Picking and Choosing – Our Moral Dilemma
Deborah Venable
05/09/08
Identifying
a moral dilemma that demands legal or social action these days is getting
trickier and trickier – especially when it concerns children. With more and more of our traditional “moral
grounding” being questioned or totally ignored, it is no wonder.
The
state of Texas has its hands full with the recent raid on the religious
compound housing some four hundred plus children and the subsequent removal of
those children from a possibly dangerous setting. If these children have been abused via a religious conduit of
unacceptable practices, it is good that they have been spared further
abuse. But that requires a firm grasp
of moral code to determine, doesn’t it?
And what would that standard be and from where does it emanate?
From
all I can understand about this case, the alleged abuse stems from a norm being
deviated from – specifically, sex with and impregnation of minor children by
grown adults is morally wrong and illegal in all fifty states. Our courts and prisons are full of cases
prosecuting those who break this law in every community – religious or
otherwise – so it is pretty clear-cut that the majority of people agree with
that particular moral standard being enforced.
Polygamy
is another social no-no that many do not see the value in, but that laws have
been passed to prohibit. According to
the modern mainstream American philosophy, multiple sex partners is expected
and accepted – just don’t marry more than one.
If you do marry one, it is also expected and somewhat accepted that you
will not be faithful, but if you get caught, the courts will help your spouse
dispose of the marriage and anything else the offended spouse wants from
you. Even the definition of marriage
has been up in the air for some time now (with the one man and one woman part
placed in jeopardy) while sexual identity issues are being forcibly normalized
in society.
Everywhere
we hear cries for privacy rights, civil rights, freedom of choice, parental rights,
and separation of religion from politics.
Okay, so if morals are not supposed to be dictated by religion, and laws
are made to defend morals – where DO morals come from?
Human
beings are not born morally sentient.
Human
beings ARE born with souls that are readily accepting of moral boundaries but
those moral lessons must be taught.
The
whole foundation of mandated public education in this country was based on
having a public that was literate enough to read the Bible. Look it up if you don’t believe me. That was the main concern of the Founders
because they knew that a moral society would be required to steward the
freedoms they were constituting in law.
So,
I ask again – where do morals come from?
Whose
interpretation of God or no God do we follow to find our perfect peaceful and
moral coexistence? Who gets to decide
what is right or wrong or even if there is such a thing? These are old questions that are constantly
being answered in different ways - hence our “moral” dilemma.
As
we hear more and more that the state knows best in regard to the education of
our children, parental rights are in jeopardy and society is losing its moral
conscience to a secular worldview – one that will not hesitate to eventually
put every belief system on trial and require a defense of traditions.
“In
the best interest of the children” was the defense used to raid the compound in
Texas and remove those children to the protective custody of the state. The best interest of the children is ignored
whenever children are inundated with state sanctioned instruction on the
normalcy and acceptance of such behavior as homosexuality. The best interest of the children is used to
decide who gets custody of children in the event of their parents’ divorce,
while the best interest of the children is obviously ignored in the legal
defense of abortion.
In
the “it takes a village” view of raising children, often the priorities or
choice of parents take a back seat to whatever the state decides is “best” for
all children, but when a “village” does attempt to raise their children, (as in
the cases of religious cult societies) according to the collective view of that
community, the state rushes in to save the children from THAT village and their
parents.
We
could get into many more specifics that illustrate a paradox of sorts in
defining our moral dilemma – all because too much of our society has decided to
fight about where morals come from.
More specifically, they insist that God does not figure in the picture.
Rationalizing
the existence of right and wrong is pointless if we cannot tie the definitions
to a superior source and at the same time not convolute the whole process with
diverse religious interpretations. The
religious freedom enjoyed in America is unequaled anywhere else in the world,
but it borders on the dangerous to extract the fundamental belief system that
formed the nation in favor of absolute secularism. The “grounding” influence of religion cannot be denied, but the
destructive results of ruling under a narrow religious mandate, (such as
Shari’ah or Islamic Law) is troubling to say the least. Likewise, we certainly wouldn’t want
“Fundamentalists” from any of man’s hard-core religious interpretations to
govern America – including that of the “village” in Texas.
So,
how do we go about picking and choosing the dogma that will influence American
government and lead us out of our moral dilemma?
I
don’t think we have the tolerance to decide – and maybe that is a good
thing. Perhaps the real answer lies in
determining that morals do exist and they had to come from somewhere. Sifting through ancient texts, such as the
Bible, can’t help but point out some universal truths about the origin and the
value of certain moral tenets. Our
Founders certainly accepted that, and it worked for them.