» Random Thoughts Current Archive [an error occurred while processing this directive]		March 14, 2008 - Whatever You Do Don't Talk About Morality When Addressing Immorality!        It's a strange phenomenon, but should we really be all that surprised when a secular culture that's already "explained" away God and absolute morality continues with its contradictory, double standard behavior?  Take former New York Govorner Eliot Spitzer's most recent foray into public shame.  He get's caught spending thousands and thousands of tax payer dollars on elite hookers; media feeding frenzy ensues.  Mass media outlets from here to Khartoum pegged Spitzer's actions as despicable and downright infuriating (the people are tired of corrupt politicians).  There was moral angst all over.  What is so inconsistent, in my mind at least, is the media's attempt to explain "why".        To explain moral misconduct, secular culture (its paradigm is unable to address misconduct on a moral scale in the first place) uses most amoral devices.  The following are just a sample of articles from mass media outlets trying to explain why Spitzer played with fire, and why people do in general. The Cheating Man's Brain  (NEWSWEEK.com) Analysts dissect Spitzer's prostitution mess  (MSNBC.com) Spitzer's (Familiar) Big Problem  (WASHINGTONPOST.com) Experts analyze Spitzer's thinking  (CNN.com)        Every article elicits the "expertise" of well-known psychologists and behavioral anthropologists to get the answer.  Yet disciplines such as psychology and anthropology (as cool as they are) are amoral in essence; they have no moral explanatory power.  It's like asking a microchip to tell you how it feels to be rejected by a girl.  What you do not see are any appeals to foundational moral enterprises such as religion.  There are no questions about this issue posed to pastors, priests, or friars.  Why?  I have my theories, one being secular culture wants their cake and to eat it too.  By this I mean that secularists have no problem identifying moral absolute "wrong" when it involves other people or when they're the victims (i.e. Spitzer's whoring, genocide in Africa, environmental abuse, etc.), they just don't want the personal responsibility that comes with it when they're the culprits; which they know themselves to be in a general sense.  So they'll have no problem damning a Spitzer, but get a pastor on CNN or MSNBC telling people it's not just a problem with Spitzer, it's a problem with all of us - and equally, and people will have "don't tell me how to live" hissy-fits out the wazoo.  Mention the word "sin" and all Hell will break loose (pun intended).  People don't like to hear the fact that they have the same inert potential to do wrong like Spitzer.  It's bad for TV news ratings.        And therein lays the charlatan in secularists of all shapes and sizes.  They know absolute right and wrong exist because they have no problem identifying it left and right.  We see it everyday; despite their moral relativism, they still have the audacity to call sin wrong a spade a spade; something their relativism gives them no ground to.  But they then jettison their appeal to "logic and reason" by illogically going all inconsistent on us by refusing to acknowledge they're subject to that same moral standard.  Am I making sense...?        The Bible says they do this because "their deeds are evil" and are just too afraid to, and don't want to, face the sobering notion that one day they will be accountable to a higher Authority for all their misdeeds (which again, we all know we've done bad ones).  I tend to agree because my flesh wants to do it every damn day. Just callin' it like I see it.

EbbWorld.com is designed and maintained by: C:straight Media