But why should we listen to a old German who wears funny hats?

If there’s no permanent defining factor for right and wrong, no foundational moral system, then everything eventually devolves to “might makes right”–the only justification for authority impervious to the whims of moral relativism…and the default setting of a world where every person does what is right in his or her own eyes.

PastorJon on February 21, 2013 at 3:30 PM

+100

Well said.

Then from a basis like the Bible you can debate. There are some absolutes: no murder, no theft, etc. Then society can decide from there.

But it’s more than just what we base our laws on. It’s the value system of the people voting for the politicians. If it is a truly Christian value of love the sinner, hate the sin, you treat the woman who gets an abortion with compassion and dignity, and the abortionist goes to jail.

What the left doesn’t see is what the priest is talking about here (the Bible actually says Call nobody father, in a religious sense, except God) is that in a society where the majority of the people have no shared baseline of right and wrong, it always devolves.

You see it in TV the most. Not that I was in favor of Lucy and Dezi having separate beds, was not realistic, but we did not need to go all the way to TV-MA allowing TV to show people actually having sex . . .

We need to teach Biblical principles in schools, let people decide to reject or incorporate them for their own lives and reinforce the ones proven to strengthen our society in discourse. We won’t like where we end up if we keep teaching that anything “that doesn’t harm anybody else” is ok. The definition of what “harms anybody else” can change for each person. In a world of moral relativism, murder can eventually be condoned because somebody was better off dead by subjective criteria. In Nazi Germany it was because they were gay or Jewish. In China it was because they failed to accept the state’s goals.

That would run afoul of “Do not hold anyone captive”, since no doubt the majority of these marriages are done against the 9-year-old’s will, never mind the fact that they can’t enter into a marriage contract.

TMOverbeck on February 21, 2013 at 2:19 PM

You passed the law that doesn’t allow them to enter into contracts and then say they cannot enter into contracts? Circular reasoning.

Sharia law states they can consent. You claim they are “ free to practice your religion and your personal morality” and then pass laws preventing that.

What makes your age of consent any more valid than theirs? Where is their freedom of religion?

Are Muslims free to practice Sharia law which states that a nine-year old is a consenting adult?

sharrukin on February 21, 2013 at 1:09 PM

That would run afoul of “Do not hold anyone captive”, since no doubt the majority of these marriages are done against the 9-year-old’s will, never mind the fact that they can’t enter into a marriage contract.

Moral absolutism is an intellectual sham and a fig leaf to cover authoritarian ambitions. If one person claims that A is morally right and one person claims that A is morally wrong, who is right? Who decides? People like “Father” Longenecker? One of his imam counterparts? No thanks.

Armin Tamzarian on February 21, 2013 at 1:46 PM

If nothing is right, then nothing is wrong. In which case, rape is permissible. Same goes for the Holocaust and all other of mans most unspeakable crimes. We live in a nation of laws based on Judeo-Christian thinking. If you want to change that, then you better find a good replacement school (hint: morality is an invention of religion).

You’re free to practice your religion and your personal morality, and you’re free to do whatever you want to yourself or a consenting partner, as long as you follow the above four rules.

TMOverbeck on February 21, 2013 at 9:05 AM

Are Muslims free to practice Sharia law which states that a nine-year old is a consenting adult?

We dare not “judge” other actions because we have been taught that there is no such thing as right or wrong.

Put another way, “It is wrong to judge the actions of others because there is no right or wrong.”

Perfect rebuttal to Ace.

Respect others’ feelings. (Keep your dirty rap in your headphones and make sure no one else can see that strip dance video on your phone.)

TMOverbeck on February 21, 2013 at 9:05 AM

Feelings? How do you know how I feel about dirty rap and strippers?

Feelings are based on emotions and our emotions can be very transitory and deceiving. Shouldn’t it be something more like respect others’ space?

Dr. Frank Enstine on February 21, 2013 at 9:02 AM

Yup. We are raising a generation that can no longer think for itself. They are being bullied into moral relativism.

AcidReflux on February 21, 2013 at 9:53 AM

Yup, once they’ve been bullied into accepting moral relativism, pushing the boundaries on sex, lying, cheating, stealing, sloth… whatever the vice, while not accepted necessarily as virtue but the simple, most direct, expected and accepted means to an end.

The most important business in this Nation–or any other nation, for that matter-is raising and training children. If those children have the proper environment at home, and educationally, very, very few of them ever turn out wrong. I don’t think we put enough stress on the necessity of implanting in the child’s mind the moral code under which we live.

The fundamental basis of this Nation’s law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don’t think we emphasize that enough these days.

If we don’t have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.

- President Harry S. Truman
February 15, 1950

If you need a source, a good one would be “On Liberty” by John Stuart Mill. But I’m just putting together a moral code that most sensible people could possibly agree on.

Why should I care what MIll thinks or what the most “sensible people” (whatever that means in the context of ethics) could agree on? If there is no transcendent foundation for morality then my only obligation is to maximize my personal experince of the very short life I have, however possible. As such the feelings, rights or sufferings of others are immaterial. The big fish eat the little fish. Without a transcendent foundation, there are only two moral commandments in life:

1. Do as thou wilt; and
2. don’t get caught (ie. avoid negative reinforcement)

Be sure to follow the link to see what prompted this explanation, but as Fr. Dwight writes, it could have been any cultural dispute at the moment.

. in case anyone is curious,he’s prompted by gay marriage. He also thinks fellatio is morally wrong.

Our president seems to embody this. He lies constantly and blatantly in order to further his agenda. And for some reason, a lot of people don’t care.

1) Corrupt cops who get on a power trip and use illegal contraband as an excuse to harass innocent people.
2) Corrupt politicians who can gain connections to the illegal stuff, thus generating a system similar to Cuba or China.
3) The organized crime and thuggery that’s at the heart of black market enforcement.
4) The fact that only an invasive police state can eradicate a black market and keep everyone in order at this point.

What is the source of these “moreal absolutes” you speak of and why should anyone consider themselves morally obligated to hold or respect them?

tommyboy on February 21, 2013 at 9:14 AM

If you need a source, a good one would be “On Liberty” by John Stuart Mill. But I’m just putting together a moral code that most sensible people could possibly agree on.

I have a different set of principles, and mine are better.

tom daschle concerned on February 21, 2013 at 9:18 AM

And in an ideal society, you would be more than free to practice those principles and be a role model for others. However, if something or some practice conflicts with your principles, but I am perfectly able to handle it in the privacy of my own home without harming anyone, that’s my right to do it. I’m not against stringent regulation, just against outright bans.

TMOverbeck on February 21, 2013 at 9:05 AM

I have a different set of principles, and mine are better.

“The moral absolutes at the very base of our society should be”

What is the source of these “moreal absolutes” you speak of and why should anyone consider themselves morally obligated to hold or respect them?

Respect others’ feelings. (Keep your dirty rap in your headphones and make sure no one else can see that strip dance video on your phone.)

Respect others’ property. (Including their money. Taxing them to pay for enabling others’ laziness is not respecting others’ money.)

Do no harm to anyone. (Including the unborn.)

Do not hold anyone captive. (Unless you’re the police and you need to detain someone committing a criminal act.)

You’re free to practice your religion and your personal morality, and you’re free to do whatever you want to yourself or a consenting partner, as long as you follow the above four rules.

Talks with her as well as other interns over the last few years is giving me a really good idea of how the shows are brainwashing our kids into the new morality.

Shows should have been schools

Preview is my friend, preview is my friend, preview is my friend……