Moral decay in the U. S. of A.

[murlough23]

So, I hear a lot of Christian preachers and commentators these days talking about teh supposed "moral decay" of America, about how we're sinking deeper and deeper into a culture that condones sin and making one's own truths, et cetera. I suppose I can see the basis for such a belief, given that the rules have become more lax in terms of what the media is allowed to show us, and our laws regarding sexuality have backed off quite a bit from how strict they used to be.

However, I also think a lot about the fact that we no longer have segregation or own slaves. Women can vote. And we're no longer burning suspected witches at the stake. Certainly those are improvements from a previous attitude of devaluement towards fellow humans that the Bible would certainly tell us is morally reprehensible.

Does one area of improvements make up for another area where we've arguably become too morally lax? I don't know, because I'm not sure how one goes about weighing one sin vs. the other. But it seems to me that instead of having more moral vices plaguing American culture in the 21st century, we just have different ones.

So, I don't really subscribe to this theory that America is on a steady moral decline, because it just seems to me that we ebb and flow, trading one sin for another over time. I figure it's been that way since the dawn of time, because it's human nature to look upon one set of vices with disdain while completely ignoring the vices that you, specifically are having trouble with.

But, what do the rest of you think? Is American society getting morally better, morally worse, or can it not really be measured in those terms?

NP: "Postcards", Cindy Morgan

[AldaForPresident]

I completely agree with everything you said, Murlough. There's not really anything I can add to that.

Except instead of the bit about the media and laws regarding sexuality, I would replace that with abuse of power and ignorance of problems facing third-world countries, because those are more offensive to me personally than anything I've seen on TV or gay marriage. (Both have always been, but whereas I can't understand other moral decay arguments, I think those particular American attitudes and practices have grown more prevalent over time.)

[murlough23]

Except instead of the bit about the media and laws regarding sexuality, I would replace that with abuse of power and ignorance of problems facing third-world countries, because those are more offensive to me personally than anything I've seen on TV or gay marriage. (Both have always been, but whereas I can't understand other moral decay arguments, I think those particular American attitudes and practices have grown more prevalent over time.)

Sure. My pointing out the pushing of boundaries regarding sexuality doesn't mean that there's not anything else this country does that is worse. I just picked the thing that Christians tend to make the most noise about. I don't recall hearing as much from Christian protestors about how we're mistreating the rest of the world... though you'd expect that we'd hear more about that. I think the reality is that that most folks, including Christians, don't give a shit what's going on in the rest of the world so long as they and their immediate family members feel safe.

NP: "Mildred Madalyn Johnson", Fernando Ortega

[bloop]

Well, Christians in this country seem to generally pick out the sins that they don't commit to point out as the worst of them all and bitch about endlessly.  It soothes the conscience, or something.

[Vlad!]

I think the biggest problem--and the root of any 'moral decay' one might site--is that America is losing hold of whatever vestiges of Christianity it once adhered to. I'm certainly not advocating a theological state or anything like that, but lax morals are to be expected when a society discards wholesale its grip on the root of morality. Even though we have come a long way in respecting others and their rights--something that, as you point out, is commendable--there are some morals that pure rationalism has a hard time justifying, and those are the ones we are seeing an abandonment of.

[Josh]

Whenever this question arises, all I can think to say is that... well, the Bible teaches that man is totally depraved, and, to my knowledge, one cannot become more or less totally depraved. Either you're totally depraved or you're not.

[murlough23]

Well, Christians in this country seem to generally pick out the sins that they don't commit to point out as the worst of them all and bitch about endlessly. It soothes the conscience, or something.

That's human nature in general, but it does become especially notorious when this is done by people who follow a religion that is supposed to be about grace.

Not that we can't point out sins and moral problems in this country... I just think we're generally not going to get much of anywhere by trying to fix the people who aren't Christians. Work on convicting the people who do actually try to follow the same rules that you do (i.e. who are already Chrsitians), as well as yourself, and as for everyone else... let 'em hear the Good News; they can work on cleaning up their acts once they convert and have a good reason to actually care what the Bible says.

I think the biggest problem--and the root of any 'moral decay' one might site--is that America is losing hold of whatever vestiges of Christianity it once adhered to. I'm certainly not advocating a theological state or anything like that, but lax morals are to be expected when a society discards wholesale its grip on the root of morality.

