Liberal groups, such as the ACLU, regularly call for the expulsion of religious influences from the government and the public lives of Americans. They should be careful what they wish for. The state of anarchy which would most surely follow such a reality would be far less desirable than the presence of religious based moral and ethical standards.
We live in a society which, at least in the opinion of many conservatives, has adopted both a total distaste for objective morality and a genuine passion for unrestrained hedonism. Conservatives believe that the imposition, by codification into law, of moral, objective truths, whether in the home, schools, or society at large, is essential for our society to develop an inner sense of civilized behavior. If we expect our youth to internalize the basic principles of right and wrong behavior, we need to provide them with a clear, unambiguous set of social rules and behavioral boundaries. As William Raspberry once wrote, “You can’t exercise moral authority while denying the authority of morality.”
The persistent liberal rejection of these moral principles, rooted as they are in fundamental religious philosophy, has led to the growing acceptance of, and general acquiescence to, situational ethics and so-called “no-fault” morality. Each individual is supposedly the best judge of what is right or wrong for himself/herself. The reality is that this philosophic approach to the debate is morally bankrupt and leaves the individual in the same situation as the people we read about in headlines everyday: confused and hopelessly searching for some sort of behavioral boundaries.
If we, as a society, decide that morality issues should, in fact, be individual choices, based on the situational ethics of any given moment, how are we then to decide the proper course of action for those moral decisions which affect society as a whole, such as determining which behaviors are acceptable in civilized society and which ones should be categorized as undesirable or criminally deviant, and therefore punishable under our laws? Should we follow the same liberal proscription of individual choice based on situational ethics of the moment, or would the imposition by government of moral principles be allowable in those situations?
Is there, in fact, a basis for the conservative contention that a community, or any given population, has the authority to require adherence to a code of absolute morally objective truths? In 1788, a set of principles were written and formally adopted by the newly formed United States of America as their Constitution. As ratified, this statement of principles became the absolute national standard of law for all of the signatory, and future, states, against which all other principles enacted into law would be compared and tested for consistency with that higher standard.
Those principles determined as not consistent with this absolute rule of law would be invalidated as unconstitutional. Those which upheld the spirit, and intent, of the constitutional absolutes would be enacted into law with the full legitimacy of the constitution as there base. The principles embodied in the constitution serve also as a protection for all Americans because of their absolute, unchanging nature. Even with the few changes that have been made through the amendment process, the fundamental core values originally contained within the U.S. Constitution remain unchanged as the absolute objective truths by which this nation continues to govern itself. But according to some of the folks on the left, the advocacy of moral absolutes amounts to little more than bigotry.
In the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers spoke of “the Laws of Nature” and listed certain “truths” as “self-evident”. The words and phrases indicate that these men held a firm belief in certain absolute moral principles which clearly transcended any man-made laws that ignored those rights of men which were established under these higher “Laws of Nature”. So, here we have two documents which form the foundation of our nation, that clearly suggest that man’s laws quite properly have their basis, or origin, in higher moral principles, or moral absolutes, such as objective truths, virtues, and justice. It is clear that, at least in the beginning of its history, America’s laws were intended to embrace the concept of a “higher law” which superceded man’s law, and in many cases was to be incorporated into man’s law.
But can these moral absolutes be so easily vetoed by any society? While shifting social mores and related shifts in political philosophies may alter the popularity of absolute moral principles, these principles, by there very definition, are unalterable and not subject to the whim of societal change. They are the eternal “self-evident truths” spoken of by America’s founding fathers. These principles form the basis for most, if not all, of the world’s major religions. Much the same way as a single thread can be traced through the many patterns woven into a tapestry, these principles transcend all denominations and dogmas. All laws, religious and civil, spring from these timeless, absolute, objective moral principles.
Are America’s absolute values limited to just those listed in its constitution? If this is so, then how can we accept the morally objective absolutes, provided to us through our religious heritage, as incorporated into our constitution and our laws, on the one hand, and with the other, deny that same religion a place in the debate and decision making process for establishing the community and national moral standards? There are many, primarily conservatives, who earnestly believe that the founding fathers never intended to silence the voice of religion in public debate. But if, as the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has ruled, the U.S. Constitution does in fact mandate, establish and demand a firm separation of religious and secular philosophies, does that ruling then also mandate, establish and demand that, for the sake of consistency, any legislation enacted into law whose basis relies primarily on religious principles must then also be considered as unconstitutional?
If such were the case, most of our criminal and civil laws must be considered as unconstitutional. Laws against murder, theft, sexual harassment, racial discrimination, and child abuse, to name a few examples, would no longer be enforced or legislated, since religious principles could not constitutionally intermarry. It would be necessary, however, if we intend to sincerely deny the existence, or appropriateness, of objective, moral absolute principles within our society.
The rejection of objective, morally absolute principles in any society will inevitably result in defining the greater society by its lowest common elements, or what Daniel Patrick Moynahan called, “defining deviancy down”. Immorality will grow unfettered until it ultimately overtakes the greater society, much the same way that the criminal element seems to be doing in America today. Crime currently appears at, or near, the top of most opinion polls of America’s worst problems. Societies form governments for the purpose of securing and protecting the common good, not the subjugation of the common good. Clearly the presence of objective, morally absolute principles does more good than any good in a society that the obvious harm created by its absence.
Objective, morally absolute principles, the central core beliefs of all religions, the “higher laws of nature”, the “self-evident truths” of the founding fathers, are the bedrock of all societies, whether or not they are observed and followed. They provide a clear basis for the firm positive identity of any society. Anytime these principles are compromised, society suffers. If a society’s moral base is strong, no outside base can defeat it. This bedrock of object morality is analogous to the self-actualized human ego. As with the individual, if a society has a firm, positive moral understanding of its self-concept, it grows into a stronger society.
