The thing about moral relativism is that it is impractical in real life, and so becomes merely selective application of moral absolutism; so, instead of actually letting all moral standards be equal before their eyes, the relativists instead just settle on a few items as non-negotiable, and let others slide, without feeling the need to justify their inconsistency.
What is moral relativism in theory—expressed, politically, as secularism—is selective moral absolutism in practice—expressed, politically, as democracy (“you may vote on anything, but not on the voting itself”).
The reason Amnesty International goes astray is because it is moral-relativist. They have got several thousand signatures on a petition to challenge the raping, by law, of a pair of Indian sisters because of a crime their brother committed. There are many things wrong with what Amnesty International did, and I want to go over them.
(And, funny enough, in that link is an embedded document from Richard Dawkins, the avowed darwinist teacher. —But on what grounds does a darwinist protest the rape of the young and nubile? That it is not adaptive? That it is not fit? So, you see, even this self-proclaimed darwinist/darwinian cannot contain his post-Christian rage at girls being sentenced to rape, by law, over the crimes of their brother. But he can neither declare that law wrong—for, then, he would have to abandon the moral relativism which first made darwinism appealing to people like him—nor yet deny that, in fact, this is exactly what should be considered normal by his worldview.)
Amnesty International protests the sentence of rape, but does not protest the thing that justifies the sentence in the eyes of the Indians who gave it: the Hindu caste system. How absurd! “Oh!” responds one, “They are dealing with this one issue here!” Yes; I am also dealing with one issue: that the Indians are heathenous pagans who, if they were saved from their Hinduist idolatry, would just have all these problems go away as a body. The problem is not that people are acting out their Hinduism, or even “fanatical Hindus”, or “extremist islam”, or whatever. The problem is that they are not Christians. That’s all. —For if they were Christians, either they would act right, or there would be sound grounds to condemn what they do. But the moral relativist hypocrites, who use a document to feign concern for the people living in darkness, are not really concerned for more than just the show of concern, be they any of those who tweeted, or signed, or Amnesty International itself.
In the very first case when Moses gives a law to the Israelites—the very first one—there occurs this poignant line:
There shall be one law for you and the stranger who lives among you.There was to be one law in all the land, “in all your territory,” and this being one law for the native and the sojourner. From the very first law, God was inserting clauses to deal with the sojourner. Even not allowing a stranger on the Passover meal was explicitly stated, because otherwise he was to be included.
Now, in the post-Christian West, every other idiot wants to scream “Aristotle, in his cosmopolis
” as though history begins with the Greeks and Romans. —And those, too, never had a one-law system, to say nothing of “human rights,” and they even had castes amongst themselves as a core building block of their societies. (Out of that, Romans gave us words like “patrician” and “plebiscite”; as for the Greeks, even their mightiest fighter nation, the Spartans, were destroyed by their obsessive caste system with its dual-law tendencies, which no Western thinker even ever criticised until quite recently.)
But we, who are not post-Christian (and, by the grace of God, will never be, as Isaiah says of us “A nation great from now until forever”), all the history before Moses is a waste of time and a wandering in the dark, and all the history after him is either proto-Christian orthodoxy or a heretical patch of heathenism.
(And this is why the evil heresy of “independentarianism” is truly the worst thing that ever survived under the covers of the “Protestant” label. For independents are the snake in the camp; they are the root of moral relativism in the Western churches, and consequently even the legitimacy of democrazy. “Independetarianism” pretends that liberty and anarchy are the same; but the presbyterians have it right: liberty is only such as is given under Christ, and it neither yields to the accursed prelacy of the “episcopalians” nor goes as far as to deny that God has revealed a structure for the organisation of the congregations in His word, and not left it to the imaginations of hearts that are deceitful above all things and desperately sick.)
