Wrong for you right for me: The problems of moral relativity

Murder may be wrong for you my brother, but it's right for me. In fact I think it is a jolly good thing. I have found it to be a very effective way of dealing with all kinds of annoying people. The main thing is that I don't get caught :-). Yes I am joking, just in case you had doubts that I am.

Please do not misunderstand me here, there is absolutely no question in my mind that in matters of right and wrong, not everything is either black or white. For the recovering alcoholic just one drink is wrong. However (in spite of the stand of some Christians) neither I nor the Bible condemn the drinking of alcoholic beverages period. The Biblical admonition is not to be drunk with wine, it is not to abstain absolutely. Some Christians in trying to say that it does mean that, have translated “wine” as “grape juice,” but why we would need to be warned not to get drunk on grape juice escapes me! No, not everything is black and white, but on the other hand back and white do exist, murder, rape, child abuse and widow burning are all not only wrong, they are evil!

The existence of evil seems to me to be self evident, but it goes completely against the grain of our modern thinking where moral relativism rules. This philosophy can, I think, be summed up in the phrase “It's all relative,” or to put this another way there are no absolutes, or there is no such thing as right and wrong. It is the “all” part of 'it's all relative,' that that sticks in my craw. In fact the statement “All truth is relative” is self contradictory, since it is itself an absolute statement. This can be seen by asking “Is absolutely all truth relative?” No doubt some will answer “But we mustn’t judge right? We need to be fair and neutral right?” I will deal with “we must” not judge later. But concerning being fair, how fair is it to victims of rape or child abuse, to say that these things are not wrong?

In a 2002 column Fox News analyst Bill O'Reilly asked "Why is it wrong to be right?" In talking about American college professors who currently teach that there is no such thing as right and wrong he says “they treat the questions of good and evil as relative to 'individual values and cultural diversity'." The problem with this, according to O'Reilly, is that "they see the world not as it is, but as they want it to be. And annoying questions about moral absolutes and unacceptable behaviour are usually left unanswered." I too could wish that there was no such thing as evil in the World, but it seems to me to be wrong to close our eyes to the suffering that flows out of the reality of man's inhumanity to man.

So pervasive and successful is the doctrine of moral relativity that one Canadian professor tells of his inability to get his class to say that female genital mutilation of non-consenting girls is wrong. According to Wikipedia “Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female genital cutting and female circumcision, is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as 'all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.' FGM is typically carried out on girls from a few days old to puberty. It may take place in a hospital, but is usually performed, without anesthesia, by a traditional circumciser using a knife, razor, or scissors. According to the WHO, it is practiced in 28 countries in western, eastern, and north-eastern Africa, in parts of the Middle East, and within some immigrant communities in Europe, North America, and Australasia."

Or what about the picture that still haunts me, of the 18 year old Afghan woman Aisha, whose mutilated face appeared on the front cover of a 2010 issue of Time magazine. It is reported that “With her clear skin and dark, flowing hair, 18-year-old Aisha would ordinarily have stood out from a crowd because of her beauty. But now, tragically, the young woman is eye-catching for a horrifically different reason. Aisha is a victim of Taliban brutality, her nose and ears barbarically hacked off by her own husband in a warped punishment for attempting to flee her cruel in-laws.” (Google "Taliban nose cut off").

Are we not willing to condemn such action? If we are not, I want to suggest that it is only because we are so far removed from such situations that it really does not affect us emotionally. This is rather like modern warfare, where we press buttons distantly removed from the front, and in so doing fail to see up close and personal, the carnage caused by our antiseptic button pushing. I want to suggest that those who refuse to condemn such actions as that cited above by the Taliban, because their philosophy teaches that “there is no such thing as right and wrong,” would jolly well change their minds if these things were happening to their daughter, or to their sister!

If what I have just said does not move you, I doubt that anything I say will make any sense to you. But though we will need to ask where it comes from, we humans do seem to have this built in “yuck factor,” which tells us clearly that these things are wrong. And we should not ignore such basic moral intuitions, even if we may need to debate and adjust or refine them. They are, as atheist philosopher Kai Nielsen calls them, “bedrock”: He says “It is more reasonable to believe such elemental things [as wife-beating and child abuse] to be evil than to believe any skeptical theory that tells us we cannot know or reasonably believe any of these things to be evil. …” (Kai Nielsen, Ethics Without God, rev. ed. (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1990), 10,11).

Certainly we will not be able to right every wrong. For the man and woman of compassion there are, and perhaps always will be, a myriad of causes deserving of our attention, energy and action, and we are all, all too finite. We do need a lot of wisdom to know when, where and how to use our limited resources. We also do not want to be starting wars left, right and centre. But to have followed moral relativity to its logical conclusion during the second World war, would have been to advocate, on principle, a “who are we to intervene” attitude in the face of the murder of six million Jews. To me this would not have been a virtuous neutrality, it would be a compassionless apathy displaying false humility! Unfortunately, as I will show in a later post, I am not just talking here about hypothetical possibilities.

To be sure cultural anthropology (which by and large has swallowed whole the philosophy of moral relativity) has a point about the need to exhibit a certain humility and sensitivity towards the culture and values of others. However I am much more inclined, with the Bible, to condemn as evil, what at times amounts to compassionless apathy. The Bible puts it this way “He who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin!” Is it not true that “all that need to happen for evil to flourish, is for good men (and women) to do nothing”? Do we really want to remain “neutral” in the face of man's inhumanity to man? Let's make no mistake about it, this is not only the logical, in some cases it is the actual, stance of those who hold to moral relativity!

Mercy triumphs over judgement. Provision and Protection

In the last post, I was talking about the consequences of some of the choices we are making in our society. In Psychology we are not allowed to use the concept of right and wrong, of sin or of judgement. But we cannot in the end do without these ideas. So Psychology talks about poor choices and the consequences thereof. A poor choice then is one that has undesirable consequences. This would be more straight forward if we were not so resistant to see the inconvenient truths about the consequences of our choices. Rationalization and denial are widespread in all kinds of areas personal and cooperate, individual and collective. As with the alcoholic, the consequences build up and escalate until, when they have gone on long enough, and have gotten severe enough, we come to the place where it is impossible to ignore them.

The Biblical take on all of this is that when God says "no", He does it for our provision and our protection. It seems to me that many of us have misunderstood this about God. We have seen Him as a kind of Scrooge in the sky who, whenever He sees someone down here having fun, leans over the balcony of heaven and shouts down “Cut that out.” Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact of the matters is that He has given us in the Bible guidelines which when we follow them, will help us avoid many of the pitfalls I was taking about in the last post, and in addition, will bring us the benefits of righteousness including fullness of life (John 10:10).

You see there is a deeper and more lasting joy than can be found in the pleasures of this world which, in any case are only for a season (Hebrews 11:25). The out of control appetites we develop when we give in to what the Bible calls the lusts of the flesh, keep us from the deeper things. In my coming book “God's math, take away what hinders, add what helps,” I have a chapter called “Random God sums” which illustrates this. So there are subsections with such titles as “take away lust, add intimacy,” or “take away self hate, add self love,” or “take away religion/rules, and add relationship.” The point is that giving into lust is detrimental to developing intimacy, self hate diminishes our sense of self worth, and religion that has as its basis rules rather than relationship with Him, tends to make us into self righteous Pharisees, which in turn prevents us from even seeing our need of an empowering relationship with God. Ignoring the “no”s of God not only takes us out from under His protection, it robs us of His provision which, in the above examples included intimacy, self acceptance and relationship with the most wonderful person in the entire universe!

