A Pew Research Center study highlights some interesting characteristics of the “secular” west versus more traditional cultures.
The big difference is the large group who choose to define a topic as “not a moral issue”.
For instance in the conservative Philippine’s the question of abortion commands a 93% unapproved, a 2% approval, and a 4% not a moral issue response.
(Yes, that only makes 99 but take it up with Pew Research.)
In the more sophisticated United States the same question on abortion commands a 49% unapproved, a 17% approval, with 23% responding with “not a moral issue”?
What’s to account for this lack of conviction one way or another in the US and throughout much of Western Europe?
One explanation is that the residual convictions of the Judeo Christian underpinning of Western Civilization is still impacting those who may have little or no faith.
This would account for a need of some to take clearly moral issues such as adultery, gambling, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, etc. and move them into the realm of “not a moral issue”.
While the Cultural Marxist among us has an obvious preference to legislate ideological compliance, the political Left has chosen as their main means of political advancement the confusion and obfuscation of moral issues with dialectic materialist rhetoric.
Whereas in the Catholic Philippine’s abortion is unapproved by a solid majority in the more Protestant US the missing majority exist because the Left have grayed the issue with dialectic rhetoric like “Choice” and “Reproductive Rights”.
Such terms are associated with Political Correctness is designed to direct the conversion between tradition vs the extreme to arrive at a synthesis compromise that is always to the Left of traditional values.
Hence an extreme position like “transgender” males in female bathroom will, because it’s clouded in deceptive rhetoric such as gender fluidity, will end up pulling society to the Left of the original social conduct.
One way forward in the cultural battle is for those with traditional values to hold those who choose to opt out of a decision, accountable.
Understanding that most of the rhetoric of the Left, be it same sex marriage, drug use, abortion or any number of modern vice have to be cloaked behind confusing rhetoric to gain adherence or tactic approval.
Pointing out that those who may say same sex marriage is about “tolerance” or abortion is about “choice” that they are dishonest in not taking a stand of whole hearted approval or disapproval of the conduct itself not the rhetoric it hides behind, may well put them in a moral dilemma.
Like many people they may lack the stamina to be against, but at the same time may logically doubt that such a thing is good for the long term health of any society, or for any number of reasons, may feel very uncomfortable with full throated approval.
Confronted with having to choose sides based on the conduct itself and not verbal rhetoric may yield interesting results.