Moral Law


Recap: ‘Christian Values’ is like ‘Moral Law’ they keep changing and shifting in value standards, generation after generation.

The film industry censorship standards are a classic example of how ‘Moral Law’ supposedly founded upon ‘Christian Values’ has kept changing its standards, not being able to comprehend what is truly moral and immoral. And extremist Islam and Ultra-Orthodox Judaism cannot get it right either.

Today the film industry in America and Australia for example, allows children to watch graphic violence, sex scenes and nudity with no real moral classification control, in other words, classification standards are very relaxed. Standards have been softened over the decades since the 1940’s. Censorship grading for children teenagers at 15 years+ can watch a lot of film action, violence, sex and coarse language scenes that once was banned even for adults over the age of 21 years. No one can agree as to what is moral and immoral. I have seen films that I don’t believe are suitable for children and should be rated as 18 years+. These ratings are guiding advise for parents, and whilst some parents responsibly control what their children can see, many other parents don’t care and allow their children to watch anything. I remember back in the early 1990’s my wife Jan and I would not allow our teenage children to watch ‘R’ rated ‘Restricted’ films, classified for ’17+’ in USA, 18+ in Australia. And yet we discovered that our children had visited a friend’s home, and they watched ‘R’ rated films, because the parents of their friends, allowed their children to watch anything. Thus, we parents’ that tried to do the right thing, were too often handicapped by child arguments, because they could not comprehend why they were not allowed to watch ‘R’ rated films whilst their friends were. And it became, even more difficult when an ex-marriage partner would allow the children to watch ‘R’ rated films.

Two classic films rated as ‘R 18+’ on original VHS tape copies, was good Chuck Norris martial arts actor in the 1985 film ‘Invasion U.S.A.’ and in the 1986 film ‘The Delta Force’. But a strange thing happened, rating standards declined, I found a copy of the DVD ‘Invasion U.S.A’ which is now rated as ‘MA 15+’ in 2005. The Delta Force’ held R 18+ rating in year 2000. It has a rating of 15 in Britain. Even countries cannot agree upon what is moral and not moral. I kid you not, adults today have nothing between the ears, they cannot comprehend what is moral and what is not moral. But the real issue is… not about morality… but about what is by common sense, right and wrong, good and bad, true or false. There is of course a detailed history of the evolution of rating standards, but even that history interfaces with the question… “What is Morality?”

The movie film rating system was created to give parents information to help them decide what is appropriate for their children or not. The problem is that today’s parents have a lower different appropriable standard to parents in the 1990’s and the standards were even higher back in the 1950’s and early 1960’s. So much for thinking in terms of what is moral or not moral.

Society still hasn’t figured out the right answer to what is ‘True Morality’. Even Christianity, Judaism and Islam cannot get it right, they waver in fields of extreme, in variance to each other.

I remember my mother being shocked by a film in 1986, which used once only, the swear word… “F…” I had to apologise to my mother, as I forgot that an unacceptable swear word, i.e. coarse language, was used in the film. Now swearing on film is out-of-control and children today think it is okay to swear all the time, because of a decline in social standards. As I wrote earlier, even the Ancient Greeks rejected coarse language’; refer my 2008 essay ‘Coarse Language’ under Gaia subject matter. Something is either right or wrong, and it seems adult society still cannot comprehend the difference between right and wrong. Values just keep shifting and religion has not understood real values… history proves that is reality.

In 1952 RKO Radio Pictures Inc. released a film titled “The Lusty Men” starring, Susan Hayward, Robert Mitchum, Arthur Kennedy and Arthur Hunnicutt, an excellent classic tale of true to life reality, fiction in story and character, but true to human attitude and the consequences of incorrect thinking and behaviour. The story centred around the modern western ‘Rodeo’ lifestyle in USA, and the attraction of men to live the adventure and the impact, such a lifestyle had on wives and their marriage. It is a good story of focus on the lives of three people two men and a woman caught up in the fast-moving world of ‘Rodeo Life’ and the inevitable results of such life.

An adage from the film was tabled… “Never was a bronc that couldn’t be rode. Never was a cowboy that couldn’t be throwed.”

And extended throughout human life experience in all areas, the new adage, I contribute, stands additionally true… “Never was there a challenge that could not be lived. Never was there a character that could not be negatived.” Think safety, think survive. Think alert, think wise.

Here’s the thing… the Film rating of the ‘Lusty Men’ movie on the trailer was classified as follows…

The Censorship of Films Acts.