But He also knows that most of us only learn the hard way (from the school of hard knocks), that His ways are best. And at incredible cost to Himself, He has provided a way for us to come back to a Holy God even when we have thoroughly blown it! There is no pit that we have dug for ourselves that is so deep that He is not deeper still. He came to restore the broken hearted, even when our broken hearts are largely a result of our own actions and attitudes. In the Cross “Mercy and truth have met together; Righteousness and peace have kissed” (Psalm 85:10).

The very last thing that God wants to do it to judge us. He tells us in John 3:17 “God did not send His Son into the World to condemn the World, but that the World might be saved thorough Him.” When we turn from our rebellion and receive His free gift of salvation “mercy triumphs over judgement” (James 2:13), and we are welcomed into the Kingdom. He then makes available in the here and now “life in all its fullness” (John 10:10). Or to put in the words of another section of Random God sums, He takes “away fear, strife and stress, and add(s) peace and rest, and joy in the Holy Spirit.” Most of us won't go there until we are desperate. And this is good in some ways, because until we are desperate, we are not likely to fully surrender which is a necessary part of entering into fullness of life. “Are we there yet mummy?” (April 17).

Harmless, wholesome and healthy? Hardly!

There are many who celebrate the growing “freedom” from the “repressive restraints” of traditional (Judeo Christian) morality. From relaxing the divorce laws, to the permissive attitude towards sexuality, to the almost casual attitude towards having children out of wedlock, to the promotion of gay, lesbian and bisexual lifestyles, it's all all being promoted and presented as harmless, wholesome and healthy. But is it?

Psychology cannot talk about sin, but it can talk about bad choices. Bad choices are those which have harmful or unwanted consequences. There is a reason that we have a government warnings on cigarette packages, it is because smoking can be harmful to your heath. But within the tyranny of political correctness, we have suppressed any such necessary warning about the consequences of the so called new morality. In fact not only do we not have Government warnings about the consequences of bad choices, even the believing Church seems to have lost direction and/or courage to teach and speak out, even to its own people. In one sense it is no wonder, since in this atmosphere of political correctness the first time something (rightly or wrongly) considered offensive is spoken from the pulpit, it is likely to finish up plastered all over national TV. It's all part of the jamming, all part of the deliberate design to ridicule and intimidate any and all opposition into silence. And it is working, but it is producing in us a blindness to the inconvenient truths of our increasingly poor choices, as they continue to escalate out of sight (especially out of sight in the media) and (by the mechanism of denial) out of mind. Some indicators follow:-

No fault, no care, non of our business divorce. Predictably, the liberalization of the divorce laws lead to an increase on the divorce rates. Prior to 1968 in Canada the law granted divorce only on grounds of adultery or cruelty. However the most significant change that “no fault divorce” brought, is that that it essentially licensed unilateral divorce. “No fault” divorce simply makes it easy for just one unhappy partner to leave without explanation or negotiation. This very much reflects the spirit of the age in which accountability and responsibility for one’s actions are at an all-time low. Translate “for better or worse,” as “for better only!”

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of all of this, as with so much of the liberalizing of our laws, is that it dramatically reduces the protection of those the original laws were designed to protect. I am of course talking about the children. In particular as the close to unanimous well- researched negative effects of divorce on children show, children of divorce, separation and single parent families are at far grater risk than the general population in a multitude of areas. In particular, the research shows that children of divorce suffer a trauma that is a life long phenomenon with the following being just a small sample of what is happening much more immediately:
Fatherless homes account for

• 71% of all high school dropouts
  
• 85% of all youths sitting in prisons
  
• 80% of the adolescents in psychiatric hospitals
  
• 90% of runaways

Furthermore youth coming from fatherless homes are

• 15.3 times more likely to have behavioural disorders,
• 4.6 times more likely to commit suicide,
• 6.6 times more likely to become teenaged mothers (girls),
• 15.3 times more likely to end up in prison while a teenager.
• 24.3 times more likely to run away

So are the relaxing of divorce laws harmless wholesome and healthy? You decide! What is to me even more disturbing is that the statistics are no better in the church, where the the spirit of the age also seems to have taken firm hold. In addition, even in the Church many times a blind eye is turned to what is happening with a “no care, not our responsibility” attitude being taken to divorce, even by the leadership. Who is willing to hold the couple accountable to the vows they made between each other and God before the assembled people of God? I know of this absence first hand, as in addition to the law, the church left me powerless to do anything at all to stop my unwanted divorce. No-one who had any influence, even in the Church that married us, was willing to get involved even when approached!

Which best reflects reality, no fault or both fault divorce? It seems to be typical among couples who break up, to lay 100% of the blame on the other party. It's very Biblical actually, it all started with Adam. When God asked him if he had eaten from the tree he was commanded not to eat of, he started his reply with “The woman, You gave ..” In other words, it was the woman's fault, and actually God it was your fault too, You are the one who gave her to me!

Nobody is saying that it is easy for two people to live together, but the vows we make are designed to motive us to work at it. It is my belief that marriage is God's primary tool to make us more like Christ. As iron sharpen iron, so man sharpens man. It is not that long ago that someone I respect told me “I did not realize how selfish I was until I got married.” Since I happen to know the husband exhibits the same humility, I want to say that there is much hope for that marriage! There is no doubt that we need His help to live the life He calls us to, and marital difficulties are a crossroads. Will we continue to live out our lives in our own strength only, having a form of religion but denying the power thereof? Or will we come together to the foot of the cross, allowing Him to settle out disputes, to heal us from our hurts, and to equip us both in the desire and the wherewithal to do what without Him we cannot?

The sexual revolution and safe sex. The first time I asked out the Christian woman I subsequently married, she told me “I don't go to movies.” Without dealing with the legalism that infected much of the Evangelical Church, I want to say that it in many ways it was a wise position to take. There were and are many movies that do less than edify and build you up. And the influence of the media in our lives is subtle, pervasive and a slow death. There's a story about a frog and a kettle. The gist of it is that if you throw a fog into a kettle of boiling water, it will jump out, but if you put the frog in a kettle of cold water and slowly bring it to a boil, the frog won't hop out, it will stay there until it boils to death. It has been used to illustrate all sorts of scenarios, but it illustrates very clearly the erosion of traditional values. And it does work, as advertisers will attest, and it has been used mightily by the militants in the “new morality.”

The weak spot in the “I don't go to movies rule,” was the TV. Movies that shocked seemed tame five years later, and so could safely be watched on the tube. Pictures that graced the front cover of playboy in the 50's now appear on the front covers of magazines that you see in the line up at the supermarket, movies that once would have been declared to be X rated, are now PG 13. In fact as I have said elsewhere we have become a pornographic culture with the vast majority of society either desensitized or intimidated into silence by the ridicule of traditional values as outmoded, archaic and totally unrealistic.

