Thursday, February 14, 2013
Commentary on Article
I came across this article at Catholics United for the Faith website and wanted to take a closer look at the meaning behind some of the statements. Let me know if I'm jumping the gun or they are beating around the bush or neither.
The title is The Art of Living: Whose Rights? The Paradox of Moral Relativism
The Holy Cross is a great paradox that good Christians embrace every day. The Holy Cross is the sign of sacrificial love that can foster freedom in the ART OF LIVING while fulfilling our purpose in life to KNOW, LOVE, and SERVE the Lord.
The purpose of a knife is to cut our food into bite sizes in order to eat. Why would someone choose a spoon when they need a knife? They would not be able to eat at all. In fact, they would become extremely burdened in the process of trying to cut their meat with a spoon. So why would a Christian bargain with morality when morality points to the good actions we can take in fulfilling our purpose in life?
It is apparent that relativists want to suppress morality but this article some how...seems to suggest there is a way to bargain with them. Maybe it comes from hope in a change of heart or prayers. Nevertheless, I feel there is too much dependence on immoral leaders posed by some of the statements or questions in this article. Therefore, if you gain any insight from my analysis...please share.
To begin, the article poses a question: "Whose rights are protected in a relativistic culture?" If the answer isn't learned by now, many are being deceived. The rights of individuals who put morality up for a vote are the ones whose rights are protected because they don't have to follow a higher order or have faith in God. It becomes obvious that they have a deep hatred for true wisdom which is knowledge in relation to the God of Israel. The Christian becomes the enemy precisely because they do not believe morality should be put up for a vote. It is the Christian who gets blamed for the ills that happen in society by the sheer power of immoral people put into the highest leadership roles. They claim the Christian is intolerant when it comes to destructive behavior/sin but they assign a different title to the sin...like marriage equality, etc. to justify their claims. They also attempt to make past ills of society resurface (slavery, racism) by describing behaviors that have nothing to do with the past ill. As long as the attempt suppresses Christian morality...than it is a right to elevate the unjust claim into the consciousness of society.
The article answers this question with many interesting questions. The first paragraph reads... "It is precisely on this point that relativistic societies face a serious dilemma: How does a community arbitrate various individuals' competing interests? There is much rhetoric in our modern world about protecting human rights and every individual's freedom, but what if one person or group wants to do something that is directly opposed to someone else's values or interests? How does a society decide whose "right" or whose "freedom of choice" will be protected?"
The relativistic society does not face a dilemma but faces destruction and injustice when morality and freedom are shut out. Therefore, immoral leaders must be prevented...not bargained with to prevail over...but taught the right approach to solve problems in order to serve justice. It is the Christian who is forced to face a dilemma from their freedoms being denied them little by little. It is a dilemma to the Christian's art of living (title) not a dilemma to the relativist. In fact, most of them take joy in seeing the Christian suppressed. The immoral leader is not concerned with the destruction and injustice he/she causes because it doesn't affect them...at first.
"How does a community arbitrate various individuals' competing interests?" The answer is...The community is prevented from making decisions and the Christian is oppressed when power is taken away from the citizenry according to the arbitrating immoral leaders. It is the immoral leaders who arbitrate various individuals' competing interests...always suppressing those who favor morality.
"How does a society decide whose "right" or whose "freedom of choice" will be protected?" They don't decide because the tyrannical immoral leaders will decide for them.
The article states..."How does a relativistic society determine whose freedom of choice will be safeguarded and whose will be limited?" EASY - those who will be limited are the ones who believe in morality...the way a good Christian does. "In a culture that has no reference to a common good - that has no shared vision about the good life for man - these questions are not resolved in any fair way." RIGHT - The immorality will spread a common apathy toward any morality or even go as far as spread a common evil.
The article states...They remain constantly up for debate and completely up for grabs." WRONG - debate is discontinued as the immoral leaders dictate their discriminatory views towards Christian morality to us. Christian morality has no place in a relativistic society because it is perceived as a constraint. How can one be so naïve to believe debate continues in a relativistic society? That's my question! One must be able to see the effort beginning to rear its ugly head to attack our freedom of speech. Otherwise, one should not be influencing others that wait on debates without morality as a serious contender. Decisive moral action should be taken into consideration before morality is shut down.
The article states..."In the end, the very determination of what a human right is and whose rights are safeguarded is completely arbitrary." It is not arbitrary to a tyrannical immoral leader as he/she knows his/her goal is to suppress morality. What they believe in their hearts and what they say out loud are apples and oranges at times. This is all to deceive the public into accepting their false claims in the initial stages of the deception. Once they have convinced the public to believe their spin on matters of importance, our rights will slowly erode away.
True human rights will not be protected because what will be arbitrary in the beginning is the decision itself...not the right. Immoral leaders know they don't want good citizens to have rights. Their ruling decisions will always confuse, burden, and suppress the good which our individual rights foster. The good is what must come before the right and immoral leaders will not have this vision for justice. Arbitrary means selected at random and without good reason. Therefore, debates will be arbitrarily chosen and debates that serve justice will never see the light of day.
The article says - Vatican II states..."Man finds himself when he makes his life a sincere gift to others." YES - man "makes his life" not the government "makes his life." It is largely his own choice and own work to give to others. The government causes too much waste with spending. Immoral leaders want to claim helping or giving to others for their photo ops.
The article states..."When, for example, a man gives liberally to the poor, he realizes a deeper fulfillment in life as he grows in sacrificial generosity. The sacrifice is not just good for the poor people he serves; it is good for him as well." It is the man HIMSELF that gives and serves...not the government to do it for him. We have a wonderful safety net but people are beginning to take advantage of it.
These are just some of my thoughts. The article makes one think...and maybe it is just supposed to do this. If you have any insight on it, please feel free to share...no pressure though.