This is to certify that this film has been approved as Not Suitable For Children

‘A’ for Adult. …. Signed by Chief Censor (1952)

The story does not even have a rating anymore, at best it would receive a ‘G’ for General family viewing. Most children after the year 2000, would not be interested in watching this old ‘Black & White’ print… they want colour action, violence and sex and coarse language, because their minds have been brain-wrecked conditioned to that style of viewing. Being educated in understanding old culture values, does not interest most children. Of course, there are always intelligent exceptions that do want to know reality.

 But here is reality, society once had stricter values, before Psychology worked hard to encourage more sexual permissiveness by excessive open sex education and by teaching children they have excessive rights, which includes their right to disobey their parents and be constantly cheeky and demanding in attitude. Children too often come home from school, claiming they have rights, making unreasonable demands of parents, all inspired by the misguided thinking of psychology, reasonable slapping is no longer allowed. Children have always had rights, recognised by good loving parents, but not recognised by unkind parents and evil societal thinking and behaviour. History verifies that so-called ‘Bastard Children’ were treated unjustly and often cruelly by Christianity. Where was Christian values, when all this challenge to values was breaking down? Asleep as usual, a few light tremors and all went quiet. So much for ‘Christian Moral Values’. Silence is Approval. Muslims hit their children, approved by ‘Sharia Law’ and they don’t get arrested for it, but Christians do get arrested.

In 1972 in the city of Sydney, NSW Australia, an excellent musical stage production of ‘Jesus Christ Superstar’ was presented. I shall never forget, the excellence of this show. I have seen other versions on film and once many years later, on stage, but not one of them was as good as this one I saw. My wife Jan and I did not meet until 1987, and she also saw this show in 1972.

Jon English played Judas at the age of 22 years. You may remember him in the 1978 film miniseries ‘Against the Wind’ an Australian story set in the early days of NSW convict colony. My wife Jan and I saw Jon English as a singer entertainer, for the last time in 2015 at the Grafton District Services Club. Jon English, singer, actor, musician, songwriter, sadly passed away at the age of 66 years in 2016. He was born 26th March, 1949 and died 9th March, 2016. Tragic cause of death: ‘Complications during surgery’.

In 1992 twenty years, later Jan and I saw, the next stage version of ‘Jesus Christ Superstar’ in Sydney, with Jon Stevens as Judas, John Farnham as Jesus, Kate Ceberano as Mary Magdalen, John Waters as Pontius Pilate and Angry Anderson as Herod. It was an excellent performance with first class singers and actors. But I sensed the original, I saw in 1972 as being far better, because the stage had a mystical atmosphere, unlike anything I have ever seen on stage since. It had a sense of awe inspiring aura, interfaced with the story and music, delivering a profound moment that absolutely held the audience attention… it is a memory that I shall never forget… somethings you see…enjoy and then let it go. Other things hold in our memory forever. The 1972 version of ‘Jesus Christ Superstar’ stayed with me forever.

The point of this story is that back in 1972, ‘Christian Activists’ protested outside the theatre, protesting against the showing of ‘Jesus Christ Superstar’. They considered the show to be heretical. These Christians were brave only because they lived in a ‘Free Speech Society’. Today ‘Christian Activists’ against ‘Anti-Freedom Apartheid Islam’ are a very rare event. Most Christians in the early 21st Century, choose submission to Islam, by the process of apathy or striving to make friends with Muslims, even though the Qur’an clearly forbids it and allows Muslims to use Taqiyya to trick Christians into submission.

Qur’an 16:106on Taqiyya… approval to lie by deliberate deception…

“Those who are forced to recant while their hearts remain loyal to the faith shall be absolved; but those who deny Allah after professing Islam and open their bosoms to unbelief shall incur the wrath of Allah and be sternly punished.”  (Dawood translation)

Qur’an 3:28

“Let not the believers take disbelievers for friends in preference to believers… and whoever does that has no connection with Allah…except that you cautiously guard against them.” (Maulawi Sher Ali translation)

The suggestion in this Koran Surah 3:28 also suggests that Taqiyya is acceptable. And it is by reasons of self-defence, okay when fear abounds. It is easy for activists against Islam to fall into the trap of believing that Muslims deliberately lie about Muhammad and Islam. However, Muslims are not allowed to lie about Muhammad, as they will be sent to hell if they do. It is reasonable to argue in an Islamic Nation, for survival reasons, on the Muslim side of defence that it is not just to accuse Muslims, as not being trustworthy, because they are allowed in the Koran to use Taqiyya. As prisoners of war, Muslims may lie to try and save themselves, and as activist ‘Jihad Muslims’ planning ‘terror attacks’ they may lie, thus in both scenarios, they no doubt will use the process of Taqiyya. But in Western zones, where reasonable freedom exists, no real fear exists, which demands that Muslims must lie. On the contrary they are often honest in their goals and committed in their mission to ‘Islamize the West’.