I just tend to figure we're more honest with ourselves these days. The people who didn't give a crap about Christian morals in the old days had to pretend like they did in order to fit in, including some of the politicians making the laws. (Never mind that they really just followed a carefully chosen subset of those morals, thus enabling them to be religious stuffshirts while still having affairs with their slave girls and so forth.) These days, while I still think there's still a very basic Christian ethic behind a lot of our laws (i.e. murder is bad, theft is bad, child abandonment is bad, some really basic stuff like that, which may not be unique to Christianity, but it's certainly in line with Christian ethics in terms of not causing undue hurt to other people), we've at least acknowledged that forcing everyone to comply with Christian laws doesn't make them Christians. Since this country was founded on people's rights to be Christians or not be Christians, among other things, I figure it's a good thing that we're starting to base laws less on more of a system of "believe what you want, but do not harm your fellow man or inrfinge upon his freedom to do the same".

"Believe whatever you want", in and of itself, is obviously not a very good system, because you could just go ahead and believe it's perfectly OK to murder or whatever. I think it's better that our laws are generally more concerned with the acting out of those beliefs - do something that hurts somebody, and you will most likely get arrested even though you believe it's OK. We've realized that we can't enact laws that prevent the KKK from hating Black people, or men from lusting after women, but it's good and right that we can punish the KKK for hate crimes and throw rapists in jail.

Historically speaking, I've seen more people won over to Christianity, at least in a more genuine way, by example instead of by force. make a bunch of laws requiring everyone to govern themselves according to Christian morals, and most likely a lot of folks will resent Christianity. Allow that belief system to be something they can choose, and let the Christians be a good example of why they would want to choose it, without the government trying to force it upon them, and I think the Church will fare much better. Not that Christians shouldn't be involved in politics or in lawmaking - but we have to realize the point at which it becomes ridiculous to force people who don't want to draw closer to God to follow laws that were designed to help man draw closer to God. They're only hurting themselves. When it comes to them hurting others, that's the point where I think the law should stop them.

Whenever this question arises, all I can think to say is that... well, the Bible teaches that man is totally depraved, and, to my knowledge, one cannot become more or less totally depraved. Either you're totally depraved or you're not.

In a roundabout way, that's sort of what I was getting at. Human society has been depraved since the Fall, and we're only more deceived by thinking there's someone out there that we're better than. Even if that were true, negative infinity plus one is still negative infinity.

Having said that, there are probably human societies in which it's more or less safer to live. But that's just a matter of different sins running rampant. And that also depends on who you are. Dr. Dobson raving about how idyllic his childhood was, for example, was clearly not a Black man during those years.

[BennieM]

It is commonly observed that there is a disposition in men to complain of the viciousness and corruption of the age in which they live, as greater than that of former ones; which is usually followed with this further observation that mankind has been in that respect much the same in all times.
- Joseph Butler, Fifteen Sermons

 =)  

[bloop]

That's human nature in general, but it does become especially notorious when this is done by people who follow a religion that is supposed to be about grace.

Not that we can't point out sins and moral problems in this country... I just think we're generally not going to get much of anywhere by trying to fix the people who aren't Christians.

Even pointing them out - why?  To make ourselves feel better?  If they aren't our issues, then it can't be for drawing ourselves closer to God, so it must be that and that alone.  It seems to me to be what much of the "culture war" is really all about, and I want no part of that kind of self-righteous behavior - it stinks, emanating from the "leaders" of the movement on down.

[AldaForPresident]

It's interesting how we all more or less agree on this issue. Further proof we're all reasonable people, for the most part!

[Lurkerbee]

I think the biggest problem--and the root of any 'moral decay' one might site--is that America is losing hold of whatever vestiges of Christianity it once adhered to. I'm certainly not advocating a theological state or anything like that, but lax morals are to be expected when a society discards wholesale its grip on the root of morality. Even though we have come a long way in respecting others and their rights--something that, as you point out, is commendable--there are some morals that pure rationalism has a hard time justifying, and those are the ones we are seeing an abandonment of.

