Category Archives: Editor

Human Trafficking

05 Friday Dec 2014

Posted by in Editor, Ethics, Morality

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

This is a letter I submitted to the Decatur, Illinois, Herald & Review Newspaper on December 1st. it was printed on 12/9.

Letter to editor,

In the November 30th issue of the Herald-Review there is an article on the growing problem of human trafficking. This is a moral evil that seeks to overpower others for the pleasure of some egotistical and economical reason. In the news report, this trafficking is called “the scourge of modern slavery.” Indeed it is.

Human trafficking is a moral evil, and I am able to identify it as such, based on a moral law that does not originate with man. The moral law of which I speak is that which originates with God. For instance, the Lord Jesus said something about a “golden rule” (Matthew 7:12) wherein people are to treat others like they would desire to be treated. Among the many other things the Lord said, this law will be a judge of man when life is over.

On the other hand, the atheistic/agnostic/secular (AAS) moral code by which our society lives proffers a law that is only self-serving. That which serves self-obligates a person to serve only self for hedonistic purposes.  Human trafficking is part and parcel of hedonism, seeking pleasure for self via whatever means are necessary.

If the AAS community has its own way, then the objective moral code that benefits man will be set to the side for purely selfish reasons. Every man, then, becomes a law unto himself, even if “every man” happens to be a community.

To judge something to be morally wrong there needs to be a standard that is higher than man’s. To use a standard set for by man to judge a moral evil (whether in the collective sense, or by an individual), is to use a standard that is arbitrary and evolving.

 

Secular Morality (Letter to Editor)

19 Wednesday Nov 2014

Posted by in Atheism, Editor, Morality

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, ,

Recently, in the Mattoon Journal-Gazette, there were two atheistic letters to the editor that intended to address my contention that the moral code of an atheist or agnostic is strictly that of one’s personal standard. Consequently, I maintained, there is no objective or transcendent moral standard by which one can judge something thought, said, or done by another as wrong – except that someone thinks it to be wrong.

One man took such great exception to my letter that he said I was “flippant” and “straw-manning” my opponent’s position. Building a straw-man was hardly the case! After reading what he had to say a couple of times, he still offered nothing better than an “I think” (subjective) approach concerning a moral standard of right and wrong. This is no surprise because the source from which one moves in an “I think” approach is nothing more that one’s personal perspective – and it can’t be any other way. He admits as much when he said, “That is to say morality is, inherently, from man.” He wants to have objectivity, but anything that originates with man can be nothing of the sort!

One woman took exception, as she always does, to my remark that atheists have no moral code that is objective or transcendent of man. I previously wrote: “Atheism, as an ideology, is devoid of a moral code that can, or will, benefit man.” I further commented that an atheist has to adopt another moral standard and make it their own in order to judge something wrong (or right). She didn’t care much for this so she proceeds to lay out a moral code with four points, all dealing with the consequences of actions (toward self, others, groups, and other living things). That which she offered, however, is nothing more than her personal perspective or opinion. Why does one need to think and operate in this way? Is it because there is some compelling reason outside of man that says as much, or is it because there is something inside man that judges such? What makes it obligatory? What she argued for is this: the consequences of one’s action, related to “harm,” is one’s moral standard (or code). I suppose, then, since it is “harmful” to correct a child (from the child’s perspective at least), then discipline is immoral.

A reply to me in the form of a letter to editor

31 Friday Oct 2014

Posted by in Behavior, Bulletin Article, Editor, Morality

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Not long ago there was a letter to the editor that took exception to that which I wrote. It was not a particularly strong exception, but one that was present just the same. In fact, one could read the letter and think it was but a “slap on the hands” given me.

I was grateful to read it and had hoped that others would give response to what I wrote more than just the one I have seen.

In any case, the gist of the letter was that 1) The “Catholic Church has and will continue to maintain that Holy Matrimony is indissoluble between one man and one woman,” and 2) “[e]very effort must be undertaken in these contemporary times to engage those who profess perfectly or imperfectly their faith in Christ.”