Moral relativists are particularly incapable of condemning a moral system—whether that is islamic shari’a, or for that matter the Mosaic Law (even though they necessarily want, and even need, to condemn this latter because this is how they come to be)—while in fact other moral systems have no problem condemning the moral relativists. The Indians who insist on the caste system readily condemn the Westerners and their morality, whichever it may be, for we know how immoral, repugnant, and disgusting the mixing of tribes is to people who worship under the swastika; and the muslims say in horror, on TV, “What? Men and women or equal footing? Monogamy? Kill the infidel!” But the post-Christian West has covered the face of our glorious Lord with shame, denying Him before the generation of the wicked, and crucifying Him again, naked and abandoned, without a single believer to rally around His name. Nothing remains for those who have ignored and denigrated the call of the Lord, but a fearful expectation of punishment. They have treated as an unworthy thing the blood by which they are saved! And if the ones who ignored the blood of a mere lamb, on the Passover, were cut off at the head and excluded from among the people of God, how much more those who have scorned and trampled under foot the Lamb of God? It is a frightful experience that awaits the post-Christian World: it is terrifying beyond all things, to fall into the hands of the Living God.
All this said, the problem with the thing of the sisters is not so much the verdict, for there is a culture behind the verdict, and that is what needs to be dealt with. Everybody likes to scream out loud about how “India is the World’s largest democracy,” but they do not decry as loudly and as openly that it is the largest pagan nation. If they democratically voted for the gang-rape of the sisters, the entirety of the West would have nothing to say. They can neither condemn democracy as the sampling of the evil and wicked hearts of men, for to them a democratic vote is an automatic moral victory, nor can they condemn the morality on which the idolatrous nation bases to vote in such wickedness, because that would require that they insist on the superiority of their own moral codes.
Just copying democracy from the Western nations is like drawing pictures of solid pillars on a flimsy clay hut, and saying “Behold the pillars!” If they were Christian, they could be safely democratic; they would be inevitably well-governed; but while they are pagan, everything is merely giving legitimacy to oppressive, racist, mysoginistic, and heathenous men.
Things were not always this bad. I think it was Sir Charles (or James?) Napier, the one of the “PECCAVI: I have Sind” fame (if memory serves—I write these things offline), who told the Indians to stop their evil habit of burning wives on the pyres of their husbands. This was when Britain was still self-consciously Christian. The Indians insisted on their morality, saying it was correct to burn women alive on pyres when their husbands preceded them in death. Then the Brit insisted that his morality would prevail, even if by blood and iron; this is how the wife-burning habit was expunged from India. Would that, if only to save the women fundamentally, they had continued on and said the God would be Lord over India, even if by blood and iron! —For anything else is a job half-done. We don’t have a problem with any particular evil habit (we are not legalists); we have a problem with heathenous rejection of faith in God (we are reformed Christians).
Britain committed a sin of greed when she focussed on commerce and spices, instead of on turning India Christian. For if they had turned India Christian, with their blood and money, God would have returned upon them a thousandfold—rather than the pittance that they got by their own hand—sons and treasures galore. “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and the rest will be added unto you.” They would have had an India that knows nothing but colourful, saffron, indianised Anglicanism, and they would have done the right thing (which they only did once, in the case of Uganda, and even there because God over-ruled their hearts and their desires, for His name’s sake), and then God would have fulfilled for them this promise “Other nations will serve you, but you will not serve them.”
For God never forbade imperialism—after all, it is always His work, from Assyria and the Medo-Persians, to the Macedonians and the Romans, to Spain and the Anglosphere. Do you think any nation ever makes itself? Acts 17 tells you: “He made all the nations that they may seek Him.” Do you think any nation makes itself mighty? This is the sin and madness of the Germans and their Nazi heathenism, which made them glorify in-breeding because they did not regard God, who alone elevates one and puts down another. —But when the empire is not a blessing of His to a righteous nation, it is merely a tool in His hand (a rod in His hand, an axe He wields), whose power leaves it inexcusable for not acknowledging Him (for He says “for this reason I raised you up, that I may show my glory in you”).
So, back to the Amnesty International petition. The sentence said that the sisters should be paraded naked, with their faces blackened—a reference to, and emphasis of, their lower-caste status that is the real reason for all the outrage among the Indians—but the Amnesty International petition said nothing in protest to this. How is it that they will leave clearly-expressed caste-based segregation intact, and yet expect to overthrow the necessary results thereof?
Moreover, the moral relativists cannot condemn the Hinduism, but it decrees worse than just blackened faces for lower-caste people who dare the system; for their accursed scriptures decree that boiling oil be poured into the ears of lower-caste people who so much as dare not to flee from (or, gods forbid, step into) the shadow of an upper-caste man.
And the stupid Amnesty International and the darwinian Dawkins and all the accursed relativist post-Christian Westerners, who excel at feigning rage, would protest as “extremist, radical, fanatical” a pious Hindu man who sought to return to the basics of the true Hinduism, and pour boiling oil in the ears of the sisters. But the fanatical idolater would condemn them justly before God, whom he does not even know; for God even tells the Israelites “Check among the tents of Kedar; has any nation ever abandoned its gods? Yet My people have forsaken me.”
Besides that, the house of the sisters was looted. There is no protest against that. And indeed, this is what calls out the emotional pretenders who sought to feign concern over this issue. For if robbery of the innocent is wrong, why did they not call it out? Or should we rob the houses of the innocent, as long as we do no rape them?
But a sound morality, like that of the Bible, would condemn all that in one fell swoop, not because one is outrageous to us and the other is not, but because it is all outrageous to God. “For the One who said ‘Do not murder’ also said ‘Do not covet your neighbour’s things.’”
You have an India that has no coherent, well-rooted argument against the mass-murder of girls in the womb, and what response will it have to just the rape of two? In the eyes of every boy born in the last two generations, women have been a burden and little more than a help to orgasms; they have been killed in droves by their own parents. Why should they now act so horrified that these stupid things are being put to the use for which they survived the womb at all? All of India has no sound argument against abortion—and whatever speaks contrary to the murders can be voted down, therefore it is not binding to the expressed sentiment and practice of the majority—how will it master up one against rape?
Moreover, the root cause of the conflict was that a woman of higher caste was forced to marry a man of his caste, while in fact she loved another man, who was of lower caste. She eloped with the lower-caste man, and this started the trouble. In all the silliness of Amnesty International, the issue of forcible marriage is not dealt with, even though the “Declaration of Human Rights” that they claim to be defenders and promoters of deals explicitly with this issue. There was an age when the people of the Earth were obsessed with declarations and documents of this nature, infected with it by the Americans and tolerant of the consequent flow of inconsistent ammendments and tentative clarifications, and they all forgot that simple hermeneutics could deal with everything from one source, even the Bible. Numbers 36 does not just give the women the rights to land inheritance that are, even today, absolutely far and away out of sight of democratic India’s best efforts, it emphasises that they may choose their husbands “as they see fit.”
The heads of the fathers' houses of the clan of the people of Gilead the son of Machir, son of Manasseh, from the clans of the people of Joseph, came near and spoke before Moses and before the chiefs, the heads of the fathers’ houses of the people of Israel. They said, “The Lord commanded my lord to give the land for inheritance by lot to the people of Israel, and my lord was commanded by the Lord to give the inheritance of Zelophehad our brother to his daughters. But if they are married to any of the sons of the other tribes of the people of Israel, then their inheritance will be taken from the inheritance of our fathers and added to the inheritance of the tribe into which they marry. So it will be taken away from the lot of our inheritance. ” And Moses commanded the people of Israel according to the word of the Lord, saying “This is what the Lord commands concerning the daughters of Zelophehad: ‘Let them marry whom they think best, only they shall marry within the clan of the tribe of their father.’”Now, incidentally, this problem shows up because women have the same rights to inheritance in a patrilineal society; yet if they are such heirs, they are to maintain their tribe’s land holdings by marrying freely within the tribe. Now, the accursed feminists would screech at the limits placed on the women, not even realising that India—where women are burned when their husbands die—is otherwise the norm outside of the Bible; they do not regard the many marriage limits placed on the men as restrictions, for instance, more-severe or worth protesting against as much as those placed on the women, for they, being accursed under Eve, pant and lust after exactly what the men have, and spurn and despise that which is different about them, because the men and their status is their ideal when they are living under the curse. “He shall lord it over you, and your desire shall be to him.” So feminism doesn’t even fix the problem of the women, because it is merely the desire to be “[insert whatever] like the men!” Feminism is just envy of male chauvinism, and the regard of the prevailing masculine expressions as an ideal to pursue, rather than an affirmation of the under-appreciated crucialness of the prevailing female roles, which are not to be abandoned or changed, but rather appreciated more. Besides, feminism will always fail to liberate the women, because they make poor equivalents of men; not just physiologically (which is why whatever feminism gets men have to give, while whatever male chauvinism gets it simply takes), but also because the decree of God cannot be over-ruled by blind and envious stupidity.