I think this hits the nail on the head, actually.  For instance, it's hard for me as an agnostic (who has what I guess you could call a "secular humanist worldview" or whatever) to allow myself to get all worked up about things like deviant sex acts or premarital sex between two consenting adults--and that's because I can't really figure out rationally how these things really hurt anyone that much.  

But I'm assuming you had much more than just that in mind with your comment?    The thing is, I can't think of anything else that's immoral in the Christian worldview (besides certain sexual conduct) that doesn't remain immoral under the microscope of pure rationalism.  Am I missing something?

[Vlad!]

Well, I'm not sure there is one and only one 'pure' rationalism. For instance, Ayn Rand based her worldview of objectivism off rational and logical premises, and she strongly believed that there is no place in the world for compassion and charity. However, objectivism is not a very common worldview. I suspect a more applicable answer to your question would be that Christianity has some hard words for the indolent, the gossip, and those who say unwholesome things (unwholesome in this case does not necessarly refer to profanity as much as divisive or hateful speech).  

[BennieM]

The thing is, I can't think of anything else that's immoral in the Christian worldview (besides certain sexual conduct) that doesn't remain immoral under the microscope of pure rationalism.  Am I missing something?

Most forms of sloth (busybodies, for instance) and greed (usury, for instance).

[murlough23]

Even pointing them out - why? To make ourselves feel better? If they aren't our issues, then it can't be for drawing ourselves closer to God, so it must be that and that alone. It seems to me to be what much of the "culture war" is really all about, and I want no part of that kind of self-righteous behavior - it stinks, emanating from the "leaders" of the movement on down.

Pointing those things out to the people who are doing them - Generally pretty useless if those people aren't Christians, because they'll just be like, "Eh, I don't have to play by your rules, so shut it."

Pointing those things out to fellow Christians - could be useful, depending on your approach. If your approach is "These are bad people, we condemn them and want nothing to do with them", that's not helpful (and unfortunately, that's a lot of what you hear when the average preacher picks on the easy target of the week). If your approach is, "We need to be cautious not fall into the same trap", then I think that's a helpful warning.

We are not to judge people - that is God's job - but I think that we are to be discerning and judge actions. We all judge actions whether we admit it or not - we'll see something that a person has done, and usually evaluate it and decide whether we think it was a good thing to do or a bad thing to do. We have to do that, or we'd never really learn anything. Of course, we need to use the Bible and not just our own whims as the basis for such discernment. But those are judgments that we need to make.

I think this hits the nail on the head, actually. For instance, it's hard for me as an agnostic (who has what I guess you could call a "secular humanist worldview" or whatever) to allow myself to get all worked up about things like deviant sex acts or premarital sex between two consenting adults--and that's because I can't really figure out rationally how these things really hurt anyone that much.

Well, aside from issues of STDs and pregnancy at times when one or both parents are ill-equipped to care for the child and there's no binding commitment for both of them to stick around and do it (and aside from the binding commitment issue, these could potentially still be problems even for married couples), I think a lot of emotional damage can be done by participating in sex outside of what the Bible deems to be its proper context. I can't scientifically prove that, of course. But I know the damage that it can potentially do from my own experience, and I have a pretty good idea that sex isn't something to be taken lightly. Coming from a "purely rational" standpoint, I may not be able to arrive at 100% conclusive evidence that sex outside of marriage will always hurt you and/or the other person. But I know now that there's enough of a risk of that that I figure it's better to just hold off.

As for "deviant sex acts", that's more of a blanket statement that isn't well-defined. Christians are often guilty of confusing what they think to be the "normal" way of doing things with the only morally acceptable way of doing them, and I see no support for that line of thinking in the Bible. (It's actually funny, because of most of them are too squeamish to really talk about sex, how do they know what everyone else is doing in bed, anyway?) My view on that tends to be, "Respect each other, be committed to share this experience only with each other (i.e. be married), and be sure you're using it to show love. Within that, do as you please!" So if "deviant" just means alternate positions and techniques and what have you, then I can't really see a Biblical basis for condemning most of that stuff.

If, by "deviant", we're talking about homosexuality, there's another thread on that already, where I attempted to ask questions about whether the Bible really says what we assume it says regarding the issue, but I hit a bit of a dead end in terms of being able to really defend my position. Feel free to go check that out.

