When did morality become relative?  When did good and evil stop being black and white — and become shades of gray?  When did thieves and murderers stop being predators and become the oppressed victims of a corrupt system?

Those are the fruits of moral relativism.  It holds that there is no absolute right or wrong — what one culture considers "wrong," another will consider "right."  It is the philosophy that good and evil are constructs of human beings — not laws of God.

There are two social frameworks for occupants of our world — "might makes right" and divine law.  "Might makes right" is credited to Greek philosopher Thrasymachus.  The philosophy asserts that a society's view of right and wrong is determined by those in power.  It imposes no morality on the issue of right and wrong.  It is simply that those in a position to make the rules are free to do so with no ethical constraints.  In "might makes right," strength is righteousness, and prosperity is determined by survival of the fittest.

A shark that devours a seal is not evil.  It is simply an animal deriving sustenance from another.  There is no judgment, no guilt, and no ethical conundrum.  The strong thrive at the expense of the weak.  It is neither good nor evil.

We accept that "might makes right" for non-human animals.  But we do not accept it for ourselves.  A man who steals from another is not a mere animal deriving sustenance from his prey.  We believe that men have an inherent right to not be preyed upon, because we accept the notion of good and evil — a standard that transcends cultural beliefs and animalistic cravings.

We believe that humans have God-given rights.  However, belief in an authority greater than the state goes against the philosophy of communism and must not be allowed by its adherents.  As Karl Marx said in 1844:

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

He viewed religion as a drug created by men, to temporarily ease their suffering.  He felt that religion should be replaced by a Marxist society, which would ease physical suffering — no longer requiring a religious analgesic to mask it.

Hence, our leftist agitators are attacking the notion of a deity and the moral guidance such a being would provide.  They would prefer that right/wrong and good/evil be judgments made by men — based on their ever-changing understanding of morality.

The actions of Madalyn Murray O'Hair are characteristic of the leftist attack on religion.  She was an avowed atheist, an aspiring communist, and a militant feminist.  When the Soviet Union denied her sanctuary — twice — she pledged to change America into her vision of a secular utopia.  Lawfare was her weapon of choice.

Her first lawsuit was to prohibit the Baltimore public school system from forcing her son to pray each morning.  She managed to get a Supreme Court ruling that public schools could not mandate religious observance.  But she didn't stop with preventing the religious coercion of her son.  She spent the next three decades filing lawsuits to

• remove "In God We Trust" from U.S. currency,
• prohibit Christmas displays on government property,
• remove any reference to God from government buildings, and even
• punish NASA for allowing the Apollo 8 astronauts to read from the Bible during their mission to the moon.

She won some cases and lost others.  But with a few creative judicial interpretations, separation of church and state became the widely accepted understanding of our Constitution — even though the document calls for no such thing.

O'Hair wanted more than the removal of religion from government.  When her son became a Baptist, she disowned him.  She wanted religion removed from our society entirely.

But without God, there can be no God-given rights.  In fact, men would cease to have any rights at all — only permissions granted by other men.  Further, those permissions would be subject to change at any time relative to the shifting of power and the desires of the powerful.

Without guidance that transcends humans — and static interpretations of good and evil — we have no moral compass.  With the advance of moral relativism, the human rights that our founders considered absolute, became subject to the interpretations of men.

Moral relativism has become the sermon of the powerful, as they make us all subjects of "might makes right."  In the eyes of our bureaucratic swamp, freedom of speech has a disinformation exception, and freedom of assembly is free only when COVID isn't in season.  In their view, we have no rights — only permissions that they grant, so long as those permissions are consistent with their objectives.  As our God-given rights are stripped away, they are replaced by tyranny imposed by those in power.

History is replete with atrocities achieved with moral relativism.  The French revolutionaries of the 18th century slaughtered thousands — and believed their actions to be just.  The Marxist class warriors of the 19th century initiated the advance of communism, with no concern about the offense to human rights that would ensue.  The Nazi master race of the 20th century attempted to exterminate an entire people, with the belief that it was the right thing to do.  Now the social justice warriors of the 21st century are working to reward victimhood and normalize antisocial behavior.  All have advocated disregard for God's guidance in service to their ever-changing interpretation of "right."

When morality became relative,

• self-defense became an offense against society,
• deviant behavior became brave,
• destruction of life became choice,
• crime became redistribution,
• riots became mostly peaceful,
• law enforcement enforced submission, and
• gifts from God were superseded by virus protocols.

Our march to moral relativism has not improved our society.  It has delivered rampant crime, economic collapse, dissolution of the nuclear family, hatred, distrust, misery, and destitution.

John Adams said, "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

It seems he was right.

John Green is a political refugee from Minnesota, now residing in Idaho.  He has written for American Thinker and American Free News Network.  He can be reached at greenjeg@gmail.com.

Image via Pxfuel.