The real danger in the moral relativism of these self-proclaimed defenders of the wicked and illegitimate self-proclaimed moral standard of the World is that they are worse than simple permissiveness. So they excuse India from the constant condemnation that they heap on, say, North Korea, just because India is democratic (for some definition thereof). In fact, India is more-dangerous to women and Christians than North Korea will ever be. They have excused the fact that an unrepentant idolater like Narendra Modi is elected to be President, and that the laws allow this—how can a man who bows to images and worships the work of men’s hands be permitted anywhere near any podium for any reason?—and then obsessed over the fact that such laws consequently follow through on the outright insane foundations upon which they are built.
And nobody has a response to this who is a secularist, because that is basically what it means and takes to have moral relativism as the moral stance of a nation; and this, in turn, is acted out as selective moral absolutism.
A correct response to the issue of the sisters being sentenced to rape would be to condemn all India, not in spite of its being democratic, but precisely because it is the largest democracy, which may enforce whatever evil men (like the ones who passed the sentence) vote into law. For without this, all that is left is that the many upper-caste people rally to vote wickedness into the constitution. A correct morality can condemn all men, and stand alone right against the united opinion of everything that can think; as it is written: Let God be true and every man a liar. God is true even when every man is a liar.
The correct fix would not be to front the Declaration of Human Rights, which insists that people should be able to vote on whether it is worth looking at (and it is not), but rather to insist that India be a sacralist Christian state, which enforces the truths which alone are true and incontrovertibly-so. Even if it erred, then, and murdered girls and raped women, it could be charged with wrong on the basis of a true law which, moreover, is not changeable: the word of God.
Many people all over the World continue to be victims because those who would have defended them, that they get the liberty which they also have had in the parts of the World that benefitted from the Reformation, have all turned against the Lord who saved them, and scorned the covenants and testaments by which He liberated them and glorified them, and have said in their hearts that they know better. “So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts, to follow their own counsels,” as He said in Psalm 81. Hence democracy, from the time when the Stuart kings purjured with God, the days of Pride’s Purge and Oliver Cromwell the independentarian, when the men who had before them the example of a nation living and walking with God turned their backs on Him and His word.
The women of India suffer, and are murdered in droves even before they are outside of the womb, not because there is no democracy, but because there is no lordship of Christ in that land. Anybody who feels anything for the women of India should first feel outraged that idols lord it over that nation, and which decree forth the shedding of blood. And unless a people are Christian, there is no justification for the men being on equal footing with women, and daughters being as prized. Only in Christ is there “Neither Jew nor Gentile, neither male nor female, neither slave nor free; but all are one in Christ Jesus.” Otherwise, those women, like all others, will be quivering under the hand of Adam, to whom they were subjected for the sin of Eve. There is no way out of the curse of God, except in Christ.
Similarly, muslims suffer the most from islam and its murderous tyranny, because the Christians will not oppose the islam under which these people suffer; for, indeed, the old Christian nations have abandoned God. The muslims kill more muslims than they kill Christians, and the leading cause of the murder of muslims is the decree to murder that is found in islam itself; if indeed anybody truly loves muslims—even if because he is himself a muslim—the first thing he should do is turn against and oppose the islam itself. It is an evil and murderous heresy.
And the fix, in every single case, is the same: that Jesus Christ be Lord over the land, that the kings kiss the Son, and everything be subject to God.