Tag Archives: letter to editor

Incontrovertible Truths (Letter to Editor)

26 Tuesday May 2015

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

With regard to that which Ireland recently did, that is, passed a law that allows homosexual marriage (A-6, 5.24.2015) there are some things that can be said about that. First, the island is predominantly Catholic, and since the influence of the Catholic Church is of some note, it must be the case that their influence in this realm failed. Second, homosexual marriage is the different side of the same coin that also includes the intimate union of heterosexual relationships of unmarried people. Third, there is no possible way for same-sex unions to perpetuate human existence. Fourth, closely following the third point, same-sex unions are completely unnatural. Fifth, and last, same-sex unions are immoral. The last four of the five points proffered are incontrovertible in truth; they can be easily sustained in debate.

The Lord’s influence, though rejected by society (including Ireland’s), will not be rejected when He calls to account the life people have chosen to live. We will all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. Some choose not to be prepared.

Submitted 5.26.2015 to the Decatur Herald & Review

Much at stake (Letter to editor)

30 Thursday Apr 2015

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Letter to editor

What is at stake with regard to the issue of same-sex marriage before the United States Supreme Court? There is more at stake than is realized by some. In an Associated Press article by Mark Sherman, there is a summary of the constituent points concerning the issue before the Court. Those who support gay-marriage argue that states do not have “any valid reason” to prohibit marriage to same-sex couple because it is their “pursuit of happiness.” Moreover, the denial makes them (homosexuals) “second-class citizens of same-sex couples and their families.”

There are two replies to this. First, with regard to there being no valid reason to prohibit same-sex marriage, there is very much a valid reason. It is called morality! If there is an objective/transcendent standard of right and wrong (and I have and will continue to argue for such), then behavior contrary to that standard is immoral. On the other hand, in a society such as ours that currently exists, we live on the basis of no morality at all, or a morality that is relative to the subject. In effect, what is right and what is wrong is undetermined until the community codifies a standard that is strictly arbitrary to wants, wishes, and dislikes. This promotes moral chaos.

With such a philosophy in place, if one determines his own right or a wrong, the arbitrary approach to morality produces no morality at all. It is nothing more than a squeaky wheel getting grease!

Thus, this brings me to the second point of reply. The moniker “second-class” citizen is as substantive as submarine with a “screen-door” hatch! It is a sinking ship. This is nothing more than a made-up reply to gather sympathy from people.

Submitted to Decatur Herald-Review (4.27.2015)

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.

A Recent Letter to Editor

24 Tuesday Apr 2012

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Letter to editor,

If you are a political candidate for office would it be proper to ask about the moral code upon which your moral decisions are made? Sure it would, but in the national picture some do not want to tread into rough waters about such things. “Gay marriage is already a big issue in a handful of states that have it on their ballots in November, including Maine, where Obama was headlining two fundraisers Friday. He was not expected to wade into the issue during his remarks” (“Obama may face jam on gay marriage issue,” JG-TC, p. A-6, 3/31/2012).

That President Obama’s moral code is evolving he readily admits (at least with regard to one topic). Why was it evolving, you might ask? Presumably because the moral code that helps him make many decisions in his life is something he is not too sure about.

Not too long ago there was a reasonable attempt in the letters to the editor section that sought to delineate how conservatives and liberals viewed morality. While it was a reasonable attempt, and one that many could tweak to be more accurate, it failed in the ultimate foundational aspect of what morality is and why it exists. If the state (or community) determines morality, then that determination has its basis in man’s thinking. Thus, what today is moral could very well be, by tomorrow, immoral. Morality, in this case, is an evolving hypothesis.

When a person’s moral code evolves the impermanent quality of its substantive teaching brings degenerate behavior; this is necessarily the case. Yet, when man (either singularly or as a society) is the basis of a moral code that evolves there is nothing that can be permanent about it. This is also the case because morality is based upon a thinking subject (person) who does evolve his thinking as he matures. This is the nature of life.

On the other hand, when morality is based on a transcendent being (God), whose being is the very substance of what is right, then man’s moral code is firmly in place, with no evolving.  While the president might have an evolving moral code, with God there is none. I think I will align myself where no evolution takes place.

Submitted 4/12/2012 to the Mattoon Journal-Gazette, printed 4/23/2012