Safe Sex Myth. Nobody disputes the fact that consistent condom use significantly reduces the risk of both pregnancy and of sexually transmitted diseases. What is clear from the research however, is that “safe sex” is not as safe as many would have us believe. Accurate quantitative stats on reduction rates when condoms are used, are hard to come by. However, the World Health Organization has stated that "compared with no condom use, consistent condom use resulted in an overall 87 percent reduction in risk of HIV transmission." Those odds by the way, are little better than the odds in Russian roulette where you have an 83.4 percent chance of firing an empty chamber. But no one encourages participation, even though the odds of getting a bullet are relatively low. But encouragement to participate, is by far the biggest problem I have with the liberal agenda, that is that it promotes experimentation. You hear the argument that young people will have sex anyway (what about the fogies?), but should we actively encourage it? Let me throw out a small sample of some of the stats that are verifiable.

There is an ever increasing strain on our embattled healthcare systems that stems from the need to treat sexually transmitted diseases. The last figure I was able to verify was that the bill in the States is more that $17 billion dollars annually on SSD's alone, and climbing. And this is not even to start to assess the cost in terms of mental, emotional, psychological and spiritual health, and the result of all that on substance abuse and crime etc., etc., etc.

The following facts are taken from the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention's website:
- There are approximately 19 million new cases of STDs per year in the US, most of which occur in young people between the ages of 15 and 24.
- In one study it was found that 25% of all girls between the ages of 14 and 19 in the US were infected with at least one of the most common STDs
- At least one in four Americans will contract an STD at some point in their lives.

From http://aids.ezinemark.com/ “It is important to be aware of the damages STDs can do to you.... Chlamydia, being the most common of STDs, can leave you infertile, and often has no symptoms at all.

In light of all this is the encouragement of sexual experimentation the right thing to do? We need to understand that part of the agenda of the left wing militants has been and remains to encourage earlier and earlier sexual experimentation.

Sexual addictions and intimacy. Not all advocates of liberalism take a “I could care less” attitude to what happens to its adherents. Lesbian activist Camille Paglia states “Sexuality is highly fluid, and reversals are theoretically possible”. She admits reversals are difficult “once the sensory pathways have been blazed and deepened by repetition.” She compares this to the phenomenon “obvious in the struggle with obesity, smoking, alcoholism or drug addiction.” She is not quite alone among the activists, but is certainly in a minority when she says that “helping gays to learn to function heterosexually if they wish, is a perfectly worthy aim”.

Paglia is of course speaking of same sex issues but both heterosexual and homosexual promiscuous sexual activity is highly addictive, and first time sexual exposures tend to define one sexually. Even the early studies by Masters and Johnson showed that initial sexual behaviours whatever their stripe, tended to perpetuate themselves. This helps to understand cross dressers and the like! In addition, the addictive nature of promiscuous sexual behaviour is known to weaken the one on one bonding mechanism, that nature intended the initial sexual experiences to cement, and is also know to be detrimental to the stability of long term relationships and of intimacy in the same. All of this moreover contributes to the increasing fatherlessness of our culture and as remarked earlier this is known to lead to increased substance abuse and crime, further promiscuity leading to increases in teen pregnancy, abortion rates etc., etc.

So is the undermining of traditional sexual values harmless wholesome and healthy? You decide! On the other hand abstinence movements both religious and non -religious report the following benefits of adhering to tradition values. According to teenhelp.com Some of the benefits that teens find when they practice abstinence include:

• Avoiding sexually transmitted diseases
• Avoiding unplanned pregnancy
• Not getting a bed reputation
• Avoiding some of the emotional consequences of teen sex, especially if the relationship does not work out, including feeling hurt, used, lonely, angry, or depressed
• Better relationships; couples who wait to have sex have healthier, more trusting relationships, and, if they marry, are less likely to divorce, and generally have better sex lives than those who did not wait
• Teen girls who abstain from sex until they are older, and limit sexual partners later in life, are less likely to develop cervical cancer or become infertile
• Unlike other forms of birth control, abstinence costs nothing and has no side effects.

Comparison of GLB and heterosexual statistics. The gay lifestyle is known to be inherently more promiscuous than heterosexual behaviour, with figures of over 500 partners during ones lifetime being not uncommon. In light if this is it any wonder that the rates of infection are higher among gays than among the heterosexual community. But it's not just in terms of physical health where there are huge differences. They are to be found in studies that measure metal and emotional health too. For example a Dutch study found a high rate of psychiatric disease associated with same-sex sex. Compared to controls who had no homosexual experience in the 12 months prior to the interview, males who had any homosexual contact within that time period were much more likely to experience major depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia and obsessive compulsive disorder. Females with any homosexual contact within the previous 12 months were more often diagnosed with major depression, social phobia or alcohol dependence. In fact, those with a history of homosexual contact had higher rates of nearly all psychiatric pathologies measured in the study. (Taken from Theo Sandfort, Ron de Graaf, et al., "Same-sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders," Archives of General Psychiatry, 58(1): 85-91, January 2001).

It is important to note that GLB behaviour is much more commonly acceptable in Holland than in North America, minimizing the “guilt trip” factor in this study. If “lack of acceptance” were a major cause of psychiatric pathologies, you would expect to see a lot less pathology in the Netherlands than in North America, and we do not.

Conclusion. So are all or even any of the behaviours that militant advocates of the new morality promote harmless, wholesome and healthy? You tell me! But is there hope to escape once the “sensory pathways have been blazed and deepened by repetition?” Some will question whether abstention is a realistic solution, and I will want to address that later in more detail. What I want to say here is that I needed help to come out of my promiscuous life style addictions 40 years ago. The help I needed came from Him with conversion. I am not an isolated case as even the scriptures attest when Paul, speaking to the Corinthian church said “and such were some of you.” That is it difficult to change sexual behaviour even the Scriptures know. Jesus said “He who sins is the slave of sin!” The good news though is that “If the Son shall set you free, you will be free indeed!” With God all things are possible!

We’re in love and want to get married. What's wrong with that?

Face to face: Is it any coincidence that in the midst of blogging about (non-neutral) “value neutral” values, I visited a Church where unexpectedly a homosexual couple came in. One of them stood up and asked if he could speak. When permission was given, he asked the Church to bless their union. The Pastor indicated that she would talk to them afterwards. It wasn't my Church so I didn't have to deal with it, but it did cause me to ask myself the question in the title of the post. This was a long term relationship (certainly as far as these things go), moreover the pair were quiet, respectful even humble, and seemingly very nice people. I don't know much about them, but let's consider the best case scenario. Let's say that this long term relationship was faithful, monogamous, that they truly loved one another and wanted nothing more than to be married and live together in peace “like many Christians do.” What's wrong with that, who is it hurting?

Multiple interconnected issues: Actually my heart went out to this couple. I wanted to make sure they did not feel condemned by me, so I went smiling to them and shook hands. In fact, I think because of this, they approach me first, rather than the Pastor. However since it was not my Church I referred them to her, knowing she would speak the truth in love. Jesus is our role model here (see John 8:1-11). I am not about to cast the first stone, I have nothing to be self righteous about. I have my own struggles in the area of sexuality, and perhaps because of this I feel compassion for all who struggle with theirs. But right here I have a problem, because I also feel compassion for those whose same sex attractions are unwanted, and want out. And I cannot please both sides. If I affirm the rights of the last group to seek help to change, I am in deep trouble with the militants in the Gay community who regard such people as betrayers of the cause. What I am saying is that you cannot get into same sex issues without, at the same time also getting into a whole host of related issues. It's something of a Pandora's box. We need to be wise as serpents and as harmless as doves. And I need to say a few things before I respond to the presenting issue here. Please bear with me as I do this.

Feeling trapped by our desires: I have heard some say they feel trapped by their same sex attractions. I have struggled with unwanted sexual desires myself, so I know at least something about that. Perhaps it is for this reason that I feel a particularly deep compassion for this second group mentioned above. I read an article recently entitled “Cheated by the Affirming Church,” it's Googleable. In it the author asks “Does God gain some mysterious personal benefit by prohibiting homosexual practice?” He goes on to say “My exposure to homosexuality convinces me of a far more basic rationale for the biblical prohibition: Homosexuality is bad for me.” That it is bad for him is a whole subject in and of itself. But Christians have always maintained that when God says “no” it is for our provision and protection. What a coincidence that my doing everything my heart desires is bad for me :-). You can Google “homosexuality physical emotional health” and check it out for yourself. You will of course get a mixture of views, and you do need to know that both sides accuse the other of using bias in their studies. In his book “The Marketing of evil,” David Kupelian documents the use of falsification and extreme bias at the beginning of the politically correct propaganda war. I can thoroughly recommend this book, it's an eye opener! In terms of damage, the physical and emotional health risks and the emotional pain are far greater than can be explained as resulting from guilt trips by bigoted Christians!

The right or wrong encouragement? But back to my point, the author of the article who wanted to remain anonymous (I wonder why!) further says “I wanted to believe the message of the affirming church—that I was born this way, that I couldn't be happy without accepting my homosexuality, and that I couldn't change.” He emphasizes that wanting to believe it was indeed the problem. He tells of the years he spend in bondage to lust. He says “Over and over, I would quit, shamed beyond measure. But the message that I should embrace my identity as a 'gay Christian' continued to entice me, and I would return to my self-made prison.” The very last thing that he needed was to be told to embrace it. He likens it to the physician who tells her patient to embrace his cancer, or to telling the alcoholic to celebrate his alcoholism “It's who you are brother!” We do need to respect the alcoholic as a person. The Christian has every reason to do this, because we know that the alcoholic, the homosexual etc., no less than we are, are made in the image of God, and therefore are precious souls worthy of dignity. We Christians must do much more than tolerate such people, we must afford them love and dignity. We can, and must, do this without withholding life giving truth to those who will listen!

Is disagreement the same as hate? We Christians are accused of hating homosexuals for doing nothing more than disagreeing with them, but would it be hate or compassion to tell the alcoholic to embrace his identity as a drunk? If disagreement is the same as hate, then the proponents of political correctness certainly hate us Conservatives! Clearly disagreement and hate can coexist, but they are not synonymous. On the other hand, if as we Christians claim it is the truth (spoken in love) that sets us free, would it be loving or unloving to withhold the truth from those who are in denial? J. Budzsizewski sums up well what I want to say here, he says “Real compassion aught to make us visit the prisoner, dry out the alcoholic, help the pregnant girl to prepare for the baby, and encourage the young homosexual to live chastely. But how much easier it is to forget the prisoner, give the alcoholic a drink, send the girl to the abortionist and tell the kid just to give in. False compassion is a great deal less work than true.”

The need for a working principle. One more thing, I said earlier that there are a whole bunch of associated issues that we (at least I) cannot ignore. I also called the same sex issue a presenting issue. It's a symptom issue if you like, that is very much tied in with the “values neutral” lie (see June 3rd blog). So the one more thing is that there is a core issue which we must address first, and that is to discover a way, a principle if you like, of how to deal with all of these related issues. We can then apply the principle to the same sex marriage question. The task then involves coming up with a working principle that is fair and tolerant, but one which looks for the greatest good, rather than getting hung up and deciding general rules/laws that apply to all, but are based only on trying to solve only the especially difficult special cases.

Laws based on the exception rather than the rule, make bad laws. And this last thing, getting hung up on the especially difficult special cases, is what we have done. In particular we have made laws that deal with special cases, but leave normal cases in chaos. The implications for the rule (as opposed to the exception) are ignored. But laws based on difficult exceptions are notoriously bad laws, which in turn lead to even worse laws. No matter where you stand on the abortion issue, I do not think that you can say that what we currently have in Canada is a good thing. It all started with the pleading of special cases but lead ultimately to the non-existence of any law at all on this issue. So one day before delivery abortion is not illegal, but one day after delivery it is. How much sense does that make? And what a mockery of the original rational which argued the special cases of rape and mother's health, morphing to questions of viability, and/or of the place in time where the fetus feels pain, etc., etc. Similarly the making bad laws on issues like euthanasia and assisted suicide, likewise arose by special pleading in Scandinavian countries. The weakening of the law there has lead there to widespread abuse that can be perpetrated with relative impunity. No, laws changed to respond to particularly difficult cases have left defenseless those the original laws were intended to protect.

Principle: To prohibit, permit or promote? So what shall we propose? Well there are basically three (and only three) positions an authority (government, Church etc.) can take on a moral issue. Firstly they can prohibit it, secondly they can permit it, or thirdly they can promote it. Let's look at them, homosexuality was prohibited in the past, and like prohibition (of alcohol) in the states, it does not work. People do it anyway, and decriminalizing homosexuality was, in my opinion, the right thing to do. Secondly we can permit it. In a free society there are a multitude of harmful things that we permit, and rightly so. So we permit smoking, and we permit alcohol. What we must not do, is to promote these things. Why? Well there is a reason for the law that says we must put warnings on cigarette packages? It is because the behavior is harmful. It is true that some people who smoke outlive some who do not, but these special cases are not, and should not be taken as a reason to revoke the law. The permitting part of the trio of positions has to do with tolerance, sensitivity and freedom. The problem with the whole politically correct agenda, is that is it not satisfied with the second option, it wants us all to say that homosexual and promiscuous heterosexual behaviour is harmless, healthy and wholesome. But the research does not show this. Even by using biased samples those with the politically correct agenda have not been able to overthrow the evidence that those engaged in such activities are at much higher risk of all sorts of heath concerns, have more Psychological problems, higher suicide rates etc., etc. In short the "harmless, healthy and wholesome" bit is a lie!

