The Way of the Johnny

I've been wanting to write about moral relativism ever since I attended a local symposium entitled "The Constitution . . . in the Age of Obama". While the symposium was supposed to be about the Constitution, the symposium speakers spoke more about moral relativism and the natural law. The reason for this is that the Constitution, as written by the founders of the USA, was written from the basis of natural rights, which has a direct relationship with natural law. While there are many theories on what constitutes natural law, all the theories have commonalities, namely that there exists law(s) which are set by nature (and by extension, God. if you're a monotheist) that are valid everywhere. Thomas Jefferson believed in natural law, as did Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. The idea of natural law has been around for thousands of years. So what is moral relativism? And where did it come from? Dr. Charles E. Rice, who spoke at the symposium I mentioned above, explained ...

**Note: In my original unedited version of this post, I received some comments stating I was being too judgmental and arrogant in my language. After much thought and second opinions, I believe this resulted from the fact that I mixed my own opinions with the facts I was trying to state. I saw no problem with this before because I write my blogs unedited and uncensored as I think of them, in much the same way a person keeps a diary or journal. However, in the spirit of Catholic apologetics, I must be charitable to those who disagree with my views while at the same time not being afraid to voice my opinions. Therefore, in the future, I will make a concerted effort to post my opinions in separate blog entries from entries with more apologetic, factual material. This way, I hope to achieve both my goals of debunking factual errors stated about the Catholic Church (and other subjects I'm passionate about) and of voicing my uncensored opinion on all kinds of subject matter. I recent...

I recently received a comment on my post "Dance with the Devil." I had to reject the comment because the person tried to bring up the subject of George W. Bush Jr. and how he wasn't really pro-life, abortion went up during his presidency, he approved torture, Pope John Paul II condemned the Iraqi war, etc., etc. It's all the stereotypical objections I hear from Obama's supporters. Even though my post had nothing to do with Bush, this person couldn't help but take the opportunity to condemn the Bush administration. However, I would still like to post a reply to his comments because he listed sound bytes as if they were facts. It's easy to take sound bytes as facts if they're listed very quickly in succession. So I'd like to respond to each criticism objectively with the facts: He approved torture I take it this is a reference to waterboarding . Unfortunately, the definition has been expanded to include "extended interrogation techniques....