The collapse of the West’s moral conscience: no further rhetoric is really needed...

The Collapse of Conscience

BY FRANK CRONIN

It seems there is no place for conscience nowadays.

Its only place in the modern world is in the minds and hearts of the so-called "unenlightened" — the backward, the judgmental. No one with half a mind would be caught dead with one.

For most modernists, conscience is a thing of the past, an artifact of an early more naive, more primitive, more compliant era. Conscience is an anachronism, like the virtue of chastity and the code of chivalry, like common courtesy and common sense.

That is why the darkness and depravity of modern times becomes darker and deeper with each passing day. And that is why many people no longer even sense the decline.

Because our collective cultural conscience continues to deteriorate, many modernists no longer know what a conscience is, what it does or even what it means. Many others hold their conscience at arm’s length because it is not trustworthy. To them, their conscience — or what is left of it — is the source of all inhibition and the origin of what they believe is the lie about the existence of objective moral truths. To those misguided, modern times and liberation show the conscience to be a form of prejudice and evil and control.

Because of modernism’s incursion into all facets of current society, we as a culture no longer have a conscience, nor do we know what it is made of — because we no longer sense its presence or know its precepts. We have reduced conscience to cultural norms or we have "psychologized" it to be nothing more than vestiges of parental programming or mere hollow tradition passed on to us unconsciously.

...................................


So the primary point of any discussion and debate is moral. 

Are these four moral issues — birth control, abortion, homosexual rights and same-sex "marriage" — really moral?

• Is it morally right to be promiscuous or to be an adulterer? 
• Is it really right to kill an infant growing in a woman’s womb, regardless of how the baby got there? 
• Do we really believe these things are all right or outside of moral judgment?
• Or is it right to be afforded special rights if you are attracted to a person of the same sex? 
• Aren’t rights a function of every person’s humanness, not a function of sexual persuasion or behavior? 
• And isn’t the crucial core component really about the morality of being same-sex attracted? 
• Isn’t the morality of "gay marriage" really based on the sexual morality of same-sex sexual behavior?
• If sexual relations between two men or two women are objectively immoral, then the whole discussion about "gay marriage" is pointless, right?

........................

Read more: www.ncregister.com