Applying this to the same sex marriage question. So to come to the special case. I would ask first of all, if loving, monogamous, faithful long term relationships are the rule or the exception to the rule among homosexuals. If you don't know the answer Google does! Check it out for yourself! They are indeed the exception not the rule. Next, “who is it hurting?” I think it is hurts us all to promote it. I think it is hurts those who might not otherwise get involved, if it were not promoted as a good thing. I think it hurts the homosexual him (her) self, as he or she indulges in the risks of it all. I think it hurts society, as it has to deal with the cost and the consequences of this highly risky behaviour. And lastly it ultimately hurts me, as I worry that the highly seductive nature of the in your face everywhere present propaganda will impact and lead my grandchildren and others I love, astray. The promotion of it encourages them to experiment with highly addictive and destructive behaviour. You see there is absolutely no doubt in my mind firstly, that the propaganda is being very, very successful, and secondly that is harmful in many, many ways. Last but by no means least, I fear that it will seduce many away from the comfort and peace and joy and hope of a close relationship that by experience, I know they can have with God. It is true that He will welcome the lost and repentant sheep home at any time, and that heaven will rejoice if and when it happens, but I, and I believe He, would spare them and you, all the pain. Please note that this is not "do as I say, not as I do." This is saying "Please do not do what I did, because as the school or hard knocks has taught me, it will lead you into endless pain and problems.

In a nutshell. So with respect to the trio prohibition, permission or promotion, I do not advocate the prohibition of homosexual activity, I do advocate that we tolerate and permit homosexual activity. But when you ask me if I am willing to advocate and encourage the promotion of a behaviour that has been shown to be medically fraught with risk, I am sorry but the answer is no. And I do not think the government or the Church should advocate promotion of medical and Psychological risky behaviour either. And to give the bottom line answer to the question, that is exactly what making same sex marriage legal, or affirming it in the Church, does. Does this show lack of compassion? As I have already said, true compassion speaks the truth in love. My primary role model says it well. To the woman caught in the very act of adultery He said “Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more” (John 8:11). He also provides the way to escape, for He also said "If the Son shall set you free, you will be free indeed" (John 8:36).

Why do you Christians pick on Homosexuals?

Let me start by acknowledging that Gays have not been treated justly, that they have been the focus of fear, hate and violence from both inside and outside the Church. This is very, very wrong, and I want to apologize for any way that I may have engaged in any of this by thought or by word or by deed. But I also want to say that I believe that the fanatics in the Church who do such things are neither in the mainstream of the Church, nor in the majority, and that their actions and attitudes are fundamentally non Christian. This is a very long way from loving our enemies! Of course such minorities tend to get noticed, but not everything that calls itself Christian is Christian. So please, please do not tar us all with the same brush. So yes I am afraid that there are rednecks in the Church, but the Church certainly does not have a monopoly on rednecks!

A better question: Having said this, let me give an even better question than the one in the title of the post. Here it is: “Why are you Christians always singling out homosexuality, why not talk about divorce and separation and all those other things you Christians do?” I think you will agree, this is an even better question, with a lot more to answer for. By the way, we should also throw Christian teen pregnancy rates into the mix! And it is true that the divorce rates are as high in the Church as they are in the World. The only difference is, it just takes a bit longer in the Church! So let's make the question even clearer by asking, are we not being hypocritical self righteous bigots when we condemn one form of deviance from traditional values, while at the same time are so guilty of another? Does God hate divorce or doesn't He?

Christian Hypocrisy? As I have said elsewhere there has always been self righteous hypocrites both inside and outside the Church, but whatever else it is, it is not by definition Christian (= Christ like). Let me answer the hypocrisy question as if it were being asked of me personally, I will let the rest of the Church speak for themselves. When I was eleven years old, and going to a new School, I got in with a crowd of boys who were into shop lifting. I entered in with zeal, and was clever enough not to get caught. Well it was before the days of hidden cameras. It seemed like a jolly good thing at the time. I could have all sorts of things I would not otherwise have had. However, not all of the boys were as brilliant as yours truly :-). One of the others boys got caught and spilled the beans on the rest of us. I think it was the disappointment in my father's eyes that got to me the most, and I admitted I was wrong and turned from my sin. To this day I am careful to be honest (though I am a bit careless with pens at work!). Now let me ask you: “Am I hypocritical to have taught my children the value of honesty?” If you say “yes,” I don't think I have anything to say to you that you will be able to hear! Let me say more, assuming that you are still reading. I learned from the school of hard knocks that lac of sexual purity is very, very destructive. Nearly forty years after conversion, and a miraculous delivery from my addiction in this area, I am still reaping some of the negative consequences of my “throwing off the repressive restraints of traditional morality.” I would save you the pain dear reader. Is it hypocritical of a former smoker to advocate abstention of smoking? Certainly the Church needs to clean up its act, judgement must begin at the household of God!

The World in the Church: Coming to the point of the widespread contamination of the new morality in the Church, I have been saying that what has happened to our society in the last few decades is that we have been subjected to a highly organized, deliberate well funded, determined propaganda to overthrow the above mentioned "repressive restraints of traditional morality.” In these terms, the facts of divorce and teen pregnancy in the Church, to my mind merely testify to the success of the aforementioned propaganda. The fact of the matter is, that our culture has become pornographic in and of itself. You can hardly go to a movie without some couple jumping to bed with each other, subtly saying this is perfectly normal there is nothing wrong with this, everybody does it (see May 22nd). And the trouble is under the influence of the propaganda it is more and more becoming the norm. It is not easy to stand for purity in such an environment! I have to admit the new morality is very seductive, it really is. It's not just about homosexuality, homosexuality is just the most visible tip of the iceberg.

Too young for the questions: If you think about it the reason statuary rape is called rape, is because it recognizes that it is far too easy to seduce those who are not of age. They are not in a good position to resist the gentle, smiling, affirming seduction of experienced predatory adults. We call it rape, and legislate against it because we recognize that minors need to be protected from such things. They are too young for the questions. But more and more, and earlier and earlier we are introducing the very seductive politically correct morality into the very curriculum of the schools with our “Johnny has two mummies stories.” I understand this is happening as early as kindergarten. Yes I do know the rational, children can be and are cruel. And children of homosexual couples are seemingly natural targets for it. Please do not misunderstand me, I am very much for the teaching of tolerance and sensitivity, but we need to have wisdom here. In particular we need to see where all of this is going, and we in the Church like the prophets of old need to lovingly and humbly warn this generation just exactly where we are headed.

So where exactly are we headed? One way to see is to understand how we got to where we are now. David Kupelian in his book “The marketing of Evil” documents how in a single generation Harvard business school training was used to change the prevailing value that homosexuality is wrong, and to bring us the place where homosexuals are our current cultural heroes and victims of “repressive traditional values.” Kupelian documents that this change is not, as the lie would have us believe, a spontaneous rejection of traditional values by the “moral majority.” The techniques used are the same as those used in advertizing and in politics. There are basically three stages. You flood the market with the propaganda, you jam (vilify, intimidate, shout down etc.) the opposition, and then finally you aggressively promote the new product/politician/morality. This last stage is called “conversion.”

So with this in mind what is next? Even staying away from euthanasia, mercy killing and the like, there are two areas that cause me grave concern. The first has been described as a mother's worst nightmare, I am referring to the move to decriminalize incest. You say “Phil you are being a scare monger, these things are unthinkable.” Well the sleeping Church was saying exactly the same thing about homosexuality just a generation ago. Are you aware that incest has already been decriminalized in several European countries? Try Googling “decriminalize incest,” and you will see that I am not exaggerating. If it sounds shocking, realize that in North America we are not yet ready for the “conversion” stage. But it is coming, and the values neutral position has absolutely no defense. “Who are we to judge?”

The second cause of major concern is pedophilia. If we want to do this, we have to start by changing the language. So we must no longer call it child abuse, we must use softer language. Let me see, how about “man boy love?” If you think I am joking try Googling NAMLBA (North American man love boy association), and read their propaganda (or not). And again the values neutral position has absolutely no grounds to say it is wrong. It is easy to see that at the “conversion” stage of this issue in our propaganda war, we would invent words like “pedophobe” meaning those who fear pedophiles. Well it is healthy to fear some things, snakes, predictors etc. And all this name calling and shouting down the truth needs a name too. I call it eleuthiaphobia a fear of the truth. I don't mean this seriously. You see when you have truth on your side you don't need to resort to name calling, you don't need to “jam” the arguments of the opposition.

The sleeping Church: Part of this is our own fault. In the Church we have been embarrassed to talk about sex at all (except in some circles to imply that it is somehow dirty!). We have failed to recognize the seductive power of the new morality, and have sat back and ignored the signs, that for a long time we have not been able to take traditional Christian sexual morality as a given. We teach on everything else but sex! It's God's gift, not to be devalued and squandered in one night stands. When we do so it becomes practically meaningless, and results in the moral chaos both in the Church and Society. There are always practical reasons for Biblical prohibitions. I will be saying more about this larger principle in the book I am writing “God's Math. Take away what hinders, add what helps.” I will also say there that we in the Church need to obey the admonition not to be conformed to the World, and that we really do have to deal with the issues.

The boot is on the other foot: So why do we pick on homosexuals? As I said in a related post (Nov. 23, 2010) we did not pick this issue, it was forced on us by the above mentioned persistent provocative propaganda put out by the militants of the new morality. These militants vilify us and then shout "foul." So the boot is actually on the other foot, it is the in your face (inconsistent) militancy of the gay lobby that is forcing the issue on us. I personally think, given the direction in which we are heading, that these continued attacks are a good thing. Perhaps it will cause us in the Church to wake up, and to start thinking and praying about how to deal with the issues, and to answer the many accusations that are leveled against us, and last but by no means least, to ask God to intervene. We need a move of God, that will bring us all back to Him and hence back to purity!

I acknowledge earlier that there are rednecks in the Church, but that the Church does not have a monopoly on rednecks! As to the rest of us, if you think about it you will realize that the vast majority has either capitulated, or cowed in self defense, withdrawing altogether from the “debate.” I understand the reluctance, nobody wants to be called a homophobe or a hate monger. But to make the same point twice, though bigotry exist, this is not the stance of the vast majority, nor is it by definition Christian! Certainly the conservative Church thinks that Homosexuality is wrong, but is it necessarily hate if when we speak of these things, we do so in gentleness and humility? If I tell my son that taking things that do not belong to him is wrong, am I a kleptophobe stirring up hate towards thieves? Let's get real here, and let's stop the name calling!

Who is intolerant of who? Proponents of the “values neutral position” often justify the stance by saying that to take any other stand is to be insensitive and intolerant. In this way they appeal to the deeply felt values of fairness, generosity of spirit and tolerance of our culture. Actually sensitivity and tolerance are a vestige of our Judeo Christian heritage, not found elsewhere. Where we have been insensitive and intolerant we do need to repent, we do. But does the "values neutral" position practice what it preaches? Are the militants of Political correctness sensitive and tolerant towards those of us who hold traditional values? I think you know the answer!

Judge a World view by how it treat it's dissenters. If we are checking out a world view, one of the things we can look at is what it teaches about, and how it's leaders treat, its dissenting members, those who no longer want to belong. Jesus was betrayed by Judas, who not only showed them where Jesus was, but clearly identified Him by the traditional Middle Eastern greeting of friendship. Though He was clearly sad, Jesus did not rail against him, but responded only by saying “Judas do you betray me with a kiss?” Jesus was practicing what He preached when He said “Love your enemies.” We Christians have not always followed Jesus well in this regard, but true Christians want to be like Him. It is not always easy to be a true Christian!

So what do the militants of “neutral values” teach and do in this regard? The teaching of tolerance, is one place where Christians and “neutral values” advocates agree. Both preach tolerance though, as in many things, both sides fail. What bothers me the most (and this is certainly not true for the average person) is that they, the founding fathers and mothers of the propaganda actually advocate intolerance and the imposition of their values, not only on those of us who see through the absurdity of the view, but also towards those who no longer want to go along with it! There are strong moves to have any speech by dissenting gays classified by law as hate speech. There is currently a law before the senate in California which would severely limit the rights of gays to seek help with their unwanted same sex desires. So who is intolerant of who, and who trying to impose their views even on their own community? This is not just the mindset of some on the fringe, it is the mindset of those who drove "Political correctness" in the first place and continue, to use their own accusations, to “sell, push, or otherwise force their own pet values on the rest of us”. These are the ones who advocated that “We must demand liberation from such 'mighty engines of repression'.”

Conclusion: So should we be “neutral values” or not? You can't have it both ways! If it is your view that “We must not impose our values on others, because to do so is to be repressive, insensitive and intolerant,” you cannot without being a hypocrite then turn round and be insensitive and intolerant and repressively impose your “neutral values” values those who value traditional values.

The propaganda is saying that we Christians picked on the homosexual issue, that we are constantly picking on homosexuals and are homophobes etc. It is one of many lies. The fact of the matter is, that it is the militants of the new morality who are using the homosexual issue to provoke and bludgeon traditional morality, cry foul and then in a very intolerant, insensitive and repressive way, vilify those of us who hold it disrespecting and marginalizing us in the process. It is pure hypocrisy.

The tyranny of moral neutrality - We must not impose our views on others II

In this second of two posts, I want to continue the discussion of the so called “neutral values” that is so widely accepted in our culture. Last day I argued that it is not neutral, it is impossible to live out in a practical and consistent way, and in the end nobody really wants this make believe place to exist, including the very proponents of “neutral values”. Today I want to deal with the last part of Faye Wattleton's articulate defence of the position. I am referring to her statement that “teaching morality doesn't mean imposing my moral values on others. It means sharing wisdom, giving reasons for believing as I do--and then trusting others to think and judge for themselves." She continues "I'm proud to continue that struggle, to defend the rights of all people to their own beliefs. When others try to inflict their views on me, my daughter or anyone else, that's not morality: It's tyranny. It's unfair, and it's un-American”

To be consistent “neutral values” proponents must not criticize anybody. The emphasis on “all,” and “anyone else” in the above quotation from Wattleton's article is mine. It is here that I want to start. In particular as part of the “all” and the “anyone else, ”I want the right to own my beliefs, and I do not want the the advocates of the irrational position of moral neutrality to inflict their values either on me, or on North American culture. Where they do so, and have done they are, in Wattleton's own words, being tyrannical, unfair, un-American, and if I may add un-Canadian. So have they done this, and are they even now doing so? Here is the inside scoop from former gay rights advocate Charlene Cothran. In the “about us” statement on her Venus magazine web page she says "The gay agenda has spent many years and millions of dollars on reshaping the way children think about homosexuality." If this is not trying to “inflict their values on” our children, our most vulnerable members of out society, then I don't know what is!

