America’s Selective Moral Outrage
Posted: Tuesday, January 19, 2010
by Terry Mitchell
http://commenterry.blogs.com
News stories over the past couple of years regarding the extramarital activities of such public figures as golfer Tiger Woods, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, and former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer have created much outrage across America. People seem shocked that these kinds of scandals would happen at such an alarming rate.
And this is not even to mention the accounts of rape, child molestation, Internet predation, sexual slavery, and polygamy we read and hear about on almost a daily basis. Yes, we have a right to be shocked and outraged at these things. However, far too many of us are being selective about our shock and outrage.
Once upon a time, Americans were too puritanical (for their own good) in terms of their attitudes about sexual matters. We kept quiet about things that should have been spoken of openly. Pregnant women (even those who were married) felt ashamed to go out in public any more than they absolutely had to. Most states had laws against homosexual activity and sexual activity between consenting adults who were not married. It is now commonplace for unmarried couples to live under the same roof. In fact, one of our major cultural icons, Oprah Winfrey, does not try to disguise the fact that she is living in sin with a man she's not married to - and no one seems to hold it against her. Everyone is so afraid of being labeled as "judgmental." Ironically, however, many of those who see nothing wrong with this kind of stuff are among the harshest critics of Woods, Sanford, Spitzer, and others who commit the kinds of offenses we've been reading and hearing about lately. They are being disingenuous.
A society cannot pick and choose which kinds of immorality it wants and which kinds it doesn't want. Immorality does not operate like Burger King. It will not allow us to have it our way. If we invite in one kind of immorality, all the other kinds will naturally come with it. It's a package deal that cannot be broken. If we say, "Give us fornication and homosexuality", we will also get adultery, polygamy, pornography, and all kinds of sexual aberrations and offenses. We choose either to have a moral culture or an immoral one. I'm afraid we are now reaping what we have sown.
This Article has been viewed 254 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (2 total)"A society cannot pick and choose which kinds of immorality it wants and which kinds it doesn't want."I would rephrase this statement as, "A society can pick and choose what is and what is not immoral."Morality is a moving target. What used to be moral, like slavery and women as chattel, is simply discarded as immoral in these times and this society. Unmarried cohabitation simply no longer falls within the domain of immoral conduct. The real question is who gets to decide the rules of morality. Is it a privileged, self-appointed few?Gregory, you say, "The real question is who gets to decide the rules of morality." That's an easy one to answer. God is the only decider and He has laid down His unchanging law in the Holy Scriptures. When people attempt to decide on their own what is moral and what isn't, morality becomes subjective and will vary from person to person, and culture to culture.Precisely my point, Terry, thanks for answering. The question is not so easy to answer, because God and the Word of God is well known to be subjectively interpreted, and that by the very privileged few that I apologize for having baiting you into providing an answer to. David sent Uriah into the heart of battle, knowing he would be killed, so that David could take his wife. That's the kind of Bible story that makes Biblical morality repugnant to modern secularists. Wise and favored King Solomon liked to sleep with women. That's the kind of Biblical morality that leaves modern secularists scratching their heads about whether there is any clear divinely ordained morality code. For that matter, there are alternative understandings of the Bible that undercut its divine authority.
With such a diversity of religious frameworks that exist in an open society, you have your opinion of what you think God wants, and I have mine. There is simply no agreement on whether or not cohabitation constitutes immorality. I insist that it does not. I am a fully qualified American. My opinion is every bit as valid as your opinion, and my opinion is no less Christian, even if I am not a Christian. Therefore, immorality is, in fact, not a fundamentally religious decision making process. What you believe to be Holy Scripture I believe to be cultural, man-made artifact that are not universally representative.
The fact of the outcomes of the Emancipation Proclamation and the Woman's Suffrage victories are measurable proof of the dynamic nature of morality.Gregory, any appeal from a Christian standpoint is obviously not going to work with you. So let me approach the morality argument from a different angle. Since the 1960's, when attitudes in the U.S. about things like premartial sex, cohabitation, and homosexuality began to change, other things also changed.For one thing, unwed births began to increase. Coincidence? I think not. Anyway, that meant more children growing up in single-parent homes. And it has been proven that chidren from single-parent homes are more likely to become involved in crime, gangs, and illegal drugs than those living with both parents.Also, since the 1960's, rates of all types of venereal disease have dramatically increased. Again, this is no coincidence. AIDS, which didn't even exist in 1960, is now killing thousands workdwide each year.So here's what you need to consider: Are unwed births a good thing or a bad thing? Is juvenile crime/drug use/gang activity a good thing or a bad thing? Is AIDS a good thing or a bad thing? Unless you think all of the above are good, then wouldn't you agree that a return to a bit of good old fashioned morality would be a better alternative?
Greg, I am not at all sure what you are saying, but God's Word via the Bible is clear on the ethical behaviors he expects from his followers. It is man who is imperfect and has chosen to subjectively interpret his word for his or her own self interest.A classic example is the Ten Commandments. There is nothing subjective about these commands from God. For example, "Do not kill" is a clear as day. It is man that tries to justify his actions that brings subjectivity into the equation.I'm saying what you call God's Word is not what I call God's Word. The Bible is not the ultimate authority for all U.S. Citizens, and that United States law is not a religious law, but a secular one. So what if the law "Do not kill" appears in the Bible? That just means do not kill is common to religious and secular law.Suppose "Do not kill" was not a Biblical injunction, wouldn't a sane and civilized society still figure it out? Objectively, to use your language, cohabitation is no longer a moral problem. It has been solved. If cohabitation is a moral problem for you, then don't do it.
This is my country too, so you'll just have to learn to share it with secular humanists.We certainly must co-exist and it is a free country founded based on Christian principles which give everyone the right to believe or do as they choose within a broad framework of laws. Just understand also that the Biblical ideal of right and wrong was planted in all men by God. The bible says in Romans 1:18-19, "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them." In other words, God's rules have already been implanted in every man. Hence, this is why every man has a conscience. So every man knows God's rules, but obviously he or she can choose to ignore them and go his or her own way and pay the consequences of that disobedience.Jeffrey, it appears you are projecting your world view onto reality. First, I disagree that the United States was founded on Christian principles, as modern Evangelist Christians like to believe and have believed. What Christian principles, specifically, are you talking about? As to what our laws 'm not sure what Christian principles you are referring to. I would argue that the United States legal framework was based on a much more fundamental agreement of what constitutes fair government, as penned by James Madison, with a special emphasis on separating government and religion.Your wrath of God thesis is simply Jeffrey speaking, however passionately. It's not real.Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoly, from 1796, explicitly states:"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.