"God's morality" is essentially an empty and meaningless statement because it means different things to different people. Is God's morality the laws in the Torah? In the Gospels? In the Qur'an? Is God's morality that articulated by Orthodox or Reform Jews? Catholics or Protestants? Sunnis or Shias?
The statement that "God's morality is founded on prehistoric myth" is, unfortunately, neither lame nor ignorant but the plain truth. Perhaps the "prehistoric" part can be questioned (since the Tanakh, the New Testament, and the Qur'an are themselves historical documents), but the point remains that anyone who claims to be talking about "God's morality" is talking about his or her belief about the moral teachings contained in a given religion's texts and traditions. The truth and authority of said religion, however, cannot be argued from any rational or evidence-based point of view -- one cannot prove which religion (if any) is the One True Faith -- and thus the adoption of a given religion is based on personal subjective faith experiences and preferences.
In a world in which there are many different religious systems of morality and in which we claim for each individual the right and freedom of religion and conscience, there must needs be a distinction between personal and public morality. There must of necessity be a distinction between the moral principles by which a given individual will choose to live and by which a pluralistic democratic society is to govern itself.
The Ten Commandments are not multiple choice and they are not “the Ten suggestions” They are a clear line between right and wrong so that all people could live together in peace and harmony under God.
Not quite. They are the general categories, chapter headings if you will, of the terms of the covenant between YHWH and Israel. There are an additional 603 commandments that together with the "Ten Utterances" or "Ten Statements" (as they are called in Hebrew) form the totality of the religious constitution of the Jewish people. The commandments are not a universal statement line between right and wrong: they are the rules that those to whom they are given are to obey in exhange for God's blessing and protection. That the first four are cultic and refer specifically to the covenantal relationship between YHWH and Israel is evidence of this.
Moreover, the worship of gods other than YHWH (together with idols), the taking of YHWH's name in vain, and profaning the Sabbath are specifically guaranteed by the US Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and honoring parents is totally unenforceable in law.
For example, below you can see sins that are outlined in most religions and then you will see the politically correct version of making it ok to commit these offenses.
• Pride: This is now referred to as self-esteem
Define "pride." If you consult any dictionary, you'll find several definitions. "Haughtiness, arrogance, and self-importance" is a far cry from "the sense of one's personal worth and dignity."
Victims of CSA have had our personal worth and dignity tarnished if not destroyed by our perps. We deserve to regain it.
• Lust: Now referred to as an uncontrollable instinct
• Adultery: These indiscretions are commonly referred to as a “cry for help in order to save marriages”
Commonly? By whom? Also, what is adultery? In the Biblical worldview, adultery was sex between a married woman and man other than her husband.
• The murder of children: This has been made a “choice” and we call it abortion
This is not a question of political correctness but of philosophical differences on the nature of human life and its inception. Is life to be described functionally or ontologically? In the Jewish religion, a fetus is not a child nor is abortion murder. It is forbidden, however, except when the life or health of the mother is threatened in which case it is mandatory -- so even in the realm of "God's morality" things are not so neatly cut and dried. No one is in favor of the killing of children -- where we disagree is on when human life begins and where the rights of a woman end.
Mankind in this world today has decided that all of the good morals that were once placed here by our creator in which all of our ancestors lived by for centuries, should be renamed for one simple reason…that future societies will not link their everyday practices to specific sins
1.) All of our ancestors have lived for centuries under different
morals placed here by different conceptions of creators
2.) It is not the place of a secular pluralistic and democratic society to dictate what is or is not "sin." That's for religions to decide.
You see, if all these excuses are made for our sinful behavior future societies will never understand that what they are doing is wrong.
The way history works, they will eventually find out of they are in fact "wrong." The only real "morality" at work in human societies is "that which works." Moral principles that serve to preserve order and stability are validated by history; those that do not eventually reveal themselves.
This world will grow more selfish, self absorbed and murderous than we can even imagine. These commandments were set in place so that every soul on Earth could enjoy their life. Unfortunately too many people believe vainly that they should do whatever makes them happy even when it is wrong and hurts all those around them.
So the next time you are faced with a choice in your path to be either politically correct or morally correct I hope for your sake and for the sake of every child growing up in today’s world, that you will choose to stand up for what you believe in.
What happens if one's moral beliefs and the so-called "politically correct" choice coincide?
The value of free speech was designed to help protect a person’s moral values, if you choose only to say what does not offend others then you are turning your back on this birth right.
Um, no. The freedom of speech was designed because it was determined that each human being has the natural right and freedom to express his ideas and that no government has the authority to deprive him of that right.
We should not continue to make excuses for our transgressions. Remember, that although you make a piece of dog crap and polish it , dip it in gold and then polish it some more it will still be that piece of dog crap. It is time we take responsibility for our actions and stop trying to find ways to get away with things that we know are wrong.
There you go again, talking about some universal determination of "right" and "wrong." You may believe there is one; I do, too. Ours are likely very different, so how do we get along?
The social contract. We recognize that each person has a set of rights that go along simply with being human. We can say what we want, think what we want, believe what we want, and do what we want so long as we do not harm others. We each forfeit our natural freedom to harm others in exchange for the liberty that we ourselves will not be harmed, and we institute governments to uphold and protect this arrangement. Within the sphere of our rights and that liberty, we are sovereign. If you see a person killing or raping or stealing or what-have-you, then you have the right and indeed the obligation to intervene. If no one is being harmed or if no one's rights are being violated by a person's choices -- regardless of how "politically correct" they be -- mind your own business. Tend to your own garden. Take the beam out of your own eye before trying to remove the speck from your neighbor's, and so forth.
That is the key to the health and stability of the body politic.