That’s my view……..what’s yours?
Sgt. Eaglebeak
We live in a society which, at least in the opinion of many conservatives, has adopted both a total distaste for objective morality and a genuine passion for unrestrained hedonism. Conservatives believe that the imposition, by codification into law, of moral, objective truths, whether in the home, schools, or society at large, is essential for our society to develop an inner sense of civilized behavior. If we expect our youth to internalize the basic principles of right and wrong behavior, we need to provide them with a clear, unambiguous set of social rules and behavioral boundaries. As William Raspberry once wrote, “You can’t exercise moral authority while denying the authority of morality.”
The persistent liberal rejection of these moral principles, rooted as they are in fundamental religious philosophy, has led to the growing acceptance of, and general acquiescence to, situational ethics and so-called “no-fault” morality. Each individual is supposedly the best judge of what is right or wrong for himself/herself. The reality is that this philosophic approach to the debate is morally bankrupt and leaves the individual in the same situation as the people we read about in headlines everyday: confused and hopelessly searching for some sort of behavioral boundaries.
If we, as a society, decide that morality issues should, in fact, be individual choices, based on the situational ethics of any given moment, how are we then to decide the proper course of action for those moral decisions which affect society as a whole, such as determining which behaviors are acceptable in civilized society and which ones should be categorized as undesirable or criminally deviant, and therefore punishable under our laws? Should we follow the same liberal proscription of individual choice based on situational ethics of the moment, or would the imposition by government of moral principles be allowable in those situations?
Is there, in fact, a basis for the conservative contention that a community, or any given population, has the authority to require adherence to a code of absolute morally objective truths? In 1788, a set of principles were written and formally adopted by the newly formed United States of America as their Constitution. As ratified, this statement of principles became the absolute national standard of law for all of the signatory, and future, states, against which all other principles enacted into law would be compared and tested for consistency with that higher standard.
Those principles determined as not consistent with this absolute rule of law would be invalidated as unconstitutional. Those which upheld the spirit, and intent, of the constitutional absolutes would be enacted into law with the full legitimacy of the constitution as there base. The principles embodied in the constitution serve also as a protection for all Americans because of their absolute, unchanging nature. Even with the few changes that have been made through the amendment process, the fundamental core values originally contained within the U.S. Constitution remain unchanged as the absolute objective truths by which this nation continues to govern itself. But according to some of the folks on the left, the advocacy of moral absolutes amounts to little more than bigotry.
In the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers spoke of “the Laws of Nature” and listed certain “truths” as “self-evident”. The words and phrases indicate that these men held a firm belief in certain absolute moral principles which clearly transcended any man-made laws that ignored those rights of men which were established under these higher “Laws of Nature”. So, here we have two documents which form the foundation of our nation, that clearly suggest that man’s laws quite properly have their basis, or origin, in higher moral principles, or moral absolutes, such as objective truths, virtues, and justice. It is clear that, at least in the beginning of its history, America’s laws were intended to embrace the concept of a “higher law” which superceded man’s law, and in many cases was to be incorporated into man’s law.
But can these moral absolutes be so easily vetoed by any society? While shifting social mores and related shifts in political philosophies may alter the popularity of absolute moral principles, these principles, by there very definition, are unalterable and not subject to the whim of societal change. They are the eternal “self-evident truths” spoken of by America’s founding fathers. These principles form the basis for most, if not all, of the world’s major religions. Much the same way as a single thread can be traced through the many patterns woven into a tapestry, these principles transcend all denominations and dogmas. All laws, religious and civil, spring from these timeless, absolute, objective moral principles.
Are America’s absolute values limited to just those listed in its constitution? If this is so, then how can we accept the morally objective absolutes, provided to us through our religious heritage, as incorporated into our constitution and our laws, on the one hand, and with the other, deny that same religion a place in the debate and decision making process for establishing the community and national moral standards? There are many, primarily conservatives, who earnestly believe that the founding fathers never intended to silence the voice of religion in public debate. But if, as the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has ruled, the U.S. Constitution does in fact mandate, establish and demand a firm separation of religious and secular philosophies, does that ruling then also mandate, establish and demand that, for the sake of consistency, any legislation enacted into law whose basis relies primarily on religious principles must then also be considered as unconstitutional?
If such were the case, most of our criminal and civil laws must be considered as unconstitutional. Laws against murder, theft, sexual harassment, racial discrimination, and child abuse, to name a few examples, would no longer be enforced or legislated, since religious principles could not constitutionally intermarry. It would be necessary, however, if we intend to sincerely deny the existence, or appropriateness, of objective, moral absolute principles within our society.
The rejection of objective, morally absolute principles in any society will inevitably result in defining the greater society by its lowest common elements, or what Daniel Patrick Moynahan called, “defining deviancy down”. Immorality will grow unfettered until it ultimately overtakes the greater society, much the same way that the criminal element seems to be doing in America today. Crime currently appears at, or near, the top of most opinion polls of America’s worst problems. Societies form governments for the purpose of securing and protecting the common good, not the subjugation of the common good. Clearly the presence of objective, morally absolute principles does more good than any good in a society that the obvious harm created by its absence.
Objective, morally absolute principles, the central core beliefs of all religions, the “higher laws of nature”, the “self-evident truths” of the founding fathers, are the bedrock of all societies, whether or not they are observed and followed. They provide a clear basis for the firm positive identity of any society. Anytime these principles are compromised, society suffers. If a society’s moral base is strong, no outside base can defeat it. This bedrock of object morality is analogous to the self-actualized human ego. As with the individual, if a society has a firm, positive moral understanding of its self-concept, it grows into a stronger society.
That’s my view……..what’s yours?
Sgt. Eaglebeak
No comments:
Post a Comment