Redefining morality?

Riding high on what is arguably "bad science," the New York Times in a short editorial calls morality that is defined by how "humans behave with other humans" as antiquated. They "emphatically disagree" with traditional values when it comes to abortion and homosexuality -- two sins that destroying society -- while upholding the morality of "saving the planet."

The true science that upholds the true humanity of developing is disregarded in favor of false claims that went out with microscopes! As for homosexuality -- the open practice of such anyway -- the Times would insist that in is totally acceptable IN SPITE OF the verifiable facts of its dangers.

For over thirty years we have been losing the war with the children of the sixties -- and now they think they have the upper hand. It is time for us to stand up against the travesty of "Secular Progessives." Tonight I saw the movie Amazing Grace. This movie tells the amazing story of how William Wilberforce spent the better part of two decades bringing an end to slavery in the British Empire. The movement behind him did this by wide publication of the TRUTH. Against the odds, with the support of his friend, William Pitt (the youngest ever prime minister), he succeeded. John Newton, of course, was a big supporter of Wilberforce. He convinced him to persue the cause against the odds.

Where is the likes of William Wilberforce in our Congress today? Is there a presidential candidate of the caliber of William Pitt?

If we return to traditional values then we won't have to worry about our stewardship of the planet. If we care about the weakest among us, we will care about the world we leave to them.