subject to change

 Is there law above culture? Or are laws a result of culture? The thing is they are two different questions. Laws are made among men to create an ordered society. Certainly those laws will reflect the culture of that society. But are there laws above culture? Yes there are, what we call morality. Laws are subjective but morality is not. If it is wrong, it is always wrong. Morality is not relative. If it were we could never have moral reformers. That's simply because if our morals are relative there is no standard to compare them too. To be a moral reformer one has to oppose the moral code of the society. In so doing you become an immoral person, relative to the society. 

 If morality were relative you could never improve it, only change it. Why? Because in order to improve something you have to have a standard, the ideal. That's why we say Christ is perfect! You can't improve upon Christ. Christ is the moral standard in this situation. We use the excuse that we are mere mortals to excuse our failure to reach that moral standard. It's relativism. Relatively speaking, even the best man falls short of the standard. What is important however is having that moral standard! The moral standard supersedes the law. Indeed, in the ideal situation all laws would align with the moral code. That has yet to be achieved by man and most likely never will be attained. The reason for that, moral relativism. When cultures decide that a wrong is somehow right: relatively speaking. The moral code is clear, thou shalt not kill. Still all cultures have made exceptions to that rule. Each excuse being relative to a different situation. Self defense, defeating evil, or even convenience! 

 Evil is proof that there is good. You can't have evil without first having good. The moral code is the good. Any perversion of that code is evil. That's it in a nutshell. If morality really were relative or subjective there could be no evil as there would be no moral standard. There is no ultimate truth. No ultimate right! You have to have a right before you can have wrong. You can't be wrong if there is no right! Wrong is dependent upon right, but right needs no wrong. Therefore moral relevance is false. If it is wrong, it is always wrong. 

 The real problem with moral relativism is in the constant change. You can tell what people want by what they do, not what they say. I've known a few that were all non-violent until confronted. Then they quickly became an advocate of self defense. I've known others that were all about sharing until they had to share. If I point that out, I am accused of judging. Yes I am. I am judging your action against a moral standard. That has nothing to do with my actions, it is just a determination of right and wrong. I can not accept that morality is subjective. I will not buy into this premise that an action is wrong today but right tomorrow. As far as judging, yes I judge actions against a moral standard. I judge my actions as well as others. If you tell me I shouldn't make judgments aren't you them making a judgement about me? Doing the very thing you say I shouldn't do, a subjective morality? Good for you, but not for me. And that is subjective morality. The question becomes what feels good versus what is good? Subjective morality is all about you ( the subject ) instead of what is right. 

 Now none of this is intended as a judgement or a condemnation. It is just my thoughts on things. I'm watching what is going on in my country, my culture, and becoming alarmed. Are we becoming a culture of relativists? Are we abandoning the moral code altogether in favor of comfort, convenience and commerce? Christianity is under attack while promoting Muslims and their ideology. It's a form of relativity. For Christians there are portions of the Islamic faith that are quite troubling, sharia law among them. But some Christians are also saying we must support this as a tenet to Christianity.  Well because Christians must support evil to be Christian! That's subjective morality. It's only wrong when we say it is wrong. Yes laws are a reflection of culture. I believe that is a valid statement. And that is what troubles me. Our culture is changing to a more subjective society, the foundation is being eroded. The line between right and wrong is being blurred, dependent upon the situation. Dependent upon what? What feels good, or feels right, at the time? Subject to change. 

 I do want to make a simple statement here. There are things going on in this country that I oppose. In doing so I have been accused of prejudice, hate, intolerance, and a few other adjectives. I want to say it is not about any of those things. What it is is moral repugnance! That's correct there are some actions that have been codified in the law , in our culture that I find morally repugnant! That doesn't mean I will attack anyone, cause them harm in any way, mistreat them or any of that. What it means is, I find those things morally repugnant! They are a moral contradiction! Yes, against my moral standard. I will not apologize for that. If you have to apologize for your belief perhaps you need a new belief! Just sayin'