LETTER: Morals are defined by self

Editor,

The problem with the rationale that morality is absolute is that there is no such thing as an absolute. What the writers mean is that they think how they believe is the absolute truth, so legislation should be written to force everyone else to conform to their beliefs. Shortly after the LDS church was founded, it was outlawed by the Congress of the United States because the members of Congress felt that plural marriages were morally reprehensible. Did that protect the rights of the early Mormons? If Hindus in this country feel that slaughtering cows is immoral, should we pass a law banning the sale of beef? While a majority of people in this nation are Christians, everyone is guaranteed the right to believe and worship as they wish (as long as they aren’t harming others in the process).

One of the authors of a recent letter stated that “liberals” were trying to shut him up by calling him a homophobe. Then he proceeded to infer anyone who thought that the Bible shouldn’t be used as a basis for civil law was a Nazi or a Stalinist. The Wermacht wore the slogan “Gott mit uns” (God is with us) on their belt buckles, and Hitler sent homosexuals to the death camps along with the Jews because he thought they were an immoral abomination.

Which brings me to the concept that if you aren’t religious, you can’t be moral. Morals are your belief in what is right and wrong. Many atheists believe they have to do good for others because they are part of a web of life and they only have one short chance to do what they can to make a difference while they are here.

The bottom line is, there is no reason to deny a segment of the population their Constitutional rights just because you don’t think they are morally right. You have the right to tell them how you feel and to try to change their minds about their lifestyle, but they deserve equal rights under law. That is what this country is about.

Dan Stormont