The press tends to discuss hot-button issues like homosexuality, abortion,
divorce and sex scandals in isolation from a wider philosophical context. But
they cannot be so divorced, if we really want to understand what is really
going on in Western society.
The Prime Minister is passionate about strengthening family values in Jamaica
and the Leader of the Opposition, Bruce Golding, has joined the campaign.
He says, "It is an issue on which I believe that we can speak with one voice."
But the crisis in family values is much deeper than perhaps both the Prime
Minister and the Leader of the Opposition understand. There has been a cultural
and philosophical sea-change which has taken place since the 1960s
particularly, but which roots were sown in the enlightenment. We are now
reaping the whirlwind.
The issue really is, what is the ultimate source of authority on matters of
morality? Who determines what is right or wrong? And how can we know for sure
what is right or wrong for us?
There was a time when we all knew what -- or Who - was the ultimate authority
on right and wrong. We knew it was God, and we knew also that the Bible was the
means through which He had chosen to communicate His ways to us.
But we don't know that anymore. At least since the enlightenment and the
subsequent growth of secularism, there has been a rapid decline in belief in
any objective moral code.
Decline in traditional morality
The well-known conservative Asian-American intellect, Dinesh D'Souza, deals
with this issue incisively in his latest book, The Enemy at Home: The Cultural
Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11, (which is not as sensationalist as its
catchy marketing title suggests).
D'Souza analyses the decline in traditional morality in the United States,
which is Jamaica's cultural leader. If you want to know where Jamaica is going
culturally, watch what is taking place in the US
"Many Americans locate morality not in a set of external commands but in the
imperatives of their own heart. For them morality is not 'out there', but 'in
here'. There is now a new morality in America, which may be called the morality
of the inner self, the morality of self-fulfilment." Talk to gay people and
hear how they justify their lifestyle. You do not hear any philosophical
arguments or even any attempt at that.
What you hear is the right to the expression of their sexual feelings, the
sovereignty of their desires, the inherent irrationality and injustice of
denying their basic sexual urges. The view is, why should the heterosexual be
free to express his sexual urges while urging gays to 'control themselves'?
D'Souza continues his analysis: "The liberal promotion of autonomy,
individuality and self-fulfillment as moral ideals make it impossible to
question or criticise or place limits on these cultural trends.
"In the moral code of self-fulfillment, 'pushing the envelope' or testing the
borders of sexual and moral tolerance becomes a virtue and fighting for
traditional morality becomes a form of repression or vice."
No stigmatisation
Homosexuality is only the latest hot-button issue and gays are the ones next in
line for their 'liberation', but remember the days when it was a shame to be
pregnant out of wedlock?
A television host was interviewing me recently about homosexuality and she was
expressing alarm over the alleged rise in homosexual activity in Jamaica.
"What is the country coming to?" she was saying to me off-camera.
I reminded her that not long ago she herself would be shamed for having a child
outside of wedlock, and yet today as a prominent journalist she can speak
publicly about her child with pride and delight. And anyone who dares to say
that child is a child of fornication wouldbe roundly condemned in polite
society, though that is how the Bible sees it - the same Bible used to bash
homosexuals! It is a selective, convenient morality.
There was a time when people living together in common-law unions were seen as
sinful or unacceptable in middle and upper class society. Now prominent
business people and politicians can do that and are proudly featured on the
social pages with their live-in lovers.
That is not going to keep anyone from being elected to office. Divorced people
used to be stigmatised. Now, even in churches, they have gained their
liberation. The moral behind all of this is that views on right and wrong are
not static. They are dynamic. This is what gives the homosexuals hope that one
day they will be accepted, too.
And the reason why conservatives are powerless against the onrushing tide of
moral change is that tectonic forces are at play and it is harder to detect
those than to deal with the surface manifestations.
Philosophical studies
Little attention is paid to philosophical studies, but I keep saying they are
crucial in understanding so many phenomena.
Journalists should never be given any professional certification without a
heavy dose of philosophy for without it, they cannot make any sense of the data
they are called upon to report and analyse. They will be left adrift in a sea
of conflicting and contending waves of information, without any anchor.
So, all the discussions today in the media about homosexuality, increasing
sexual activity in schools, no-panty days at schools, students doing lap-dance
in buses, sex among young children, increase in carnal abuse, the proliferation
of massage parlours and increasing infidelity, are devoid of context.
Take the homosexuality issue: Why is homosexuality wrong? Most Jamaicans will
say because the Bible says so and because it is unnatural. But what if
individuals choose to do what is unnatural and against the Bible? Shouldn't
they have the right to do so?
The crucial questions are: Do minorities have rights? Granted that the majority
in the society abhor homosexuality, do they have the right to impose their
views on those who disagree?
On what basis can we, as a democratic, pluralistic society, deny freedom of
association to gay people who want their own church?
Should we not be embarrassed as a civilised society that gay people have to be
hiding to meet, for fear of their lives, when the constitution protects freedom
of assembly, freedom of speech and freedom of religion?
Can we separate the civil liberties, human rights issues from the issues of
sexual morality?
Human rights legislation and discourse has always been protective of the rights
of minorities. One can understand if the majority decides that the minorities
cannot do certain things which offend public sensibilities or 'public
morality', for even the Jamaican gays would acknowledge that the vast majority
of Jamaicans detest homosexual behaviour and even homosexuals.
Their respect for the rights of the majority would suggest an understanding
that there might be certain restrictions on their public display of affection
for one another.
Jamaicans who debate the homosexuality issue have to be consistent. If we are
using the Bible as the guide, then let us not be selective. The death penalty
was prescribed in the Old Testament for not only homosexuals, but also for
fornicators and adulterers the Bible does put forward the view that
homosexuality is unnatural and, therefore, some deduce is worse ethically than
fornication and adultery which are "natural sins", the penalty is the same for
transgressions.
So, if fornicators and adulterers have civil liberties - like freedom of
association and assembly - why should gay people be hiding to attend church or
having men policing the grounds of their worship assemblies, looking out for
people with murderous intent?
Threat to Christian agenda
Can godly heterosexual church men and women support their right to meet, while
condemning their practice of homosexuality? Of course, conservative Christians
fear that if you "give them an inch they will take a yard". They feel that even
'liberal-sounding' articles like this only embolden the gay agenda. Giving them
little victories, for example conceding their right to meet in their own
churches, will only lead to more demands until homosexuality is normalised and
mainstreamed, it is felt.
While some Christians do not really support violence against homosexuals, they
feel that if the hostile or vehement secular opposition to homosexuality abate,
after a while we will be accepting homosexuality as okay. It is the slippery
slope thinking which hardens some.
But my point is that the hold of traditional sexual morality is losing its
grip, and this is the biggest threat to the Christian agenda.
The host of sexual issues which the Press has been highlighting in Jamaica show
that the Western (largely American) cultural disease is advanced in Jamaica and
will soon reach epidemic proportions.
