Tag Archives: morality

Atheism and Christianity Compared — One View

4 Jan

I have seen two or three blog-posts recently that try to either reconcile or differentiate the ethical and moral beliefs of atheists and Christians.  I think this is because atheists are making louder noises about their desire to not be bothered by religion.  Recognizing the right of people to choose atheism over theism, and having come into Christianity from a position of agnosticism (fence-sitting) myself, I would like to present my own view of the implications of growing atheism in this country and abroad.

It may well be that a current-day atheist has a moral value system that approximates that of a Christian (or exceeds that of a Christian, depending upon how low you set the bar in order to qualify someone as a Christian).  However, it seems to me that the logical conclusion a society reaches as it  slides into an atheistic philosophy is a realization that nothing matters.  Nothing.

With no directed purpose to civilization, with our lives being perceived as less than a nanosecond in a sea of meaningless time and eternal nothingness, what is the motivation to even stay alive, much less to help others stay alive – simply fear of the inevitable personal annihilation/nothingness?  Do we not see this creeping syndrome in the abortion statistics already?  The only thing that would hold an atheistic civilization together would be the need to hang together in a cooperative manner to survive.

Murder, for example, would not be a moral dilemma, but rather a practical decision – does this person being considered for murder add value to society, or not?  If not, why not just terminate him/her?  It’s not like (s)he is preparing for anything.  We have seen the extinction of millions upon millions of humans throughout history for expediency, have seen it on a grand scale even within the last century, and still see it today – the powerful who have no sense of the sanctity of human life viciously prey upon the weak without hesitation.

Without a divine purpose and related moral law, there is nothing.  Who cares if you make someone else’s life easier or harder, when neither your life nor theirs has any lasting importance?  Why do we search for cures to illnesses, when life is without purpose, and has no value within a value system founded outside and above our selves?  Letting a sick person die leaves more resources for others.  Likewise, when a person ceases to be productive by getting too old, or becoming disabled, why not simply kill them and preserve resources for others (as has happened in many societies throughout history, especially with slaves)?  If we don’t want a higher population, or don’t want as many girls, or as many boys, just kill the fetuses/babies, for within nature they are no more important than ants, to be snuffed out at will.

Even if there really was no God, atheists should hope beyond hope that moral and ethical foundations always exist that are based upon belief in a divine being who cares about people and outcomes here on earth, and encourages people to look beyond the here and now.  The alternative is much worse than the implication of government death panels under Obamacare – and much, much worse than the simple inconvenience of having to be exposed to someone’s religious beliefs.

Lucky for them (and for all of us, of course), atheists today are surrounded by such moral and ethical religious foundations in most countries – to one extent or another.  In America, atheists should not only be thankful for religion that affirms the sanctity of life and gives eternal purpose to life (and thus to us poor humans) but thankful for a Constitution that protects their right to believe and express whatever they want to about God and religion.  A marvel, really, when we consider that the founders were overwhelmingly believers in God.


Push Back Against Moral Relativism

27 Dec

From a recent blog post by Enza Ferreri:

[Start excerpt]

I conclude with Matt Barber, who writes in WND’s article “America’s chief export: Immorality”:

Indeed, under this president, America’s chief export has become immorality. Sexual deviancy, murder of the unborn, redistribution of wealth and other evils have been sanitized and propagandized as “basic human rights.”

Thus, when this arrogant man stands before the U.N. and decries those nations that refuse to embrace his special brand of pagan relativism, we shouldn’t be surprised if those nations push back.

And so they push back…

For instance, there has been, of late, great weeping and gnashing of teeth among mainstream media – and other circles of intolerant “tolerance” – over successful efforts by several foreign governments to stem the tide of “LGBT” propaganda within their own sovereign borders.

Russia, India, Croatia, Peru, Jamaica and even Australia, for instance, along with other nations, are now moving to inoculate themselves from the fast-metastasizing cancer of sexual relativism.

