Ruth Institute Blog

By John Stonestreet

Scientists often believe that if something can be done it should  be done. But that’s not always true.

The subtitle of Mary Shelley’s famous novel “Frankenstein,” was “The Modern  Prometheus.” The reference is to the Greek legend about the tragic consequences  of endowing humanity with god-like power. Shelley’s Frankenstein is about a  scientist operating without regard for moral and ethical constraints. Read more…

by Michael Cook

What is the proper role of money and markets in a democratic society? How can we protect the priceless goods in moral and civic life from being bought and sold?

Does everything have a price? Sometimes you might think so. Read more…

By Jennifer Lahl, CBC President

To suggest that one cannot or should not defend the sanctity of human life in the public square by using publicly accessible secular language is to remove a necessary tool for making the case for valuing and protecting all human life. While religious arguments are good and necessary even in the public square, secular arguments from reason are equally as important for effectively engaging in the marketplace of ideas in a pluralistic society. If we deny secular reasoning, then we deny thousands of years of the rich Hippocratic tradition in medicine. For in fact Hippocrates and his colleagues were pagan. Dust off the oath and read it. Read more…

Advice to incoming freshmen — from someone with experience. Oct. 23 issue feature.

by ASHLEY CROUCH

by Kevin Ryan

Teaching virtues to school children is only one part of handing on our moral heritage.

Two decades ago Harvard historian, Richard Hunt, coined the phrase, “no-fault history”, reportedly based on his experience teaching undergraduates his course on modern German history. In discussing the extermination policies and other unspeakable evil decisions of Hitler and his Nazi henchmen, Hunt’s undergraduates could not bring themselves to judge them as evil. “How can we judge Hitler?” they asked. “We don’t know how his parents treated him. Hitler was a victim of his own background, his conditioning. We don’t know the whole story. How can we say an individual is evil? Who are we to judge?” Who indeed? Read more…

by Robert P. George

Every member of the community has an interest in the quality of the culture that will shape their experiences, their quality of life, and the choices effectively available to them and their children.

Theorists of public morality–from the ancient Greek philosophers and Roman jurists on–have noticed that apparently private acts of vice, when they multiply and become widespread, can imperil important public interests. This fact embarrasses philosophical efforts to draw a sharp line that distinguishes a realm of “private” morality that is not subject to law from a domain of public actions that may rightly be subjected to legal regulation. Read more…

by Sheila Liaugminas

Given the expressed intent of the Founding Fathers in establishing a free, just and virtuous society, the importance of morality as its foundation, and their recourse to God from the beginning through recent history…it’s remarkable that we are in this battle now. Read more…

by Marcia Segelstein

In the not too distant past, traditionalists theorized that when it came to raising children, the answer was to retreat from the world.  Use private or parochial schools.  Or even better, homeschool.  Raise up a generation of kids who would change the world by trying to raise them outside the world.

To some degree, I concur.  Homeschooling and using Christian and other private schools are great options for those who have the time and resources. Read more…

by Michael Cook

In a race to the bottom of ethics, an American philosopher may have got there first.

“The religious fundamentalists are correct: without God, there is no morality. But they are incorrect, I still believe, about there being a God. Hence, I believe, there is no morality.” Read more…

We have been habituated to think that the most pressing issues of life and death are really just issues of choice.  “Abortion is a woman’s choice.”  A choice to do what? is the question never quite answered.  People should have the “right to choose” to use contraception, even if they are young and unmarried, as if there is ever a situation in which sexual intercourse is age-appropriate for a 14 year old.

I have long maintained that the issue isn’t about “choice” and never has been. The issue is creating a new moral universe, with ethical norms and social expectations that could not be defended on their own. So the issue of “choice” is thrown in as a smoke screen to cover up what is actually being done and advocated.

Now, comes Wesley J. Smith, with an example I would never have thought of, from his area of expertise, euthanasia. The “right to die,” means a person’s ”choice” to die is just as ethically valid as the choice to live under difficult circumstances.  He quotes this report from the Netherlands:

A priest in the parish of Liempde in North Brabant refused to conduct the funeral of a man who had chosen euthanasia, news agency ANP reports. Norbert van der Sluis said he was following the advice of bishops that people who choose euthanasia have no right to a church funeral. ‘Nor will my conscience allow me to have a colleague conduct the funeral in my church,’ he told ANP. The church council is so concerned at the refusal it has stopped a campaign for the repair of the church organ and is demanding an apology from Van der Sluis.

Smith continues:

That will teach him to follow his faith. Let the organ stay off key!

Refusing a funeral wouldn’t be my preference, but it was the priest’s, and doesn’t his conscience deserve at least equal respect to that of the decedent’s to receive doctor-injected death?  Here’s the bottom line: All of this talk of “choice” in the culture of death is just talk.  It is really about enforced moral conformity. (my emphasis)

Exactly so. Unfortunately, in this case, it is the priest’s own community giving him a hard time.