In general, regarding God's rules and things that are considered "sin", I tend to figure the point of it all is protecting us, physically, emotionally, and spiritually, from undue harm. I wouldn't follow any rule that seemed to just be arbitrary, that we had to follow just because God gets a kick out of us following it. I need to see the reasoning, and in that area, the Church has often been guilty of reading things wrong and inserting their own extra rules.

[bloop]

Pointing those things out to fellow Christians - could be useful, depending on your approach. If your approach is "These are bad people, we condemn them and want nothing to do with them", that's not helpful (and unfortunately, that's a lot of what you hear when the average preacher picks on the easy target of the week). If your approach is, "We need to be cautious not fall into the same trap", then I think that's a helpful warning.

I can agree with that.  Unfortunately, as you said here, that isn't often what I see and hear from certain church leaders.  Callous disregard for struggling or otherwise lost people is a major turn-off for me.  

(what I meant by "not our issues" are those things that don't even have the potential to be "our issues".  I'm sure an object lesson with you on, say, homosexuality isn't going to do anything for you one way or the other - it's not something you struggle with.  If it is, bring it up, if not, I don't see the point.)

[Josh]

In general, regarding God's rules and things that are considered "sin", I tend to figure the point of it all is protecting us, physically, emotionally, and spiritually, from undue harm. I wouldn't follow any rule that seemed to just be arbitrary, that we had to follow just because God gets a kick out of us following it.

Eh, I dunno-- the primary point of the Law is the glory and holiness of God, not our own well-being. The first four Commandments, really are primarily centered around the holiness of God, are they not? This isn't to say that it isn't in our best interest to follow them, but God's primary reasoning behind them probably has more to do with HIM than with US.  

[murlough23]

I can agree with that. Unfortunately, as you said here, that isn't often what I see and hear from certain church leaders. Callous disregard for struggling or otherwise lost people is a major turn-off for me.

No argument there. That's why I'm much harder on fellow Christians than I am on non-Christians.

(what I meant by "not our issues" are those things that don't even have the potential to be "our issues". I'm sure an object lesson with you on, say, homosexuality isn't going to do anything for you one way or the other - it's not something you struggle with. If it is, bring it up, if not, I don't see the point.)

Temptation can manifest itself in many different forms. If someone falls victim to it, I think it's fair to caution others not to fall into the same trap. If I'm one of the many people who hear that caution, and it's not really a risk for me, then I probably won't worry about it, but it doesn't mean it's bad to bring that to my attention. It might even help later if I know someone else who is struggling with it.

Eh, I dunno-- the primary point of the Law is the glory and holiness of God, not our own well-being. The first four Commandments, really are primarily centered around the holiness of God, are they not? This isn't to say that it isn't in our best interest to follow them, but God's primary reasoning behind them probably has more to do with HIM than with US.

Right, but how is God glorified, and shown to be holy (in terms of what other humans, see, anyway), if the lives of those following His laws are not somehow changed by that? I'm not saying that it's all about us, and we're more important than God. But loving us is something that God loves to do. God didn't need to create us, but He did. That was something that He enjoyed doing. Seeing us do what God would do in a situation, as opposed to sinning, brings God a lot of joy and glory, I'd imagine. God is glorifed as He makes us more like Him. I'm quite sure that He's not glorified by those who represent Him on Earth hurting themselves and each other. God loving us and God being glorified are one in the same in this case.

And why would a sin be a sin if it did not somehow harm us? I'll grant that we may not always see the ways in which a sin is going to hurt us. But I'm pretty sure that sin will always have direct and negative consequences - things that God would rather we not put ourselves through. I don't think it's just a matter of "You pissed God off because you didn't jump when He said jump, now He's going to hit you with a lightning bolt." Sin seems to me to be more of an issue of, "You had a choice to go with God's wisdom or go your own way, and if you go your own way, don't expect that God will magically shield you from the natural consequences of your actions." (Even when we ask for forgiveness and receive it, we often still have to deal with the Earthly consequences of our sins, though sometimes we are spared, but then, sometimes even the people who don't ask forgiveness from God get "lucky" and don't face Earthly consequences for sin, I guess. Still, sin is a gamble that we'd be wise not to take.)

