OnePatriot, in #4983, suggests to set one’s own moral standards is ridiculous.

It amuses me to the point where I laugh out loud when I hear someone spout that load of crap. It’s so funny because these folk completely miss the FACT that with a few exceptions, ALL HUMANS SET THEIR OWN MORAL STANDARDS no matter what their religion or laws dictate. The exceptions include the mentally handicapped and/or ill, and those whose ability to think and reason is so impaired that some religion or set of Vice Squad laws must be imposed.

But for the vast majority such written “moral standards” are unnecessary. Most people would never commit incest or bestiality or any of the other horrors that beset a very few that OnePatriot outlines. Does OnePatriot really think that without today’s “laws” and religious proscriptions against certain behaviors we’d all revert to the kind of people who’d revel in immoral acts? Does OnePatriot honestly think a bunch of politicians whose lack of morals and integrity makes the headlines daily are capable of formulating laws for the rest of us? What an incredible JOKE! Boy, are you brainwashed, OnePatriot!

Freedom is FREE, OnePatriot, or at least, it COULD be if those of us who wish to live lives of our own design in peace could just be left to do so WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM PEOPLE LIKE YOU TELLING EVERYONE ELSE HOW THEY SHOULD LIVE THEIR LIVES AND WHAT RULES TO FOLLOW. If people like you didn’t force the rest of us to spend time and energy defending ourselves from your self-righteous interference, we’d ALL BE FREE.

#4983: 

If you didn’t set your own moral standards, who did and why did you let them?  I hope you don’t really believe that we elect our politicians so they can set (and enforce) our personal moral standards.  You, like the editors of the Argus Leader, seem to imagine a conflict between individual rights and moral concerns.  That would mean that politicians, simply because they are politicians, are somehow of a higher moral caliber (a moral elite, as it were), which gives them the right to lawfully impose their personal standards upon the rest of us.  Thus we are reduced to the status of dogs whining at the door because we’ve learned that peeing on the carpet is a no-no.

If you’re looking for a quick, off the shelf moral standard, here’s one:  Leave other people alone.  If two people enter into an incestuous relationship as consenting adults, leave them alone.  If people commit bestiality without being cruel to animals, leave them alone.  If a woman decides, for her own personal reasons, to terminate her pregnancy, leave her alone.  You can never violate the rights of another person by minding your own business.

The abortion debate is not so much about abortion as religion: Conservatives want to impose their peculiar religious idea—that a soul is magically introduced into a cell at the moment of conception—onto others via federal law.

If they succeed, other religion-based laws no doubt will follow.

The attempt to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage—an effort that puzzles reasonable people—is another example of this kind of religous fervor. (Religious conservatives are much the same worldwide, whether they are in Iran or Alabama.)

The Argus-Leader is cowardly in not opposing this trend, but that’s par for the course in the media these days.

So everyone can set thier own moral standards?? what a ridiculous statement ... what if one’s moral standards include incest ?? .. how about beastiality ?? ...oh that’s fine as long as it’s an “internal affair” ...This silly notion that an individual doesn’t have to conform to any standards / morals but his own is nuts!  ... you must realize that you conform to many moral standards every day! I guess the point is - where do you draw the line ? who decides? ... that’s why we elect people to create laws .. and your definition of “free” is so simplistic it’s goofy !So.. since you have to abide by laws and the government( authority) tells you what you can or cannot do in certain instances, your not free ??  ... here’s a newsflash ... FREEDOM IS NOT FREE ... you are free to pursue your life / dreams etc. as long as you abide by the laws and it doesn’t cause harm to another( perhaps a developing human being) or the general public ...Sorry to hear you don’t live in a free country .. but you are free to move to one.

It seems newsworthy that local politicians would, in their infinite piety, purposely violate American constitutional law.  The first amendment guarantees freedom of the press, thereby casting media in the roll of sentinels of freedom. But the brave ‘sentinels’ at the Argus Leader have stood down, turned tail and fled from the mere scurrying of roaches.

Pretty lame, editors, pretty lame. To convince yourselves that you won’t “change any minds” and so use that to justify refraining from publishing anything is about as castrated a position as I’ve ever encountered.

You asked in the piece “In the delicate balancing act between individual rights and moral standards, what is the right position?”

I guess that depends on whether you consider you live in a FREE country. In my view, in a FREE country the INDIVIDUAL has, by definition, the inalienable RIGHT to determine for him/herself what “moral standard” he/she wishes to set for him/herself, especially in such private matters as “internal affairs.”

If some “authority” other than the individual is deemed to have that right, then the culture/country is NOT a free one. I don’t know exactly what it is, but it’s not free.

But the USA uses a different definition of the word “free” than does the rest of the world. Take “Free Trade” for example. The USA signs treaties with Mexico and Canada ensuring free trade between and among the countries, and at the first sign of some unforeseen disadvantage to the USA of this agreement, the USA unilaterally slaps duties and other restrictions as it sees fit and ignores rulings by international tribunals on the matter. To hell with what you’ve agreed in writing to. If you want to talk about “moral standards” think how low the bar is set when your WORD and AGREEMENTS on the international stage are not to be trusted.

Back on topic… FREE means not being subject to the control or domination of or by another, and this includes the government or religious bodies.

It is an utmost arrogance for anyone to assume the right to determine for others how to deal with a pregnancy. It’s as completely a PRIVATE matter as was the act that resulted in the conception. TWO PEOPLE per pregnancy are the only ones who have a legitimate intervenor status. In a free country EVERYONE else BUTTS OUT.

But then, we’ve already determined that the USA is not really a free or even trustworthy country, haven’t we?

The USA is halfway to becoming one of the largest THEOCRACIES on the planet… so why stop now? Just hand over the reins to your brains to the Pope and Pat Robertson, snap firmly closed the ring in your noses, and follow along as instructed. Nirvana here we come!