Ethical Nonsense from an AP Article

  1. Share
5 2

Jared Fogle, the advertising face of Subway, pled guilty to paying for sex with minors and for possessing child pornography. Both are a crime in this country not only because we find these actions to be unethical, but also because we find that it is in the best interest of our society to have those actions criminalized and subjected to the punishment of the state. Not all unethical actions are deemed to require criminalization. You may covet your neighbor’s goat or hate his children, both in violation of God’s ethical standards, but we have, historically, not codified any means to prosecute coveters or haters, nor do we deem laws of value against those who lust or those who are slothful and lazy, nor children who are disobedient, nor those who do not give to the poor, nor even those who blaspheme God…although there was a time when some states did that, wrongly, I think.

When we do craft a law, therefore, it is, by necessity, based upon some ethical foundation. The laws that criminalize murder are based upon an ethic regarding the sanctity and rights of human life. The laws that criminalize theft are based upon an ethic regarding the rights to private property. And, the range of penalties for committing crimes varies based upon a sense as to the severity of the ethical breech. Spitting on a sidewalk in Wyoming may get you fined, but it won’t get you life in prison or the electric chair. You won’t serve 20 to 30 in the state penitentiary if your parking meter runs out while you shop for milk.

For most of our nation’s history, with some minor disagreements along the way, this ethical sense has been fairly consistent.

Until now.

In the heart of the AP article about Fogle, in the true nature of blue journalism and its agenda, is a very interesting, if not unnerving, interview. A graduate student, Julie Carlton, sitting in a Subway in New York, made the startling comment that she was more upset with Chick-fil-A than the issue with Jared Fogle. Why? Because the president of Chick-fil-A affirmed a definition of family that did not include same-sex marriage.

This is breath taking…and not simply because of the blue journalism that sets this out-of-place interview in the middle of an article about Fogle’s confession. It doesn’t belong there except for the agenda. But that isn’t what is strange. We see this everywhere in blue media. No, what is so breath taking is the front and center expression by Miss Carlton. Is it possible that we have gotten our ethical senses so wacky that we are offended more by someone who is expressing their religious opinion about the design of the family than an abuser who has paid to have sex with a child?


If you haven’t noticed, then take notice. The ethic regarding sexuality is targeted for destruction. The objective is to achieve zero ethics when it comes to sexual issues, except for the crafting of laws against those who oppose such sexual liberation. Jack Phillips, the baker in Colorado, is one of several examples of how you may no longer be legally allowed to hold your religious convictions regarding human sexuality. We are going to be inundated with attempts to destroy all vestiges of biblical sexual morality. We are going to continue to see story after story of the transgendered, of homosexuals and homosexual couples, of homosexual adoptions, of gender fluidity, of bisexuality, of polyamorism, and even of pedophilia…all in positive and affirming coverage.

Now, the last one may surprise you because you may be thinking, today, that laws regarding sex with minors are sacrosanct. They are not. They can’t be. Those who would want you to think that it would never happen may be the ones who want you to ignore the real consequences of moral relativism. We no longer appeal to a fixed, absolute moral standard in our political discussions. With that gone and Hollywood making it look “oh so beautiful”, public opinion can be quickly swayed. There are already numerous efforts to change the age of consent laws. The Netherlands recently lowered the age of sexual consent to 16. The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), before it went underground, pushed these changes for years. In 2011, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) held a symposium to discuss possible changes in the definition of pedophilia. Some of the discussion and presenters were lobbying for a position that certain levels of sexual activity between adults and children should be permissible. Today, the APA firmly holds to pedophilia being pathological. But they held the same firm position on homosexuality leading up to their reversal in 1973…and the culture followed suit. In a society where relativism has buried itself deeply into our hearts, the unthinkable is thinkable. Given a heart-tugging Hollywood movie and a few favorable television shows, and we are on our way.

Now, whether or not sex with minors becomes legal in my lifetime, which I believe it could unless something changes, the reality is that we have a plethora of evidence in our culture that we have now entered into an age of an ethical free-fall. The evidence is everywhere around us, from the Oval Office to an interview in a New York Subway.

When a nation rejects God and absolute moral standards, then it is not long before it descends into moral and societal chaos. Along the way, those who hold to the notion of God and absolutes will increasingly become the criminal. Jared will be seen as following his heart and Dan Cathy of Chick-fil-A will be viewed as the villain.

