Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Let him without the ball cast the stone

By Ruth Limkin - posted Monday, 31 May 2004


Sabina Nowak, a member of the Australian Bisexual Network and Bi Pride Australia, said: "I believe the church needs to move away from personal morality questions that it cannot control and focus on those in which it can, such as the abuse within its own ranks."

While we would all agree that abuse within church systems is intolerable, Nowak's comments bring this present issue into perfect focus.

Personal morality is the basis of everything that happens. We cannot separate it from anyone's actions, be they priests or not.

Advertisement

The fact that abuse happens within our culture compels us as a society, including the church, to engage with the issue of personal morality.

All actions are the results of individuals' world views. Leaving aside mental illness or neurological influences, which can be modified by medical intervention, our behaviour is governed by our personal morality.

Therefore, to truly engage with a behavioural issue, we must discuss the system of belief or the personal values that influence the decisions we make. When we do this, however, we get into the messy area of right and wrong and whose opinion carries more weight when two opinions conflict.

Without some kind of external determinant of what acceptable morality is, we have no way for dissenting voices to reach a consensus.

We don't like to take the debate about personal morality to the public arena, because it's "private".

Our choices are our own business and society shouldn't censor us. Politicians regularly bring out this argument when they want to loosen legislation that pertains to "moral" issues.

Advertisement

Prostitution often is justified by the fact that it is a private act between two adults, and society shouldn't get involved because it does no harm to others.

But what if a married man contracts a sexually transmitted disease from a visit to a brothel and then passes it to his wife? Just how private is our private behaviour?

Let's face it, what civic leader wants to start the debate about personal morality? It's incredibly unfashionable, highly inflammatory and guaranteed to offend.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All

This article was first published in The Courier-Mail on 25 May 2004.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Ruth Limkin is the founder of The Banyans Healthcare, and considers it a privilege to lead a team who embody the values of care, respect and joy.
Ruth is passionate about creating a better tomorrow. Her experience in business, government, community and media provides Ruth with a breadth of leadership experience and an understanding of the various environments experienced by professionals and public figures.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Ruth Limkin
Photo of Ruth Limkin
Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy