Friday, March 16, 2007

Moral Neutrality is a Myth

Greg Koukl, in his usual knowledgeable, factual way, expels the Myth of Moral Neutrality in his new column over at TownHall.com.

An excerpt:


Gen. Peter Pace was vehemently denounced and condemned earlier this week for expressing a personal moral judgment that homosexuality is immoral. The criticisms excoriated Pace for making a value judgment, while implying that the denunciations themselves were morally neutral. In reality, Pace’s critics expressed a moral judgment, too. They declared his comments wrong, not just factually but morally – and their moral outrage was palpable.

Let me make this clear up front: All people regardless of their sexual orientation or other differences should be treated fairly. We all have equal intrinsic value and dignity. But the goal of gay rights advocates isn't so much to gain rights they are being denied as to gain societal approval. Thus the loud denunciations when Pace made a moral judgment. All the while, these advocates claim that that theirs is the neutral moral position. It isn't, and really can't be. But their objection conveys a fundamental assumption of many in our society today that one side of the public debate is "pushing its morality" on society, when in fact that is what the nature of their advocacy accomplishes.


As Bill O'Reilly pointed out recently on his radio program, the S-P mentality is one that "doesn't want anyone to make any moral judgments on behavior." Koukl adeptly points out that the "secular progressive" counter-arguments ARE making THEIR OWN, SPECIFIC KIND of "moral" judgments upon those with which the S-P's disagree. O'Reilly also pointed out that the moral judgments being made by the religious (mostly conservative Christian) community are often those with which the S-P's want to eliminate from the public debate.

Keep this in mind the next time someone calls you "homophobic."

HT: TownHall.com

7 comments:

ebsfwan said...

Pace actually violated milatry law by making a public statement on his opinion whilst wearing his uniform.

But something he didn't mention is that the military often grants waivers to admit people who have criminal records, medical problems or low aptitude scores that would otherwise disqualify them from service. Overall the majority are moral waivers, which include some felonies, misdemeanors, and traffic and drug offenses.

So criminals are fine but gay people in legal relationships are not? Hypocrisy rears it's ugly head again.

Shame on him. Go read about Staff Sergeant Alva (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/28/gays.military/index.html) who lost his leg in Iraq. Then tell this brave man that his sacrifice is meaningless because he is gay.

People like Pace disgust me.

Pace is immoral.

Christinewjc said...

I will just answer your comment with a quoted comment found over at Townhall which was written by "servant":

"The point of the article is that while General Pace was making a moral judgment, so are his critics. So are you. (and, yes, I know, so am I.)

Greg is not saying that making judgments is wrong. He is saying that making judgments while claiming that you are not is wrong. And making a judgment to criticize General Pace for making a judgment is hypocritical."


Ebsfwan, you proved his point.

ebsfwan said...

True.

However, I don't abuse my position to heap abuse on my subordinates in a public forum.

Christinewjc said...

Ebsfwan,

You said that:

"People like Pace disgust me.

Pace is immoral."

And then you complain that "abuse is being heaped upon you."

What about the verbal abuse you just heaped upon General Pace?

Another thing. Gay people serve in the military all the time. The man (you mentioned) who lost his leg while serving honorably in Iraq should have no more, nor less accolades then any other person. The fact that he was gay shouldn't have any bearing on the situation.

The "don't ask, don't tell" policy is a good one. There are good reasons why such a policy is in place.

The way I see it is that a gay person can demonstrate a "higher calling," (for lack of a better word,) by abiding with the policy without complaining about it because serving his/her country is more important than the need to reveal his/her sexual proclivities. Those who want to be gay activists and break that rule should stay away. Just my opinion, of course.

Christinewjc said...

Pat Boone got it right!

When Brave Men Speak, Lesser Men Squeal

Excerpt:

I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral, and that we should not condone immoral acts."
– Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff


Hey, what ever happened to "political correctness," to the almost universal notion that personal convictions shouldn't ever be voiced publicly, for fear someone of a different persuasion might be offended? For that matter, who ever said that somebody could just sound off about his beliefs without the approval and authority of the government and all minority groups?

Oh, that's right … our Founding Fathers, the writers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That's who. I almost forgot.

Christinewjc said...

Another great article. Ted Byfield asks the pertinent questions in World Molds Church - Instead of Vice Versa.

He's got some truly great points!

Excerpt:

But what is the issue over which Bishop Ingham and those who think like him are prepared to forfeit their church's unity? It is the issue of sodomy, whether the sexual proclivities of something like 1 or 2 percent of the human race should be enshrined by Christians as acceptable or even, indeed, desirable. To assert this principle, they are prepared to wreck their church. The mind reels.

Moreover, rooted in the bishop's declaration is the assumption that we of the late 20th and early 21st century have discovered things about sex that Christians in the past didn't know. Just what those things are, he doesn't say, but it's worth asking.

Did the early Christians not know that some people had a sexual desire for persons of the same sex? As a matter of fact, they knew all about it, because many of them lived in a society that fully approved of it. Did they not know about sex outside marriage? They did indeed. Did they not know about abortion? They certainly did, and the people around them widely practiced it. So what are the sexual things that we know and they didn't know?

The answer is that we know nothing they didn't know. Then why should the church change its teaching?


Byfield goes on to say:

"Though the bishop doesn't say, we know his real reason. It's because society itself has changed. Society has reverted to the sexual standards of the pagan world, and the bishop wants the church to revert along with it. The church must adopt new attitudes towards sex, he says, by which he means the old pagan attitudes.

To the Christians, sexual activity is confined within marriage, and marriage in the view of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer has three purposes: 1. "For the hallowing of the union betwixt man and woman." (Sex in itself, that is, quite apart from producing children, is to be regarded as a "hallowed" act.) 2. For the procreation of children. 3. "For the mutual society, help and comfort that the one ought to have of the other, in both prosperity and adversity." This is the teaching that the bishop wants to scrap.

How different were the bishops who actually converted the pagan world. They saw the church as setting an example for the world to follow. Bishop Ingham sees the world as setting an example for the church to follow. Small wonder the world shows so little interest in such a church."

Christinewjc said...

Hal Lindsey:

Teaching our kids to lie