If the true feelings and beliefs of “neutral values” advocates we were that “We must not impose our views on others,” then there would be no criticism of traditional values, because any criticism would be (and is) rightly interpreted as “selling, pushing, or otherwise forcing” the pet values of “neutral values” advocates on those of us who disagree. So to be consistent “neutral values” proponents must not criticize anybody, least of all those who hold traditional values. And since they clearly do, and are imposing their values on us I can only conclude that the motivation lies elsewhere than as stated.

The militant origins of Political correctness. As I have said earlier there have certainly been injustices against gays in the past, but we must not all be tarred with same brush. In the same way I don't believe all those who currently hold to "neutral values" are militant (though I do believe they/you are deceived). In particular there are many things that went on behind the scenes that is not generally known. For example the widespread acceptance of the illogical position of moral neutrality, is not something that spontaneously developed in response to the view of the then moral majority. It was imposed on us by the highly organized persistent multimillion dollar propaganda campaign of a very small militant minority. This fact is well documented for example in the eye opening book “The marketing of Evil” by David Kupelian. Charlene Cothran mentioned above describes herself before conversion as having spent 29 years of her life as “an aggressive, creative and strategic supporter of gay and lesbian issues”. She was one of this militant minority. You do not need to take my word for all of this, check it out for yourself.

In a propaganda war, the one with the power to shut the other side up wins. It is also very clear to me that the proponents of the “neutral values” propaganda have the upper hand. One Canadian professor wrote recently that in this politically correct – all views are equal climate - he was unable to get students to agree that non-consenting female genital mutilation is wrong. Where are our heads? I can guarantee you that if that was happening to your sister or your daughter, you would quickly change your tune, but I digress. But speaking of Professors, the point I want to make is can be easily illustrated by Professor/Student relationships. Consider this as a practical matter, if you want to get straight A's you would be well advised to adopt the view of your Professor, even if you don't agree. I don't want to tar all Professors with the same brush, but I know far too many for whom you would have to submit a far superior essay that disagreed with his or her view, than if you submitted one that agreed with him or her! I know this because I was a student too! What is the difference between this and “Power comes through the barrel of a gun?” And if you hold a values neutral position you have no grounds whatsoever to say that this is wrong! Perhaps Mao was a good guy, we just didn't understand his values? As the heading says in a propaganda war the one with the power wins! Hitler knew this and he used his propaganda machine and slur tactics to vilify the Jews, he then used fear and intimidation to shut down any and all opposition. The tactics of a propaganda war have not changed.

Repressive “neutral values” legislation. And just who has the power in the current Politically correct universe in which we live? Consider again the rational of “values neutral” position that “We must be allowed to mould our lives, not at the arbitrary command of church or state.” My example is not the church, but it is the state. In the political football game that passes as politics there is, at the time of writing a Bill (California Senate Bill 1172) currently before the California Senate. Opponents of this legislation (with whom I happen to agree) describe SB 1172 as a first-of-its-kind legislative effort to usurp the role of the professional mental-health associations, to ban change-oriented psychological care to minors. If this is not a legislative attempt to impose one point of view on another, again I don't know what is. In many ways, the jury is still out on the debate behind the question “Is change possible.” Meanwhile, one of the things political correctness wants to shout down is the fact that many have changed or are in the process of change (Google NARTH)! This bill is in fact the tip of the iceberg, as (verifiable) story after story emerges of professionals being dismissed, and graduate students being denied entrance to programs of study, simply because they do not hold the politically correct doctrine on this issue. Furthermore there are political moves to have any voiced desire to change sexual orientation classified as hate speech. And all of this is politically motivated, it is not based on indisputable evidence from science. This being the case, how is it not the “tyranny of selling, pushing and forcing one's own pet values”on those who disagree?

The rhetoric is powerful but it is not honest. How can we say that simply expressing an opinion is hate? When did we arrive at the conclusion that saying “I was wrong” is hate speech? If I express my opinion that taking things that don't belong to me is wrong, am I necessarily hating thieves” I used the example earlier of a parent telling her child that it is wrong to take something that does not belong to him. While it is very clear that disagreement and hate can coexist, so can disagreement and love (as is the case of most parents correcting their child). If disagreement can be spoken to a child in love why would it not be possible in an adult. Again this is not to say that things have not been spoken in judgmental hate, but it seems to me that the militants on both sides are guilty on this one! Or to put it another way we need to ask "exactly who is hating who here?"

The strategy includes jamming (shouting down the opposition). In David Kupelian's already mentioned book, he documents the beginning of the deliberate launching of the propaganda war that one part of their strategy is jamming. The idea is to prevent any and all debate on the issues, and this can be accomplished by ridicule, intimidation and loud and disruptive protests. The power of this technique was was aptly demonstrated recently at a local church here in my home town. A well known speaker had been invited to speak, and the meeting was invaded by a group of gay activists who made so much noise in the meeting, that the organizers had no choice but to cancel the meeting. There was of course no medial outrage at this. But I wonder what would happen if a group of Christians invaded a gay conference and did the same thing. I don't really think I need to tell you, do I?

Conclusion. What shall we say to all this? In the last post I demonstrated that “values neutral” position is very far from being neutral, is impossible to live out in a practical and consistent way, and in the end nobody would even want to.” In this post I have added to this that its militant advocates done the exact opposite of what they preach. In particular they have shown themselves to be repressive, insensitive, intolerant and judgmental, and have done everything in their power to make sure any defence of traditional values is not heard. You might even say they have an “evangelical zeal” for these things. Let me stress again, that such things as “gay bashing” and violence against gays is very, very wrong. It is the militants on both sides that I have the greatest difficulty with. And I do not believe that all gays, or all who hold to “neutral values” are in the militant camp. Similarly not all on the side of traditional values are fanatics. We must not tar each other all with the same brush.

But what is very clear to me, as David Kupelian's book and Charlene Cothran's testimony (and others) clearly reveal, is that from it's conception the militant highly organized and heavily financially backed campaign to change the minds our this culture, never had any other intention than “selling, pushing, legislating and/or otherwise forcing their own pet values” on the culture. This is not only hypocritical, it is to use one of Faye Wattleton's words, tyrannical.

We must not impose our views on others I The myth of moral neutrality

“We must not impose our values on others, of course not, everybody agrees” writes John Patrick in his article “the myth of moral neutrality.” But is this possible, and even if it is, is it desirable? This post examines the position of “moral neutrality,” and we start of with the best exposition of it I can find. If you know a better one please tell me, I want to hear it and to put it here!

The case for moral neutrality (“neutral values”): “We must not impose our values on others, to do so is to be repressive, insensitive and intolerant. So we must practice Medicine/Psychiatry/life from a non-judgmental, morally neutral stance. We must be allowed to mold our lives, not at the arbitrary command of church or state, but as our conscience and judgment may dictate. We must live and let live, and strenuously resist any attempt by others to sell, push, or otherwise force their own pet values on the rest of us. We must demand liberation from such “mighty engines of repression”, especially from the traditional values that, without our consent, were laid on, and imposed on our culture!”

I cribbed most of the above from Faye Wattleton, the former President of Planned Parenthood, in a piece she called, "Self-Definition: Morality." She says “Like most parents, I think that a sense of moral responsibility is one of the greatest gifts I can give my child. But teaching morality doesn't mean imposing my moral values on others. It means sharing wisdom, giving reasons for believing as I do--and then trusting others to think and judge for themselves.

She continues “I'm proud to continue that struggle, to defend the rights of all people to their own beliefs. When others try to inflict their views on me, my daughter or anyone else, that's not morality: It's tyranny. It's unfair, and it's un-American.”

This sounds so sensible, so reasonable, and so tolerant, but there are a number of fundamental flaws in this position which I will refer to as the “neutral values” position. Firstly it is based on the assumption that there is such at thing as neutral ground, a place where moral judgment is neither possible nor necessary. In an article entitled “The Myth of Moral Neutrality” Gregory Koukl writes “One of the most entrenched assumptions of relativism (all truth is relative) is that there is such a thing as morally neutral ground, a place of complete impartiality where no judgments nor any forcing or personal views are allowed. Each takes a neutral posture towards the moral convictions of others” (words in brackets mine). My thesis is this: No such neutral ground exists, in particular the “neutral values” position is not neutral, it is impossible to live out in a practical and consistent way, and in the end nobody really wants this make believe place to exist, including the proponents of “neutral values”.

Past injustices and intolerance. I want to start by saying that no one (least of all me) is saying that injustice and intolerance have not been perpetrated in our society on all kinds of groups, nor that there have not been (and still are) unjust and prejudicial laws. It grieves me that many inappropriate things have been committed by those who name the name of Christ. But not everything that calls itself Christian is Christian (Christ like). And there are bigots everywhere, not just in the Church, and bigotry and self righteousness and prejudice are wrong no matter where they are found. Interestingly what I just wrote cannot be the position of those who hold “neutral values,” not if they are to be consistent, because to agree with me would be to take a non-neutral moral stance. The first commandment of the “neutral values” position has to be “Thou shalt not criticize!”

There is no such place as neutral ground “Neutral values” is not neutral! First of all then “values neutral” is not a neutral value. In fact it is very far from it. And if it is it not neutral, then it logically contradicts itself. A “values neutral” position if it were truly neutral, would not be able to classify anything as either good or bad. To do so would be to cease to be neutral. In particular, it would logically be unable to criticize traditional values, and it would not be able to condemn “selling, pushing, or otherwise forcing” pet values on others. To do so would be to imply that those things are bad, and you cannot say these things if you are neutral. Please note that I am not saying these things are good, I am saying that when proponents of the “values neutral” position say such things bad, they are being logically inconsistent, because this is a non- neutral moral position.

“Values neutral” says values are not important. But a more disturbing aspect of moral neutrality is that it clearly implies that values are not important. In order to make the point, let's look at an example. I may not be able to use this example ten years from now, but I am not worried I am sure there will be other examples available even more shocking (more shocking to us now!) than this one. Suppose I sincerely believe that gently (but persistently) persuading 8 year old boys to have sex with me is a good thing, that it frees them from the sexual repression imposed on them by a bigoted and self righteous culture. If you hold the values neutral approach then you (you the parent, or you society for that matter) have no basis to say that is it wrong, let alone forbid it, or punish me for doing it! If you tried, I could object that you were trying to force your pet values on me. And if you tried to tell me that I was wrong I could simply accuse you of judging me (see last month's post “I thought we weren't supposed to judge!”). Now this is not a hypothetical case. There are pedophiles out there who sincerely hold this view. Try Googling NAMBLA (North American man love boy association). So do you think values are important? If you do, then the question (which I will not attempt to answer in this post) becomes whose values?

Nobody really wants this make believe place to exist. There is irony in the fact that in the immediate postwar years there were, in the free World, a number of Communist political parties formed which were using the freedoms of democracy to try to bring in Communism which, had they been successful, would have abolish democracy! To me there is equal irony in the fact that the proponents of “neutral values” are using the long established traditional Judeo Christian values of fairness, equality, justice, sensitivity, respect and tolerance for others to overthrow Judeo Christian values. You see you cannot appeal to these values if you live in a situation where they are not taken as self evident truths. And there are many places where these values are neither held, nor taught, nor valued. The are taken as signs of weakness. And if we are nothing more than Darwinian primates, there is no earthly reason they should be taught or valued. What do “survival of the fittest” and “respect tolerance and fair play for those who are wrong” have in common?

Check this next statement out “It is only in a Judeo Christian culture where we would even dream of trying to push the fantasy of 'neutral values.'” "Murder may be wrong for you my friend, but it's right for me!" What I am saying is that given the right (or perhaps wrong) situation, even “neutral values” advocates would advocate the imposition of their values on society. For example if any proponent of “neutral values” had been living under Idi Amin in Uganda in the 70's they would have been strongly advocating, demanding and pushing for someone to reinstate their ongoing traditional values with respect to rape and murder and theft. Idi Amin told his troops “Go out and find your wages.” And they did, finding them, and doing a whole lot more, at the point of a gun. Of course rape and murder and theft are wrong, and any healthy society would impose laws forbidding this. Only when we are sure that such Bible based laws are in place, and that no-one would even think of revoking them, would we even dream of pushing the “Alice in Wonderland” view that all values are to be equally respected.

“Moral neutrality” is impossible to live out in a practical way. Several years ago I came across an article in an African Newspaper that told of students in Bangladesh going out on strike for the “age old right to cheat on exams.” Imagine going to a professor who taught moral neutrality and demanding the same rights? Good luck if you expect to get away with it! A dollar to a dime he (or she) will inconsistently impose his or her view on you, that cheating is wrong! Or suppose your Professor gives you an F because he does not like the colour of the binder in which you submitted your assignment! You would no doubt demand justice, but if you accept a values neutral position on what grounds would you demand justice? Suppose the Professor's view of justice is that the one in power prevails, and he is in power. Well it works for him! He might ask “What right does the rest of the World or anyone else have to impose a different view of justice on me?” I do not believe that he would be able to get away with it in our culture, but that is only because we retain the universal value of justice which was “imposed” on us by the Judo-Christian culture of our past. But the existence of any universal value at all, undermines the vary fabric of moral neutrality! It is, of course, necessary for a healthy society!

Conclusion: In conclusion then to assert that we should take a neutral stance with respect to moral issues is complete and utter nonsense. It is not only logically self contradicting (since it is itself a moral view and one that is very far from neural), it is totally impractical with respect to day to day living. I can guarantee that the moment someone stole from you, or raped or murdered someone you loved, your moral neutrality would go right out the window, and you would be demanding the non-neutral law to administer justice. Moreover not only would one be unable to, but no one in their right mind would even dream of trying to push this nonsense view on any other culture except where the traditional Judeo Christian values of justice, equality and fairness were well established, safely in place and beyond any possible challenge. So what I am saying it that in the end even the proponents of “neutral values” would want these non- neutral values as much a the rest of us!