One will hear people in the public sector of the community speak about morality in such a way there is no doubt about the moral standard used to judge an action wrong.

For instance, “Appearing alongside a deacon and other religious leaders at a Capitol Hill news conference on Tuesday, Booker said that in a ‘moral moment,’ one is called to either fight against ‘evil’ or be ‘complicit’ in it”.

Why was this a moral matter? Because it was asserted the Judge Kavenough of the DC Court of Appeal would role back voting rights, gay rights, civil rights, reproductive rights and access to healthcare. What was the evidence for this hysterical moment of the Senator from New Jersey? To complicate his unhinged remark, he referred to a portion of Psalm 23, “we are walking through the valley of the shadow of death” attributing the words to Abraham (see link above). It appears some fellow senators are distancing themselves from him and also mocking him.

It appears the senator knows little of his own moral code except it be politically based. Moreover, there is no chance he could defend his moral code in public dispute as being anything objective, transcendent and obligatory on any other person – except to compel others to submit by force of arms or the Law. As Dr. Robert Price would argue, emptily I might say, this is a social contract that some few people (elitists) would compel on others.

In Ohio, a text was put on administrative leave because in her classroom she gave the students a moral test. Parents were outraged.

With regard to the report and two of the questions, I understand why some parents might have seen this as troubling. One question read: “Using both a condom and a pill, a brother and a sister decide that they want to sleep with each other — just once, to see what it would be like.” The student was asked if this was OK or Not OK, with varied options in-between.

Is it okay? Not a chance! Yet, many in the community would fail this simple test because, like Senator Booker, their moral compass is fluid, it’s based on what many others are saying. Even if one thought it to be wrong, on what basis would the one who thinks it to be wrong say that it’s wrong?

Here is another question that stirred some of the parents: “Sarah’s dog has four puppies. She can only find a home for two of them, so she kills the other two with a stone to the head.”

Okay, I get it. It is troubling to have to consider a question like this, whether it is okay or not okay or somewhere in-between. I am sure, however, some of those who would be troubled by this question are the same as those who support killing innocent children in the womb! Consider the following link.

Some liberals consider this not wrong at all – so why the outrage with killing puppies?

I will tell you why. From the Lord’s perspective, the value of a human life is far greater than the value of an animal, but animals should not be abused in any sort of way. The Lord created them for man’s use, not abuse. What rights do animals have? There is nothing in animals that are associated with inherent rights, or the ethical principles of freedom associated with right and wrong. Animals are amoral.

A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast; But the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel. (Proverbs 12:10, ASV). Notice the word “righteous.” A righteous man will take care of his animals, his livestock; he will care for them in a way that allows their life longevity and productivity. The word righteous, however, can’t be properly understood outside the ways of God. When used and defined by man, the definition is like a piece of driftwood on the waters, going back and forth until water-logged and sinks.

Many in our community would fail a moral test, even those who consider themselves well-informed on such matters. RT