The genius of Shakespeare has Hamlet describing moral relativism in a few well-chosen words: “There is nothing either good or bad, But thinking makes it so.” In moral relativism,  nothing is absolutely good or bad. In moral relativism, there is only my good, or your good.  Good is not seen as rooted in human nature but varies with the times and the cultural milieu and the Zogby poll and who is in power.

On the other hand, our forefathers felt there were unalienable rights (or goods), among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, given to us by our creator.  Taking innocent life (murder) was always wrong. Enslaving human beings or maltreating them was always wrong. Hitler, a moral relativist, thought executing Jews, gypsies, Poles, the disabled, “useless eaters,” and various others was beneficial to the nation.  Rights came from the hand of the dictator, not from God.

The new pope, Benedict XVI, has lost no time in pointing out the danger of moral relativism.  It is getting so that it is hard to come up with anything that is still believed to be wrong by most people. We used to have right and wrong, truth and goodness.  Now we have political correctness and tolerance for everything and anything.

Child molestation is still generally considered bad though there are homosexual groups pressing for a lowering of the age of consent.  Another group will happily teach our children various ways in which they can pleasure each other sexually short of sexual intercourse.  They call it “outercourse” (and actually promote it as a kind of “abstinence!”) We know our kids are learning well  when we hear of the oral sex that is going on in grade school and on the school bus. Read the rest of this entry »


SIECUS (The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States) is no friend of abstinence-until-marriage education. You can access their site here to see how wrong they think it is. They are not at all happy that Section 510 of Title V of the Social Security Act provides for millions of dollars to help fund this “ideological” enterprise. Some States are relinquishing the monies available from the federal government in order to provide “more comprehensive” sex education to children. One such bill recommends that in grades five to eight students learn the skills necessary to prevent pregnancy, HIV, and other sexually transmitted diseases. Some start in first grade with “age-appropriate” information.

What can these skills be? No doubt they include methods of contraception, ways in which AIDS is transmitted, and this information requires, in turn, detailed information about various sexual acts and apparatus and chemicals to render them safe.

To my mind, the only skill necessary at that age is the ability to say “no” to sexual activity. Read the rest of this entry »