Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

3 Bumps

Is "moral realignment" a bad thing?

I've seen the phrase thrown around in quite a few editorials since the election, stemming from a quote by some Southern Baptist leader who was mentioned by CNN. His statement on its own is pretty neutral - all he said is that we are witnessing a moral realignment. It's the people who are quoting it who are assigning a good or bad value to it.

There's an odd hypocrisy here. Often the people denouncing a morality shift over an issue they feel strongly about are the same ones to complain about an age old moral dogma in another country (ie complaining about gay marriage while also complaining about Muslim nations with sharia law).

If the cultural norm drifts away from your own personal belief, is that a bad thing, or just a different thing? In the same vein, if the cultural norm drifts away from the opposite of your personal belief to more aligned to your belief, is that an endorsement of you, or just a different thing than there was before? In other words - is there an inherent morality in shifting of morality?

Answer Question
 
NotPanicking

Asked by NotPanicking at 12:05 AM on Nov. 8, 2012 in Religious Debate

Level 50 (419,147 Credits)
Answers (17)
  • Change is just that change. It is sometimes very painful, whether it is good or bad. IMO change for the sake of change is "always" bad but other changes can be either or depending on the specific issue. Is the moral climate changing? IMO yes it is but it has always been changing since probably the beginning ot time or morals, however you wish to think of it.
    Dardenella

    Answer by Dardenella at 12:15 AM on Nov. 8, 2012

  • The morality of the majority swings like a pendulum, hardly ever stopping in the middle. Personal ideas about morals may not change just because public morality is in a constant state of flux. I don't think the changing of moral ideas is good or bad in itself, but the persecution of those who don't go along with the shifts can be quite awful. I often wish middle ground could be reached, but usually neither side is willing to compromise on most issues.
    Ballad

    Answer by Ballad at 1:02 AM on Nov. 8, 2012

  • I see "moral realignment" as code for "we're mad we can't dictate what others do". We didn't suddenly decide overnight that we can get away with murder and start killing our neighbors. Gay marriage was simply legalized in 3 states. We didn't decide that borthels and whore houses would be as prevalent as Starbuck's or Walmart, simply that homosexuals are entitled to the SAME rights as everyone else. "Morals" haven't changed any, from what they were before the election. What has changed is the ability for some to force their own personal morals onto others has weakened
    KristiS11384

    Answer by KristiS11384 at 9:53 AM on Nov. 8, 2012

  • Maybe I misunderstood the question. I did not realize that we were only talking about the gay rights issu. I thought the op was talking about moral shifts in general and the staement. Sorry
    Dardenella

    Answer by Dardenella at 11:33 AM on Nov. 8, 2012

  • I haven't noticed any other significant "moral shift" that has people up in arms. I mean I suppose you can throw the 2 states that legalized recreational use of pot in there but cannabis has a longer history of being legal than illegal seeing as it was only first restricted in the US in 1906. So if that is "included" in the "moral realignment" theory it would be considered realignment back to previous morals.
    KristiS11384

    Answer by KristiS11384 at 11:47 AM on Nov. 8, 2012

  • I haven't noticed any other significant "moral shift" that has people up in arms.

    It's not only referring to specific issues, but to the overwhelming rejection of the the Republican right wing's idea of what people wanted - the rape comments, the anti-birth control fighting, the cannibalized version of the tea party that replaced fiscal responsibility with theocracy.
    NotPanicking

    Comment by NotPanicking (original poster) at 11:53 AM on Nov. 8, 2012

  • I wouldn't say that the rejection of the Republican's Party right Wing Theocratic ideas is a "Moral realignment". I would say it was the expected "equal and opposite reaction" to the push generated by the Republican Party's extree push to the far right.
    KristiS11384

    Answer by KristiS11384 at 11:57 AM on Nov. 8, 2012

  • But for the people doing the pushing - or at least the rank and file citizens voting for it, not so much the hypocrites holding the offices, those are the morals they believe are traditional and the foundation of the country. They don't see Akin and Mourdock went too far, they see something they assumed everyone agreed on is being chipped away by a different way of thinking. In a way, they're correct, they just didn't realize that it's long past chipping away and fully into fundamental change.
    NotPanicking

    Comment by NotPanicking (original poster) at 12:00 PM on Nov. 8, 2012

  • Class in an hour, not abandoning the question, bb tonight
    NotPanicking

    Comment by NotPanicking (original poster) at 12:00 PM on Nov. 8, 2012

  • Wait which group are we talking about? If as a majority the people didn't see Mourdock or Akin as going too far, they would be in office right now. If we are discussing those that actually voted for them...well I take you back to a previous question when it came out that "Thinking is hard" and some would rather vote for who they are told to vote for in order to be "good Americans" (as the propoganda they are told tells them they need to be) than to actually have to form an opinion to begin with
    KristiS11384

    Answer by KristiS11384 at 12:04 PM on Nov. 8, 2012

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.