This whole concept of God being glorified in a vacuum honestly makes little sense to me. God Himself, as well as the angels and demons, know the truth about God and how glorious He is. It's humans that don't really get it, so we're the ones who need the convincing that God is glorious. Loving humans is not the only way that God can show His glory, of course, but when God does show His glory through that, we can't not benefit from it. (Unless we just ignore it, I suppose.)

[bloop]

Temptation can manifest itself in many different forms. If someone falls victim to it, I think it's fair to caution others not to fall into the same trap. If I'm one of the many people who hear that caution, and it's not really a risk for me, then I probably won't worry about it, but it doesn't mean it's bad to bring that to my attention. It might even help later if I know someone else who is struggling with it.

If approached correctly, it's not an issue that they brought a particular sin up even if it applies to no one in the congregation.  It's just the fire-and-brimstone "look at all those on the outside.  They suck." (paraphrase) that I'm really railing against.  

I think a lot of the things those I speak of preach against are things that their congregations can just nod and say "Amen" (read:  we know we're better *pats own back*).  It's a comfort zone I can do without.

[murlough23]

If approached correctly, it's not an issue that they brought a particular sin up even if it applies to no one in the congregation.  It's just the fire-and-brimstone "look at all those on the outside.  They suck." (paraphrase) that I'm really railing against.  

I think a lot of the things those I speak of preach against are things that their congregations can just nod and say "Amen" (read:  we know we're better *pats own back*).  It's a comfort zone I can do without.

Yes, I completely agree. When you're pointing out something that is obviously wrong to an audience who most likely doesn't deal with it and is already in agreement with you, that's not terribly productive. I'm not a big fan of easy target hunting, but unfortunately, it's an easy way to rally a Christian crowd. (What annoys me even more is when they rally a crowd by a mere reference to a controversial issue that they're pretty sure their largely right-wing audience will be enough in agreement upon for any dissenters to not want to speak up about it. If you're going to bring up something like that and discuss the merits of your position, fine, but don't go assuming that everyone had the same politics as you when they walked in the door. But that's another issue.)

We can only recognize that others suck just as much as we suck. That's about it.

NP: "No More Chains", Nichole Nordeman

[Lurkerbee]

[murlough23]

[bethany]

Along the lines of what it seems everyone else is saying, I don't think we've gotten better or worse as people. I just think that the mores of society shift over time. There has always been homosexuality taking place; it's just that now it's more in public consciousness. People's ideas of what should be protested against change, but the actions don't. People have sinned since Adam and Eve, and will continue to do so, in America and everywhere else. It's just our perception of those sins that changes.

[murlough23]

There has always been homosexuality taking place; it's just that now it's more in public consciousness.

The media is a huge contributing factor there - not saying that they're totally corrupt and just want to beseige us with sin. It's just that in the old days, if something shocking happened, it could take weeks to travel across the country, and it was easier to keep secrets. These days, the President has an affair or whatever, it's all over the Internet in a matter of minutes. So the more developed countries are likely to seem more corrupt because news of their depravity spreads at lightning speed. It's much easier to just let it all hang out for the world to see.

[Lurkerbee]

[murlough23]

Well, how does one define "sexual compatibility"? Being able to blow the other person's mind and have some amazing performance... or being able to express love sexually without feeling overly self-conscious or coerced into doing anything? We base sex too much on performance. Not that it's bad to want yourself and your partner to have an amazing experience. But I think that comes with time as two people figure each other out, and unless a couple has other emotional issues or selfishness that they haven't worked out with themselves and with each other, I don't think there's a such thing as a sexually incompatible couple.

Unless, of course, you've got other experience with people you weren't committed to (or thought you were going to commit to, but changed your mind) to use as a comparison. Then things get a little dicey.

[greg]

I honestly think America's biggest "moral" problem comes from people who are unaccepting and uncompassionate to people who are different from them and teach their children to hate or dislike people for no acceptable reason. And people who worry too much about how many "F" words are in movies rather than helping and caring about people.

I think politicians and the state of our government are in decay, for sure.

But the current Evangelical mindset of moral decay is completely false, and I agree with everything you said in your initial post, Murlough.