Unfortunately you are objectively correct. I would suggest that though that 'it' has not changed but rather it has been changed -changed by the same method we see now being employed by the homosexual agenda activists. We see government imposed morality that is based upon an illegitimate form of pluralism --illegitimate in that morality is only deemed legitimate if rationally premised and is necessarily devoid of religious and or faith premised morality. In essence the freedom to practice religion is being curtailed by government under the premise that it is irrational as a basis for law...
The obvious question is what then about those unalienable rights endowed by the Creator?
A couple things you might find interesting that I have posted on similar discussions:
Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church
-excerpt:
572. The principle of autonomy involves respect for every religious confession on the part of the State, which “assures the free exercise of ritual, spiritual, cultural and charitable activities by communities of believers. In a pluralistic society, secularity is a place for communication between the different spiritual traditions and the nation”. Unfortunately, even in democratic societies, there still remain expressions of secular intolerance that are hostile to granting any kind of political or cultural relevance to religious faiths. Such intolerance seeks to exclude the activity of Christians from the social and political spheres because Christians strive to uphold the truths taught by the Church and are obedient to the moral duty to act in accordance with their conscience. These attitudes even go so far, and radically so, as to deny the basis of a natural morality. This denial, which is the harbinger of a moral anarchy with the obvious consequence of the stronger prevailing over the weaker, cannot be accepted in any form by legitimate pluralism, since it undermines the very foundations of human society. In the light of this state of affairs, “the marginalization of Christianity ... would not bode well for the future of society or for consensus among peoples; indeed, it would threaten the very spiritual and cultural foundations of civilization.
How about something, a different way of looking at things, that may blow your mind?
As a conservative I assume you believe like many including myself in the inherent benefits associated with the economic free market system.
The free market is pretty much a spontaneously generated self regulating complex system comprised of many variables and individual inputs that by its very nature rewards value generation and discourages value destruction. It promotes competition, success, innovation, and efficiency -creating wealth along the way.
Individual market participants uncoordinated acting primarily to further and advance their own welfare determine value and price of goods and services based upon needs, wants, supply, and demand. The end result of uncoordinated individual advancement within this system of insurmountable complexity is an advancement the common good...
OK -now what about the moral free market?
Ask yourself --what is the rational basis for Beta to win out over VHS or for SUVs to win out over compact cars of for that matter any thing to be valued over anything else and to succeed or fail in the economic free market?
Now go one step further and ask yourself WHY all of the sudden must that valued in the moral free market require a rational basis? The answer should lead one to conclude that those suggesting such are simply those that seek to destroy the moral free market -in essence, they seek to take away individual freedom of market particpants...
Some may be familiar with F.A. Hayek who wrote a book I recommend to any free market conservative --he is noted for his writings on the inherent benefits associated with the free market system and the inherent flaws associated with socialism. It is no coincidence that underlying legitimate individual freedom are premised not only his arguments on the value, benefits and sound reason for the economic free market but as well arguments regarding the value, benefits and sound reason for the moral free market e.g. society -its historically proven successful and historically observed traditions and institutions...
Hayek on Tradition(40 Page PDF Document)
-excerpt:
Traditional morality is rejected today as commonly as it was once taken for granted. And if the specific content of that morality, especially where it touches on matters of sexuality, is widely regarded with contempt, the meta-ethical notion that one ought to respect a moral code precisely because it is traditional gets even worse treatment: It is held to be beneath contempt. Modern educated people take it to be a sign of their modernity and education that they refuse to accept the legitimacy of any institution or code of behavior, however widespread, ancient, and venerable, which has not been rationally justified. Traditional morality stands doubly damned in their eyes: It is not rationally justifiable, and its adherents fail even to attempt to justify it so. The traditional moralist, they take it, is a slave not merely to the “conventional wisdom” but to the conventional wisdom of people long dead. He is in the grip of irrationality, superstition, and ignorance; worst of all, he is out of date.
Read it, if you like it --use it, and pass it on...
For those interested on what Hayek says about big government socialism: Readers' Digest Condensed Version of the Road to Serfdom (in PDF format(40 Page PDF Document)
Very interesting points. I read most of Hayek recently, but it was due back at the library. I’ll get my own copy if I see it in the used book store.
I believe that one can readily defend traditional morality on a rational basis, if anyone can be found who is willing even to discuss it. (As we see on the thread, most “defenses” of contraception are “I do it and it’s okay,” which is not exactly a deep discussion.) However, that’s not the same as morality’s being “rationally premised,” starting from a base of pure reason.
One wonders why that would even be a goal, given the real-world outcome of systems claiming to be based purely in human reason. Even a strict materialist would have to look at revolutionary France, for example, or Soviet Russia, and say, “FAIL,” on strictly utilitarian grounds.