But, this is why it is the perfect time for the Remnant to kneel and to stand:

     To kneel…not before the golden statue of the king, but before the King of Kings…in personal and corporate confession and repentance.

     To stand…for personal righteousness, though it may cost you your job, or more, and for righteousness in public policy.

And let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we shall reap if we do not grow weary. Galatians 6:9

Take heart, Remnant. It is for this time that we remain.

Community tags

This content has 0 tags that match your profile.


To view comments or leave a comment, login or sign up.

Related Content

Court Rules: Baker Can't Say No; ACLU Calls it a Proud Day
A few miles up the road from me, in Lakewood, CO, a baker is fighting for what he believes is morally right. Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, declined to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple in 2013. The gay couple, rather than respecting his beliefs, took him to the authorities, because this isn’t about getting a cake or flowers or photos, this is about forcing you to bow the knee or pay tribute. In this case, as well as the numerous ones flaring up around the country, the court is not only wrong, but it’s ruling is flawed. The argument is that Phillips “discriminated” against the couple and that he was in violation of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law because he was “picking and choosing customers based upon their sexual orientation”. But this is in error. Phillips openly stated that he “has no problem serving gay people”. It is the purpose for the cake that violates his conscience, not the buyer. I suspect that even if his mother had asked him to bake a cake for a gay wedding, he would have said no because of his Biblical convictions. This isn’t discriminating against someone for their sexual orientation. The ACLU lawyer stated “no one should be turned away from a shop or restaurant because of who they are or who they love.” This is a false argument, because, first, they weren’t “turned away” like someone in the past might have turned away an Indian, a black man, a Jew or an Irishman. Phillips said he would have been happy for them to order or buy anything else in the shop. They weren’t “turned away”, they were denied a specific request. And second, most importantly, they weren’t refused this request because of “who they were or who they love”. It had nothing to do with them, it had everything to do with what was on the cake and its purpose. If the gay couple had asked for a cake with "Happy Birthday" on it, he would have made it. If they had asked for "Congratulations, Graduate", he would have made that also. But when he is asked to use his God-given talents to produce or support that which he believes is morally wrong, he is bound, before God, to say no. If the gay couple had asked him to portray a gay sex act or if a black heterosexual couple had asked him to portray a heterosexual act, does he not have the right to refuse both on personal moral grounds? In the argument of our courts today, he is in violation of the law if he refuses either, for he would be considered discriminating against gays and blacks. Does anyone in their right mind think that a black couple who requested this would take the baker to court? Of course not. Just as I would not do so if I went to a baker requesting a cake for my pork luau, and the baker told me he was sorry, for he was Muslim, and he could not in good conscience, depict a pig. I would ask his forgiveness that I had requested this of him, thank him for his honesty, and then seek out another baker.  Now, if Phillips had stated that he wouldn’t serve gay people at all, then I wouldn’t be supporting him either, because, although I personally think he has a right to refuse service to anyone, I think it would be contrary to a Christian worldview to show partiality. There is a difference between “discrimination and partiality” and partiality is morally wrong. After the court ruling, the ACLU called it a “proud day”. No doubt there was “dancing in the streets” by some. But this is not a proud day. This is a solemn other headlines trumpet the power of the courts over a florist in Washington, a photographer in New Mexico, county clerks in Kentucky and Tennessee, and another baker in Oregon, who is facing a $135,000 fine because it, too, violated her religious beliefs to support a gay wedding. Some have lost their shops; others are faced with losing their jobs, paying huge fines, and some…going to jail. A proud day? I don’t think so. I remember seeing pictures of people celebrating in the streets after 9-11. Some thought that was a proud day too. It wasn’t. I pray I will never celebrate knowing that someone else is grieving or losing something precious to them. Our President did this after the Supreme Court Oberfeldt ruling when he lit up the White House with rainbow colors while a large part of the nation was grieving. That was not a proud day, either. It was an unbecoming, "in your face" by a President. Christians should never do this. I suppose one may rationalize it on the football field, but in real life, we should be a people of compassion...resolute for truth and righteousness, but always gracious in victory. The courts and blue media and academia and Hollywood and much of civil government are aggressively against us...and against a Biblical worldview. It will most likely get even more difficult for us in the days ahead. But, despite this…there remains a huge remnant in the land. Take heart, take hope, take winsome and gracious, but firm, action. Pray, Remnant, Tuesdays Noon Eastern, for Revival and Repentance.
