The prime minister of Britain and the president of United States have both recognized the state of brokenness of their societies. The breakdown of the family and the abandonment of moral code have left many people with no direction or purpose.In response, his critic has nothing but anger:
I want to invite you, the reader, to consider which society you prefer to live in:
1. A Christian society based on a moral code handed down to us for thousands of years. This society dedicates itself to discerning God’s will and to living in accordance with his teachings. This society takes a lot of work. It includes some self-denial. Priests and church leaders, like all of us, will often fail or get it wrong. Our sins can cause much pain. God only asks that we admit our sins and failings, and ask for forgiveness. We must ask forgiveness from those whom we’ve hurt and make restitution when possible. There can be great healing. With forgiveness and healing, we can know the peace that God wants for us and our society.
2. The alternative is a society based on a ‘flavour of the month’ philosophy. This can include Hollywood’s definition of marriage or even Bountiful’s, for that matter. It can include government-funded destruction of life at the beginning, as with abortion, or at the end, as with euthanasia.
We don’t need forgiveness or even guilt since no one can impose their sense of what is wrong on us. Family breakup and divorce become casual and sacramental marriage becomes irrelevant. This is a lazy society. It doesn’t require much of anyone. It allows movie stars and special interest groups to determine what is morally right or wrong. Leaders can get elected and make policies by simply poling their constituents. Children grow up confused and despondent. As we go down this latter road, we will begin to see the outcome of some of the political decisions made over the past 50 years...
I cannot begin to express my frustration regarding Matthew Brown’s commentary ‘The ‘flavour of the month’ moral relativism’ (The Guardian, Sept. 9, 2011). In fact, if I tried to express how offended I am honestly and completely, it would most certainly not get printed. Putting aside the fact that this newspaper had the gall to publish such biased borderline-propaganda, the anti-secularism exhibited by Brown is truly appalling in this day and age.Double-plus ungood! Verging crimethink! How dare you publish that herecy "in this day and age"?!...
And what exactly is so special about "this day and age" that makes it a thought crime to criticize moral relativism and argue in favor of Christian values? Except that it's been about half-a-century since moral relativism became the dominant ideology, its negative consequences are now visible and comparing moral relativism to Christian moral code is by no means advantageous to the former.
Brown simultaneously attempts to call out Jackson Doughart and David Bulger for their ‘moral relativism’ while he peppers his piece with what I consider hypocrisy. He says we can “work to build a society that respects all human life” – how about respecting the rights of all humans to marry whomever they wish? Or should we just respect those people Brown deems worthy?Yeah, as if there was no difference between not letting someone to be born and not agreeing to redefine timeless institution to suit one's lifestyle choice.
Ms.MacDonald needs to ask herself what a marriage is all about. If it's just about who sleeps with whom then what's so different between a union of two males or two females and a union of three or more individuals, regardless of their gender? Why is it considered to be "progressive" to accept the former, but not the latter? If however we consider the self-evident truth that men and women are not interchangeable (which doesn't make them unequal by any means,) that marriage is about establishing a relationship that is of both unitive and procreative nature, that strong marriages and strong families warrant a strong society - then none of those questions would even arise, because everything is just that - self-evident.
All it takes is to dump the misleading moral-relativist ideology. If Ms.MacDonald prefers to defy common sense and to stick to the illusions of moral relativism - then those qualities she has attributed to herself fit her perfectly - and without sarcasm.