SINthysist
Rural Racist Homophobe
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2001
- Posts
- 11,940
David C. Stolinsky
Thursday, April 25, 2002
Suppose I was lost in the forest and came upon a compass lying on the ground. If I picked it up and found it was smashed, I would sadly discard it and find my way as best I could.
But what if the compass appeared intact but had been mislabeled by a malicious prankster? What if "south" had been labeled "north"? I would trust the compass and follow it further into the forest, until I died of exposure.
Many authorities have described our "broken" moral compass. I respect these people, but they are incorrect. If our moral compass were merely broken, it would point in random directions. People would go their own ways, without rhyme or reason. But that isn't what is happening.
True, some non-conformists go their own ways, following their personal whims. But most people are not wandering off in all directions. Most people are moving in a specific direction. Most people are not picking up a smashed moral compass and finding it useless – they are picking up a mislabeled compass and are being misled by it.
Everyone sees things from his own point of view. I am a physician, so let me cite two medical examples.
Circumcision dates from antiquity. From the time of Abraham, it has been practiced for religious reasons. But now health benefits have become evident. For some time it has been known that circumcised men have a lower incidence of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and cancer of the penis.
More recently it has become apparent that their female partners have a lower incidence of STDs and of cancer of the cervix. Most cases of penile and cervical cancer are caused by a virus, so these cancers might be considered STDs. [For a current article on circumcision, see the New England Journal of Medicine, April 11, 2002, at http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/346/15/1105.]
Even more interesting, there are now over 30 studies showing a lower incidence of HIV and AIDS in circumcised men and their female partners. That is, having an uncircumcised partner is a risk factor for cervical cancer and for STDs including AIDS.
Yet how many public health officials inform the public of this evidence? How many feminist advocates inform women of these facts? And if they don't, why not?
On the contrary, a leading radio doctor condemns circumcision and even advises men how to have it surgically reversed. Leading pediatric groups remain neutral on the subject. Many public health authorities remain silent. Why?
Is it out of concern with the minimal pain involved for a newborn, or with altering the natural appearance of the human body? If so, why does this same radio doctor (and other authorities as well) speak neutrally about tattooing and body piercing, which are more painful and can spread hepatitis and other infections?
To help me make my point, assume for a moment that the Old Testament forbids circumcision instead of requiring it. Assume that the Bible requires tattooing and body piercing instead of forbidding them. Assume that no Jews are circumcised but most non-Jews are. What then?
I can't prove it, but I believe most health advocates would be urging parents to have their baby boys circumcised, and many feminists would advise women to seek circumcised partners. Meanwhile, warnings about the danger of tattooing and body piercing would be more common.
My point is that what the Bible requires, we avoid, even if it is healthful. And what the Bible forbids, we do, even if it is unhealthful. Am I jumping to conclusions? Or are there other examples?
There is evidence that if a woman has an abortion before she has a full-term pregnancy, her risk of breast cancer is increased. The evidence is not unequivocal; some studies fail to show an increased risk of breast cancer. But prudence dictates that this possible risk be described to women, especially teens, who are considering an abortion.
Indeed, more than prudence dictates that informed consent be obtained before a medical procedure – in most cases, the law requires it. However, although breast cancer is surely a leading concern of women, many public health officials and feminist advocates remain silent on this issue. Why?
Once again, what religion forbids, we do. And what is more, we do it without giving women the information needed to make an informed choice.
Yet we call this being "pro-choice," when in fact we deliberately limit women's choices. We describe this as showing "respect" for women, when in fact we show contempt by not trusting them with information. We congratulate ourselves for being "pro-woman," when in fact we treat women like small children who need information to be given out in sugarcoated form.
Of course, there are many examples in areas unrelated to health. Consider the issues of single mothers, single-parent adoption, gay adoption and gay marriage. Consider cheating on school exams, shoplifting, cursing in public places, near-nudity in public places, and blatant sex and gratuitous violence in films and videos.
Consider the difficulty some people have in distinguishing murderers from their victims, whether at Sbarro's Pizzeria in Jerusalem or in their own home town. Consider the people who support late-term abortion of viable fetuses, and at the same time oppose capital punishment for convicted murderers – and see no contradiction.
These and many other issues are often described as people "going their own way" or "following their own path." These descriptions are accurate as far as they go, but they don't go nearly far enough.
We are not merely "going our own way," wandering here and there as the mood strikes us. All the examples above, and many others you can easily supply, reveal that many people – perhaps most – are not milling about aimlessly, but are moving in a specific direction.
If you doubt this, ask Evangelical Protestants, traditional Catholics or Orthodox Jews what their religion teaches on a specific subject. The "modern" or "progressive" approach will probably be the exact opposite. See how often this prediction is correct.
Like rebellious children, we spend our whole lives doing the opposite of what our Father wants. We convince ourselves that we are independent adults making our own choices, when in fact we are still controlled by our Father's wishes – but in reverse.
Our moral compass is not broken. The needle continues to point in the same direction. But "south" has been mislabeled as "north." And for a generation, these reversed compasses have been handed to kids by parents, teachers, government officials, various advocacy groups and – yes – even some clergy.
"Broken moral compass" is a convenient but inaccurate description of the problem. Our moral compass has been altered, inverted and in fact sabotaged by those who are unwilling or unable to follow a legitimate compass, but who conceal their accountability by inducing the rest of us to go along with them.
There is still time to repair our moral compass. All that's needed is to compare our compass with a genuine one and re-label the directions. The real difficulty comes in following the corrected compass. The genuine path isn't always easy. Often it leads uphill and over difficult terrain. But it is always straight, and eventually it will get us home again.
Thursday, April 25, 2002
Suppose I was lost in the forest and came upon a compass lying on the ground. If I picked it up and found it was smashed, I would sadly discard it and find my way as best I could.