Having witnessed, from afar, the poisonous results of such propaganda here in the U.S. (the hyper-sexualization of children, the deconstruction of natural marriage and family, the rampant spread of sexually transmitted disease, religious persecution and the like), there seems an emerging global recognition that the radical “LGBT” agenda – a pet cause of Obama’s – is not about securing “human rights,” but, rather, is about promulgating moral wrongs.

The world is finding that forcing others to “tolerate” – indeed, to celebrate – unfettered licentiousness, under penalty of law, is as harmful to society as is said licentiousness to those who practice it…

While America may be lost (though I pray not), it would seem that her traditional values – values still shared by many, if not most, of the American people – are, nonetheless, gaining momentum abroad.

And that is encouraging.

Now let’s pray those values come full circle.

[End of excerpt]

Read more: http://enzaferreri.blogspot.com/2013/12/for-sexual-relativism-tide-is-turning.html#ixzz2oi4i8nDR
Follow us: @EnzaFerreri on Twitter | enza.ferreri on Facebook

“That’s Unconstitutional!” Do We Care?

9 Nov

Walter Williams recently wrote a column titled “Our Deviant Society” that I thought was really good.  He gives several examples of presidential “lawlessness”, but I have included his closing remarks below.  You can see the entire column at


At the end of this essay, speaking about some of the unconstitutional actions this president has taken:

“Whether [or not] the president’s actions were good or bad ideas . . .is irrelevant. What’s relevant is whether we want to establish a precedent whereby a president, who has no constitutional authority to repeal parts of congressional legislation, can grant special favors and rule by presidential decree like Third World tyrants.

“I don’t hold President Obama completely responsible for his unconstitutional actions. It’s the American people who are to blame, for it is we who have lost our morality and our love, knowledge and respect for our Constitution, laying the foundation for Washington tyranny. It is all part and parcel of “defining deviancy down,” which is the term former U.S. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan coined in 1993 to describe how we’ve switched from moral absolutes to situational morality and from strict constitutional interpretation to the Constitution’s being a “living document.” Constitutional principles that do not allow one American to live at the expense of another American are to be held in contempt. Today’s Americans have betrayed the values that made us a great nation, and that does not bode well for future generations.”

[End of excerpt]

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

I particularly love the phrase “defining deviancy down” attributed to Patrick Moynihan.  Isn’t it so true?  Couldn’t we each come up with a dozen (or more?) areas where this has occurred?  Not all change is bad, of course, but who cannot see that a slide toward moral relativity undermines the very traits that made this country great, powerful, prosperous, generous, and a symbol for freedom-loving people throughout the world?

“Truth or Consequences” — Lies with No Consequences?

1 Nov

“During an age of near-universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act, often punishable by excoriation, imprisonment, or even by death.”

Some attribute a statement something like this to George Orwell, but serious researchers don’t seem to be able to find anything like it in his writings.  However, not knowing the actual author doesn’t make it untrue.

It may be my imagination, but we seem to moving more and more into a world where lies and deceit are becoming the expectation, and hard truths are few and far between — sometimes because the unvarnished truth does not serve to promote the agenda of the speaker/writer, and sometimes because we fear to boldly present the truth because of the expected backlash from ideologues or the PC Police.

And who will now believe us even if we DO boldly present the truth?  Isn’t this the proof of the problem — that there is so much deceitfulness in the land, and the world, that we now can’t fully believe ANYone with whom we are not intimately acquainted?

Sad day at Black Rock when we cannot trust any of our leaders. pundits, MSM announcers, and others whom Americans tend/want to hold in high esteem to “give it to us straight”.  I believe it seriously undermines the  very foundation and character of our culture.

And we should NEVER accept lies and deceit as the new norm — we should call them out whenever, and wherever, we find them.

On the larger stage, what difference does it make if we elect someone who “saves America”, if we have become so morally bankrupt that we are not really worth saving as a people?

Why Do I Feel So Bummed Out?

29 Aug

 I can’t watch the live, or near-live, coverage of the Republican National Convention.   And I certainly won’t watch the Democratic National Convention.  It’s almost more than I can bear to just watch the highlights.  Why is that?  I am highly concerned about the direction this nation is taking – you name the issue.  Is ANYthing going really well?

 So I should be excited about the Republican offensive against the president, the Democrats, and the Administration, right? 

 I suppose so, except that 1) we don’t know that our guys are giving us the truth any more than the liberals are, 2) even if they are, we can’t really know that they are, and 3) even if “the good guys” win, will they actually step forward and undertake solutions to the serious financial, moral, and economic problems faced by America, or will they just continue to hunker down to protect their jobs?

 I am so weary of, ashamed of, and disappointed in, the constant flow of lies and exaggerations flowing out of politicians and commentators these days that it takes a real effort even to watch the news, be it Fox News, the MSM, CNN, whatever.

 Oh, I still have my favorite essayists and commentators, people I consider to provide more of a rational viewpoint than the common group of liars – people like Thomas Sowell, Linda Chavez, John Stossel, Walter Williams, Mona Charen, Michael Barone, and a few others.  Sometimes, though, even my favorites seem to crawl into the gutter.

 While I am writing this — just this very moment —  I had to click off the TV as Boehner was being broadcast making yet another attack on Obama based on the president’s gaffe, “you didn’t build that” – which really does refer back to the roads and bridges, not to the small businesses.  Obama’s statement still was wrong (after all, whose money built the roads and bridges, if not the money of the taxpayers, which includes small-business owners), but it’s also wrong to blatantly misrepresent what the president was trying to say.  And, of course, Ann Romney used the gaffe in her otherwise-excellent speech, as well [saw it on the “highlights”.].

 I hate it.  A profession that requires a practitioner to depend on lies, illusions, exaggerations, obfuscations, twisted statistics, and personal attacks in order to be successful has to be inherently evil.

 Doesn’t it?

Can Moral Issues be Separated from Economic Issues?

5 Jun

Star Parker, the well-known black conservative activist, recently wrote the following as part of an op-ed piece she wrote abouot morality, secularism, and abortion rights.  [In this article, she points out that a plurality of Americans have moral issues with abortion, and that over 13 million abortions per year have been performed in China under the “one child policy”.  [Bolding is mine.}

Those who insist that social and moral issues constitute an agenda separate and apart from economic issues should consider why socialist societies are secular, atheist societies. We need not be limited to looking at China and the former Soviet Union to appreciate this. On display today is the tragic collapse of Europe, now largely secular, under the burdens of the unsustainable welfare state it has created.

“It is societies that respect both life and property, societies in which the mystery of life is revered and respected, that nurture a culture of personal responsibility that make a free and prosperous nation possible.”

Any thoughts to add?

Gallup Poll on Abortion — I Was Surprised

24 May

As vitriolic as the argument gets when abortion rights becomes the topic, you would think that the dominant feeling in America is that “Pro-Choice” is clearly the leading ideology, and that “Pro-Life” is a position held only by a small minority of neanderthals.  So check this out.

Latest Gallup poll on the topic shows that 50% declare themselves as “Pro-Life”, as against 41% who declare for “Pro-Choice”.  [Margin of error is + or – 4 points.]

Frankly, I am one of those who, from listening to, and reading, the media, thought that “Pro-Lifers” were just that far-right-wing Tea Party bunch.  But I guess not.

We would expect a strong majority of Republicans to be “Pro-Life”, and a strong majority of Democrats to be “Pro-Choice”.  And they are.  But the Independents break for “Pro-Life” over “Pro-Choice” by 47% to 41%.

Moreover, abortion is still considered to be a moral issue.  Over half of polled Americans (51%) consider abortion to be morally wrong, whereas “only” 38% declare abortion morally acceptable.  Oddly, I believe this indicates that even some who are “Pro-Choice” feel that abortion is morally wrong?

Nevertheless, most Americans (52%) feel that abortion “should be legal under some circumstances”.  Interestingly, only 20% feel that abortion “should be legal under all circumstances”.  So about half of the “Pro-Choicers” out there feel that there should be constraints.  This may be in synch with there being “Pro-Choicers” who, nonetheless, feel that abortion is morally wrong.

Your views?