When a Culture Develops a Phobia of Truth... It Attacks Chick-fil-A
In the upcoming (hopefully and prayerfully) “Engagement” series, the first tour* will examine the rise of a phobia in our culture toward Truth… Truth with a capital “T” that is, for our culture is filled with little “t” truths… those truth claims that have their genesis in our own precious and special little hearts. We celebrate those truths so much that it borders on being a new cult… one in which the individual and the individual’s belief is elevated to something akin to divinity. To say “my heart tells me…” or “this is who I am…” is tantamount to speaking scripture and to speak against the feelings or desires of the individual is to be labeled with the culture’s current schoolyard names: bigot, hate-monger, intolerant, etc. etc. in hopes, as we did in grade school, that we can elevate our own significance and posture by sneering immature “put-downs” at our favorite “nobodies” and “deplorables”. It would be a grave mistake, as many Christians have done, to label what is happening here with things like “liberal” or “progressive” or “Democrat”. What we are witnessing is a wholesale attack upon truth that has infested much of the cultural powers. The New Democratic party has been deeply infected. But it isn’t the Party… it is the worldview. That worldview is one in which Transcendent Truth is no longer merely ignored nor just set aside so that we can go our own way. No… now there is a war against it. There is a hatred toward it… and a deep fear. An interview on several northwest campuses highlighted this fear. The interviewer, a 5’10” white guy, was trying to get university students to tell him that he wasn’t a 6’ 5” Chinese woman. Even though it was obvious to them, they were afraid to speak it, for to do so was to trump the individual’s declaration with something Transcendent… even that which was obviously real. So, last week, Daniel Piepenbring, writing in the New Yorker, decries the advent of a Chick-fil-A store to the City where, Daniel believes, it “doesn’t quite belong”. He writes that the store’s arrival “augurs worse than a load of manure on the F train”. Why? Is it because he believes there is something wrong with the chicken or the fries? Is it because the milkshakes carry a lot of calories? And, in a city that bans “Big Gulp” drinks in order to protect its citizens from consuming too much sugar, is the store simply out of “nutritional” step with New Yorkers? No. That isn’t why Piepenbring writes a scathing article against Chick-fil-A. It is because Chick-fil-A and its owners embrace a Transcendent Truth. Here is the caption under the article’s picture of the new store: “Chick-fil-A’s corporate purpose begins with the words “to glorify God,” and that proselytism thrums below the surface of its new Fulton Street restaurant.” Interesting, isn’t it? A corporate purpose that begins with “to glorify God” is viewed with distaste and is equated with one of the growing schoolyard taunts: “proselytism”? By the way, “proselytizing” is viewed as an attack upon the divineness of the individual, for It implies that the individual should be persuaded to a different way of thinking and living. In a culture that has made the individual divine, to say there is something wrong in the individual’s beliefs is to speak blasphemy and deserves a sentencing to the stocks… or worse. That is the tenor of the article. It is written with a sense of outrage, of seething anger and hatred toward an establishment, as Daniel states:  whose headquarters “are adorned with Bible verses”… Oh my! Or its stores have the audacity to “close on Sundays”… double Oh My! Then comes, of course, the thing that is probably stirring up the greatest phobia in Daniel, and that is the position of Dan Cathy, the CEO, who stood for “traditional marriage”. Our culture is in a war against Transcendent Truth and anyone who dares to stand for that Truth. If it is a transcendent truth about anything: sex, marriage, male and female, God, Jesus, salvation by Him alone, moral right and wrong… anything… you will be either opposed or openly hated by the cultural “elites”. Although the war against truth has been raging from the Garden, it has never been so openly waged in our culture as it is today. This is a recent phenomenon. But, there is a strong and faithful remnant in the land… take hope. “Blessed are those who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when men revile you and say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” Jesus, Matthew 5:10-11 Do everything in your power to live at peace in this culture, but don’t let it bully you into giving up the Truth. Jesus said He was the Truth. We will not turn away from Him, even if the beautiful people of Hollywood mock us, or the professors scorn us, or the NBA or NCAA move their games, or the state and the courts threaten us and close our stores, or even if a writer holds us in disdain and contempt. You are the light of the world. If you hide your light, then the whole house groans in darkness. We are a Remnant of Hope. Stand firm in Him.   *the Engagement: Tour 0: “In a Land of Nought—A Remnant of Hope”