Without dealing with the first point, let me address the second. It is true that the Lord’s church should seek to make a positive difference in the lives of those who struggle with sin. This approach not only applies to those outside of Christ, but those in Christ who continue to struggle. The nature of the sin is immaterial, struggling with whatever it is – people need an answer and a spiritual place where others can assist. Who of us can’t relate with such a sentiment?

Being able to relate is tremendously important, but no saint should even entertain the thought, much less speak it, that it is okay to compromise the Lord’s way for the benefit of making oneself acceptable to a larger number of people. Frankly put, there is no way we can improve upon the Lord’s message and method, so we ought not to try. Yes, it may be true, that more flies will be caught with honey than with some other trap – but a trap is all that it is. It is a feigned effort with a disguise that will fall off.

Letter to editor

03 Friday Oct 2014

Posted by in Editor, Morality, Wisdom

≈ 17 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

Is it not interesting to hear atheists/agnostics speak of morality? In their elitism, they speak about that which they do not subscribe, as if they even know about that which they speak. The arrogance of it is a marvel. We are told, “[t]he very thought that there are no moral absolutes, in spite of what many religious leaders and other claim, is anathema to them.” I wonder if this is an absolute, and she is certain of it!

As has been said many times previous, morality comes from man, or not man. These are the only two options available for intelligible conversation. If it comes from man, then all is subjective, and Hitler (Stalin, etc.) did nothing morally wrong. If one asserts that they did, by what standard will the judgment be made?

If morality comes from “not man,” what is the source? Since atheists and agnostics have no source outside their personal “I think,” they are then unable to ascertain a source that can have any objectivity, and thereby benefit man. Would they offer rocks and dirt as the source, or the beasts of the field? Perhaps they would offer us the moon and the stars as a source?

Atheism, as an ideology, is devoid of a moral code that can, or will, benefit man. All the atheist can do is adopt the Christian moral code, and then ridicule others for their adoption of it. But, then, should we be surprised by such an empty ideology?

Printed 10.1.2014 in the Mattoon Journal-Gazette

Same-Sex Marriages are Self-Defeating

21 Saturday Jul 2012

Posted by in Editor

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Letter to editor,

When one brings the Scripture into the public discourse I read and seriously consider what is proffered. The other day I was disappointed at what I read. For instance, it was stated that “…it is false to state, as a politician recently did…”, yet I read no demonstration of what the politician said as being false, only an assertion of it. Moreover, it was stated that it is not a fact that from the beginning it “has been ‘one man, one woman, life-time monogamy.”

With regard to what a particular politician said, I can’t comment. With regard to the second remark, however, I can.

When God created man he created them male and female, and it was God who brought them together. As the saying goes, there was no Adam and Steve, but Adam and Eve. From the beginning it was one man for one woman for life, and this fact is indisputable. Since that time, however, man has set his course upon his own destruction. This is not only illustrated shortly after the time of creation, but also seen in great men like King David. The notion of there being a homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan is as far from the truth as Satan is from God. Though the comments of the one who submitted the thoughts did not ascribe to them such, it is often the case that many do.

If marriage is strictly a matter of legality and the community, then there is no rational reason to deny those who desire to have multiple spouses. None! On the other hand, if marriage is defined by God, then the matter becomes a moral issue and is taken out of the hands of the created. If the created insist upon its own definition, then it is nothing more than what one can read in Scripture when man corrupted the ways of God. For this they will be called to an account.

Same-sex marriages are, by necessity, self-defeating; they can’t perpetuate their physical existence except via artificial means, and their behavioral choices will always be contrary to nature. So, it may be the desire of the community to perpetuate moral evil, but what will God’s desire then be?

Submitted to Mattoon-Charleston Gazette 6.25.2012, printed 7.20.2012