The View From 1776

Moral Models from Mainstream Media

Irate emailers frequently denounce my view that all moral conduct stems from religion.  It is true that some atheistic, morally-relativistic liberals behave with personal honesty and decency, but not because of the class-oriented, social-justice doctrine of liberal-socialism, which enthusiastically welcomes every trendy descent into hedonistic degeneracy that affronts traditional standards of social conduct.

The New York Times makes my case for me.

Liberal-socialists who behave morally are free-riders (for an explanation, read here and here) on Judeo-Christian morality, because they have no other source for their standards.  The vast majority of liberal-socialists, who hew to the moral relativism of pragmatic philosophy, have no standards of personal conduct other than what Hollywood, TV, and mainstream print media tell them are the current novelties of vulgar fashion.

It is, to say the least, irresponsible for a major newspaper to write lyrically about conduct such as sexual promiscuity (hetero or same-sex) that spreads deadly diseases and leads to a life-focus on purely hedonistic addiction.  And it is simply a fact that anyone preoccupied with indulging his sensual gratification can have little inclination, time, or energy left for dealing with his fellow humans in accord with the Golden Rule.

As I have written before, I am prepared to accept that homosexuals and lesbians may simply be born that way.  Beating them up, making them the butt of jokes, or otherwise ostracizing them is not in accord with Judeo-Christian morality.  We are instructed to be loving and respectful to all of God’s children.  We may condemn anti-social conduct, but God alone can judge what is in a person’s soul.

Yet under no set of moral rules, except liberal-socialism and anarchism, can sexual promiscuity be regarded as acceptable.

I wrote in an earlier posting:

“It?s impossible to be moral and ethical without being religious. Without religion, there is no standard for acceptable (moral) conduct. Otherwise you?re simply a nihilist for whom nothing is forbidden…...Today?s standards, under the religion of socialism, of course, are unlikely to be tomorrow?s (cf. Stalin?s abrupt switches in the Popular Front era).  So you are obliged to read the New York Times every day to determine which of your beliefs from yesterday are no longer valid.”

Illustrating the point, Heather Mac Donald, writing in the Autumn Edition of City Journal (see Gay Times: The no-longer-gray lady indulges its taste for not-fit-to-print news), describes a typical New York Times imprimatur on such anti-social promiscuity.

Sample:  “Just wondering?what exactly was the news value of the New York Times?s huge front-page Metro-section spread yesterday: A SEX STOP ON THE WAY HOME? Subtitled JUST OFF A PARK?S PLAYING FIELDS, ANOTHER GAME THRIVES, with an eye-catching cropped photo of the gut (but not the shoulders or head) of a beefy man in shorts and pink socks standing just inside his SUV?s open door, the story recounted in jaw-dropping detail the pick-up rituals of anonymous homosexual sex in a Queens parking lot. The lot adjoins athletic fields used by both youth and adult teams.”

Visit MoveOff Network Members