It is not because of the possibility of Muslims using Taqiyya, the art of deception, as approved by Muhammad that we should not trust ‘True Muslims’. The real reason for “not trusting Muslims” is that they truly believe, naively, in the anti-freedom apartheid Koran, and in anti-liberty Sharia Law, which instructs them as a mission statement to overthrow the West and eliminate all kafir/infidel/unbeliever/non-Muslims that refuses to submit to the dictatorship of Islam. All ‘True Muslims’ that genuinely believe in the Koran and Sharia Law are ‘Jihad Muslims’ be they silent or openly activists, and they do all support ‘Islamization of the World’ and the elimination of ‘Freedom’, using whatever degree of force is necessary. It is that reason that we unbelievers that value freedom cannot ever, not ever, trust a Muslim, no matter how nice they seem. This is not ‘Islamophobia’ this is pragmatic survival common sense for all persons that want to live free. It is both just and scholarly, to openly reject Islam in total and refuse to trust Muslims. The ‘Islamic Belief System’ and the insanity doctrine it teaches, supporting the ‘Habit of War’, is a definite good reason for distrusting any Muslim. Anyone whom disagrees with this, is either a Muslim or a fool.

As for the ignorant argument of accusing critics of Islam as being a bigot obsessed with hate speech, any person that is truly honest in evaluation, can identify over one hundred ‘Hate Speech’ Surah’s in the Koran, which identify the Koran as being the most insidious bigoted book ever written and that is provable fact.

I personally believe that ‘Moral Law’ is an archaic outdated belief system idea that no longer can be deemed as valid, in any way, shape or form. Cultures throughout history, primitive, ancient and modern have never agreed to what is truly moral and immoral. Hence the society of the wiser future, will toss into the archaic trash can the use of moral law and will replace it by being focused on foundations of ‘reality based ethics’ in association with pragmatic common sense ‘Cosmic Law’, which maintains a controlling check on all ‘Legislated Law’ to ensure that ‘Truth, Justice and the Right Way’ survives as a guiding ruling light of good wholesome freedom valued thinking and behaviour, which always strives to do the right thing by caring for others, all ahimsa life forms and for our planet. Children learn what they live.

Freedom of Speech is an essential human right and thus in principle legislated censorship is wrong. But here is the dilemma, one could call it a ‘Moral Law’ problem or more realistically a ‘Reality Based Ethical’ problem.

Here’s the thing, the qualifier of ‘Freedom of Speech’ right must have one house rule which bans the right to abuse people and threaten people. It is okay to disagree and criticise others and ideas, but it is not okay to abuse and threaten them. That is not a ‘Moral Law’ issue… that is a pragmatic common sense ‘Reality Based Ethics’ issue, which must recognise truthful ‘Cosmic Law’ wisdom concepts.

Totalitarianism is an anti-freedom of speech and anti-freedom of choice political philosophy and thus its rejection must be tabled not by ‘Moral Law’ but by ‘Cosmic Law’ using ‘Reality Based Ethics’.

For that reason, all anti-freedom ideas cannot be tolerated by a society that values ‘Freedom of Speech’ thus ‘Totalitarian’ ideas and teaching must be outlawed as being an enemy of ‘Freedom of Speech’.

Nudity is not about Morality, it is about pragmatic common sense, and an awareness there must be in a wholesome society a sense of propriety, cleanliness and decency.

But the marketing of Sex Pornography is not about tasteful nude sex scenes as guidance for the young to learn the natural art of love. Pornography is about lust for unnatural disgraceful sexual behaviour, which invents false knowledge thrills that corrupt the human mind into believing all this addicted sex behaviour is natural, when it is not. The horrible language used in promoting such sick minded sexual encounters reveals the inferior thinking desperate backward thinking of those women and men that engage in promoting this disgraceful filthy garbage. For that reason, even ‘Freedom of Speech’ must have a house rule, which bans the promotion of bad behaviour pornography unnatural sexual behaviour. Pornography is in fact a degrading destructive unwholesome presentation of wrong thinking behaviour. And for that reason, by common sense, “Cosmicism” rejects pornography as being an enemy of wholesome freedom of speech and thus outlaws such images in photographs, on film and in language.

There is nothing wrong with nudity, but like all codes of decency there is a time and a place for such natural life style.

Anti-Freedom of Speech legislation that denies people the right to criticise ideas and belief systems, is an unjust anti-freedom of speech legislation and is a criminal piece of law, and that absolutely includes evil ‘Blasphemy Law’.

Source: book ‘Flat Earth’ by Allan Ivarsson published in both Kindle & Paperback, in colour.

%d bloggers like this: