passersby to see)—all protected by the government and unions.

Never mind that there is a substantial increase in STDs (sexually transmissible diseases)—the sex is "legal."

Recently, a brothel chain sued the government for failing to license the "Yum Yum Caviar Club" at Amsterdam's Schiphol airport, a brothel that intends "to cater to stressed travelers in transit." No problem, the government said, we're just waiting until there is enough space in the terminal for the "business."

In 2000 the Netherlands became the first nation in the world to legalize same-sex marriages. The nation epitomizes social liberalism.

Netherlands attempts to legislate sin

The script for Submission, the film that cost Theo van Gogh his life, was written by a Dutch politician, Ayaan Hirsi Ali. That five-page letter hideously fastened to Van Gogh's body threatened the life of Ms. Hirsi Ali. She now has the most intensive police protection of any politician in the country.

She is a member of the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (the acronym for the Dutch name of the party is VVD), free-market liberals with a strong national-conservative orientation. Ms. Hirsi Ali represents the VVD on immigration and integration issues in parliament.

The Muslim community in the Netherlands isolates itself as much as possible from the rest of the country. Muslims send their children to their own schools, frequent their own restaurants and attend mosques where imams who do not even speak Dutch conduct the services.

In a direct confrontation with the Muslim ways, Ms. Hirsi Ali is sponsoring legislation that would force Muslim women to integrate into Dutch culture. Of course, the VVD sees the proposal as moving women along a path of individualism and career, whereas the Muslims see it as an absolutely unacceptable intrusion into their faith.

There's a bizarre twist to this "emancipation." Since prostitution is considered to be a career in the Netherlands, the legislation sets up a possible scenario whereby Muslim women who want social benefits and who could not find work elsewhere would be forced to take "jobs" as prostitutes!

The government is in a position to enforce such policies, because large numbers of immigrants receive some form of social benefits, such as unemployment or disability. Most of the family members of immigrants who arrive as laborers are "unemployable" by the standards of the legal labor market, and they are therefore eligible for social benefits.

Forced prostitution isn't happening yet, because prostitutes are legally self-employed. But should the government confer employer-employee status on the nation's sex clubs, which it might do in order to recoup otherwise lost tax revenues, then the bizarre scenario above could become reality.

Let's set aside the radical Muslim and terrorism aspects to the story for the sake of getting the point about legislating morality.

"Don't tell me how to live!"

There is strong support for social liberalism throughout Europe, Canada and Australia, as well as in the United States. Some election analysts believe that one of the most passionate motivations for people who voted against President Bush was the fear that conservatives would force their morality on the rest of the country through legislation.

Much to the contrary, even conservative politicians tout America's multiculturalism, which allows for a mixed bag of human behavior. Illustrative of this is the fact that President Bush voiced support for civil unions for gays and lesbians in the waning days of the campaign.

Truly, morality cannot be legislated by any human government. Human behavior springs out of one's personal beliefs and self-control—or lack thereof. Of course, laws and judicial decisions can impact what happens in a country. But neither laws nor court rulings can make someone behave in a manner that he or she does not choose to do.

Some Americans will say, "But we aren't as liberal as those Europeans are!" They are only kidding themselves. Look, for example, at what is happening to the youth of America. Every other year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducts a Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey, most recently in 2003. The results show that 46.7 percent of American teens admit to having had sexual intercourse.

Noted abstinence advocate Pam Stenzel says 12,000 teens in America (in addition to 38,000 adults) are infected with an STD every day (www.prolife.com/stenzel.htm).

A recent PBS program titled The Merchants of Cool revealed that teenagers spend $100 billion on themselves every year. Five companies (News Corp., Disney, Viacom, Vivendi Universal and Time Warner) control all the major film studios, all of the television networks, most of the stations in the top TV markets, much of the radio broadcasting and part or all of every major cable network. They compete against each other for this treasure.

In enticing young minds, they also influence youths' values and lifestyle. Rebecca Hagelin writes, "One result of the MTV market research is the creation of a female and male character that are now seen in various forms in all MTV programming. The male image is known as a 'Mook' to industry execs, and the female is referred to as a 'Midriff'" ("What Constitutes Cool," Aug. 11, 2004, Townhall.com).

"Mook" and "Midriff"

Hagelin explains that the mook exemplifies "perpetual adolescence living on the edge. They seem to say: We get away with it—do what we do, look as we look—and you can, too."

The midriff "character is personified by the sexual bad-girl Britney Spears and dozens of other Britney look-alikes who dominate the airwaves. The 'role-model' teaches even preteen girls it's time they embrace their sexuality and learn how to use it to their advantage; the message is that girls are sexual objects and their sexuality is their power. That's why America's little girls are now baring their bellies and strutting an attitude in malls and schools around the country" (ibid.).

Don't kid yourself that programming guidelines the FCC began to enforce in earnest after Viacom brought America its XÐrated halftime show at the 2004 Super Bowl are going to make America a moral nation. American kids are buying the entertainment, as well as the attendant merchandise the media giants promote. Worse than that, they are buying into the promiscuous philosophy, as their behavior amply demonstrates.

Some inside knowledge for you

I have some "inside information" that I want to share with you: A government is going to enact morality legislation! But it isn't the George W. Bush administration—or the administrations of Tony Blair, Paul Martin (Canada), John Howard (Australia) or Jan Peter Balkenende (the Netherlands). It is the government of God.

Of course, God handed down this legislation several thousand years ago. Cal Thomas, in his column "Reflected Virtue," wrote: "When Moses came down from Mount Sinai to deliver the Ten Commandments to the ancient Israelites, he encountered a people having a party and worshipping a golden calf. Clearly, the people were not interested in what God had to say to them."

What about today? Are people interested in hearing from God? Thomas continues: "Fast-forward several thousand years. Today, many people worship the 'golden calf' of the Dow Jones Industrial Averages. In Dow we trust. Materialism has dulled our senses to anything that does not produce pleasure. And so we get 'gay marriage,' cloning, partial birth and every other kind of abortion, a high divorce rate, cohabitation, promiscuity, nudity, profanity, indecency—all part of what some have called the coarsening of culture... Culture mirrors our collective souls."

Think about that last statement for a moment. The way we live shows our true character. Would people listen to what God had to say if He appeared on a mountaintop near them with special morality legislation?

Most would not. Would you? You can know the answer to that question by looking at how you are living now. God does not have to appear repeatedly to announce His legislation anew. The humble already got the message. Regrettably, many who claim to represent God think He changed His mind and that now He—like modern politicians—is a multiculturalist. Listening to these spokesmen, one would get the impression that God's highest priority is that everyone get along with everyone else, regardless of the way each chooses to live.

Of course, God wants everyone to get along. But He also insists on specific behavior—for our good! This includes refraining from any sexual activity outside marriage (certainly preteens and young teens do not need to "discover their sexuality"!) and clearly defines a biblically legitimate marriage as being only between a man and a woman.

Without argument, there are many ideas about God today—most if not all with some "good" points. But the God of the Bible calls on all people to worship Him alone. On a trip to Greece, the apostle Paul challenged people who had a multiculturalist view toward religion, calling that way of thinking—well, ignorant. Not the people or a specific religion, but that way of thinking.

His message was: "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained" (Acts 17:30-31).

That One who is alone able to judge and to command mankind is Jesus Christ. And His appointed time to do that appears to be fast approaching. WNP