But what if the compass appeared intact but had been mislabeled by a malicious prankster? What if "south" had been labeled "north"? I would trust the compass and follow it further into the forest, until I died of exposure.
Many authorities have described our "broken" moral compass. I respect these people, but they are incorrect. If our moral compass were merely broken, it would point in random directions. People would go their own ways, without rhyme or reason. But that isn't what is happening.
True, some non-conformists go their own ways, following their personal whims. But most people are not wandering off in all directions. Most people are moving in a specific direction. Most people are not picking up a smashed moral compass and finding it useless – they are picking up a mislabeled compass and are being misled by it.
Everyone sees things from his own point of view. I am a physician, so let me cite two medical examples.
Circumcision dates from antiquity. From the time of Abraham, it has been practiced for religious reasons. But now health benefits have become evident. For some time it has been known that circumcised men have a lower incidence of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and cancer of the penis.
More recently it has become apparent that their female partners have a lower incidence of STDs and of cancer of the cervix. Most cases of penile and cervical cancer are caused by a virus, so these cancers might be considered STDs. [For a current article on circumcision, see the New England Journal of Medicine, April 11, 2002, at http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/346/15/1105.]
Even more interesting, there are now over 30 studies showing a lower incidence of HIV and AIDS in circumcised men and their female partners. That is, having an uncircumcised partner is a risk factor for cervical cancer and for STDs including AIDS.
Yet how many public health officials inform the public of this evidence? How many feminist advocates inform women of these facts? And if they don't, why not?
On the contrary, a leading radio doctor condemns circumcision and even advises men how to have it surgically reversed. Leading pediatric groups remain neutral on the subject. Many public health authorities remain silent. Why?
Is it out of concern with the minimal pain involved for a newborn, or with altering the natural appearance of the human body? If so, why does this same radio doctor (and other authorities as well) speak neutrally about tattooing and body piercing, which are more painful and can spread hepatitis and other infections?
To help me make my point, assume for a moment that the Old Testament forbids circumcision instead of requiring it. Assume that the Bible requires tattooing and body piercing instead of forbidding them. Assume that no Jews are circumcised but most non-Jews are. What then?
I can't prove it, but I believe most health advocates would be urging parents to have their baby boys circumcised, and many feminists would advise women to seek circumcised partners. Meanwhile, warnings about the danger of tattooing and body piercing would be more common.
My point is that what the Bible requires, we avoid, even if it is healthful. And what the Bible forbids, we do, even if it is unhealthful. Am I jumping to conclusions? Or are there other examples?
There is evidence that if a woman has an abortion before she has a full-term pregnancy, her risk of breast cancer is increased. The evidence is not unequivocal; some studies fail to show an increased risk of breast cancer. But prudence dictates that this possible risk be described to women, especially teens, who are considering an abortion.
Indeed, more than prudence dictates that informed consent be obtained before a medical procedure – in most cases, the law requires it. However, although breast cancer is surely a leading concern of women, many public health officials and feminist advocates remain silent on this issue. Why?
Once again, what religion forbids, we do. And what is more, we do it without giving women the information needed to make an informed choice.
Yet we call this being "pro-choice," when in fact we deliberately limit women's choices. We describe this as showing "respect" for women, when in fact we show contempt by not trusting them with information. We congratulate ourselves for being "pro-woman," when in fact we treat women like small children who need information to be given out in sugarcoated form.
Of course, there are many examples in areas unrelated to health. Consider the issues of single mothers, single-parent adoption, gay adoption and gay marriage. Consider cheating on school exams, shoplifting, cursing in public places, near-nudity in public places, and blatant sex and gratuitous violence in films and videos.
Consider the difficulty some people have in distinguishing murderers from their victims, whether at Sbarro's Pizzeria in Jerusalem or in their own home town. Consider the people who support late-term abortion of viable fetuses, and at the same time oppose capital punishment for convicted murderers – and see no contradiction.
These and many other issues are often described as people "going their own way" or "following their own path." These descriptions are accurate as far as they go, but they don't go nearly far enough.
We are not merely "going our own way," wandering here and there as the mood strikes us. All the examples above, and many others you can easily supply, reveal that many people – perhaps most – are not milling about aimlessly, but are moving in a specific direction.
If you doubt this, ask Evangelical Protestants, traditional Catholics or Orthodox Jews what their religion teaches on a specific subject. The "modern" or "progressive" approach will probably be the exact opposite. See how often this prediction is correct.
Like rebellious children, we spend our whole lives doing the opposite of what our Father wants. We convince ourselves that we are independent adults making our own choices, when in fact we are still controlled by our Father's wishes – but in reverse.
Our moral compass is not broken. The needle continues to point in the same direction. But "south" has been mislabeled as "north." And for a generation, these reversed compasses have been handed to kids by parents, teachers, government officials, various advocacy groups and – yes – even some clergy.
"Broken moral compass" is a convenient but inaccurate description of the problem. Our moral compass has been altered, inverted and in fact sabotaged by those who are unwilling or unable to follow a legitimate compass, but who conceal their accountability by inducing the rest of us to go along with them.
There is still time to repair our moral compass. All that's needed is to compare our compass with a genuine one and re-label the directions. The real difficulty comes in following the corrected compass. The genuine path isn't always easy. Often it leads uphill and over difficult terrain. But it is always straight, and eventually it will get us home again.
), are the problem in the world today for not following the bible's teachings is ludicrous. It's people who challenge what they're told that have made the world the better place it is to live in today. One of the most important improvements, in my opinion, is the great influx of rights for those who used to be oppressed by the church in one way or another: women have more rights, homosexuals have more rights, minorities have more rights, etc.
