Over the weekend, I posted a link on Facebook to an article of interest to social conservatives. According to Gallup, the percentage of those supporting abortion on demand has dropped to record lows. To introduce the article, I typed this small blurb: “If people vote morality as the number one issue, America’s looking at an Administration change in November.” A couple of people clicked “Like,” hundreds of others ignored my post or thought to themselves politely, “Here Bryan goes again,” and one typed the following response, “I disagree with that statement. People interpret morality differently. President Obama actually embodies my moral priorities more than any of the opposing candidates.” And now I write about confronting liberalism.
In my humble opinion, the philosophy “people interpret morality differently” reeks of relativism, but instead of responding in that manner I countered with, “You’ve got to be kidding me…..He’s the most pro-abortion candidate of all time. He supports homosexual marriage. And according to a 2004 interview, he defines sin as ‘being out of alignment with his own values.’ God sets the standards for what is and is not sin…” And a bit later I added, “And lastly, our President made the following statement in a speech recently, ‘You’re the tie-breaker You’re the ultimate arbiter of which direction this country goes.’ Have any guesses who he said that to? Hollywood celebrities dining at a $40,000 per plate fundraiser. We want Hollywood to dictate the direction of this Country? If so, may God have mercy on our souls.”
Let’s take a look at the definition of arbiter. First, it’s a person empowered to decide matters at issue; judge; umpire. Secondly, it’s a person who has the sole or absolute power of judging or determining. I find it difficult to turn over the reigns to Hollywood celebrities in hopes that they hold the key to a brighter future for America. Erika Johnsen from Hotair.com writes, “These wealthy Hollywood types seem to dearly love their Occupy-solidarity and their “war on women” and their extreme environmentalism, issues about which most Americans don’t care at all.” If Hollywood only understood the dangerous path our President hopes to drag America down, but instead of investigating the direful outcome of a socialist nation, they sit around banquet tables toasting their “make believe” clout over the average American citizen.
Lastly, these supposed morals our President espouses wanders greatly from the Word of God. Remember the day that Mr. Obama announced a press conference to herald his “evolving” view on same sex marriage? Do you recall how he consulted with his wife and kids about his decision? I found that odd at the time, especially involving his girls in such a controversial matter. A short time later, that huddled family conference made more sense. I stumbled across an article in which the First Family shared some personal insights about their television viewing. Mrs. Obama and the girls describe themselves as “Card Carrying Modern Family” addicts. That’s quite possibly where the girls adopted their positive opinion of homosexual marriage.
Focus on the Family shares the following on “Plugged In,” a Christian’s guide to all things media. Mitchell and Cameron (gay cohabitants and parents of a child on the show), then, are now just part of the landscape. And that says a lot not just about how TV has changed, but also how it—by presenting shows like Modern Family—has helped normalize homosexuality. What the Bible clearly defines as sin, our society chooses to call an alternative lifestyle. Those who embrace this lie, slap God squarely on the face.
Commissioning the likes of Sarah Jessica Parker to shoulder the responsibility of deciding America’s course frightens me. Tree hugging and saving the endangered Swamp Shrew won’t right America’s ship. Focusing on God and the principles of our Founders’ holds the key to our Country’s greatness, not $40,000 dollar plates in the home of a star from “Sex and the City.”
You said it! I agree with you 100% on all the wonderful points you made in this post. More people need to speak up like you have done here. The very foundation of our civil society depends on our moral disciplines! Keep it up, Bryan.
You said it! I agree with you 100% on all the wonderful points you made in this post. More people need to speak up like you have done here. The very foundation of our civil society depends on our moral disciplines! Keep it up, Bryan.
I would assert that the only way we can talk about morality in a way that makes sense to people who do not share our worldview is to talk about it in terms of violating our personal values. Ultimately, you may not agree on every issue with the Christian sitting next to you in the pew, but if you both appeal to the Bible as the highest authority on values and moral conduct, it can dictate your conversation. However, even the Bible can be interpreted differently. Reading from Genesis through to Revelation can sound quite different from beginning in John, Luke, or the Pauline Epistles and reading outward. This “problem” with the Bible is one of the main causes of so many different denominations today. Now, when we introduce people who have been burned by their church experiences, when we introduce people who do not choose to ascribe to the Bible as the source of values and morality, the picture becomes even more fractured. Even if we adopt someone else’s or some organization’s or some denomination’s views as our own, our sense of morality, those times when we feel guilt, is still derived from the values we hold as our own. I don’t feel guilty about doing something if I don’t think it matters, regardless of where my sense of morality/values comes from.
Would you assert that people from different religions lack a sense of morality? If not, how would you describe where their morality comes from? I think most humans agree on 80-90% of their values/morality, even if they don’t agree on what the “proper” source of those values/morality might be. We fight like it is life and death over the potential “normalization” of a couple of sin issues, while we refuse to wrestle with others: How do we deal with Divorce, Gluttony (obesity), Envy, Gossip, The Love of Money, and the general desire for power within the church, let alone in our society? How do we deal with our reputation for not being loving? Does it matter that no one believes that our concern for their immortal souls derives from a concern born out of love for them? Does it matter that youth inside our church think that our activities may be more about trying to score points with God than communicating love?
Ultimately, why do we think anyone should listen to us, why should we presume to dictate morality in this country when we do not have our own house in order? Not only do we struggle to co-operate and get along within a given denomination, but we can’t even reflect our savior enough to love and worship with our brothers and sisters from different denominations who freely acknowledge Jesus as Lord. Instead we publicly question their faith or sanity. My challenge is this: learn to love anyone who calls on the name of God, who calls Jesus his/her savior. Once we do that, once people see Christianity as a good, loving community, then we will have a voice to suggest values that they may want to adopt. (I would point out that this is more or less how we got started in the first place).
Fact is, though, that the commenter is correct, and you haven’t said anything that actually contradicts that. To recap, the comment was, “I disagree with that statement. People interpret morality differently. President Obama actually embodies my moral priorities more than any of the opposing candidates.”
Your interpretation is that “morality” has something to do with the “word of god” (ie. the Bible), but even that supposed “word” is open to interpretation. Different churches interpret it and its teachings in different ways – compare and contrast the approaches of the episcopal and catholic churches to homosexuality, for example. I’m sure you have your own beliefs that are different to both. All claim the Bible as the source of their beliefs. People interpret morality differently.
As an atheist myself, my interpretation of what morality means is vastly different to yours. Personally I define morality as acting in a way that avoids harming others. It’s a simple definition but I find it covers every scenario. Consequently, I don’t see homosexuality as falling in the moral sphere at all – it’s not that it is “moral” or “immoral” – homosexual acts between consenting adults do not harm anyone, so morality doesn’t enter into the question.
It’s not a question of relativism, and the fact that you bring it up implies that you’ve misunderstood what the commenter was saying. Not everyone thinks the same way as you. People interpret morality differently – that’s a fact.
Bryan, couldn’t agree with you more. Thank you. Spot on, my brother. I especially liked, …”that says a lot not just about how TV has changed, but also how it—by presenting shows like Modern Family—has helped normalize homosexuality. What the Bible clearly defines as sin, our society chooses to call an alternative lifestyle.”
The heading of your post intrigued me. Since I have been on my sabbatical from blogging, I have only read two posts since May 16, and yours is one of them. Keep writing, my friend. And help me keep the left-winged radicals at bay.