by Avraham M. Goldstein

An alarming incident occurred last January on the wildly popular game show “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.” A male contestant publicly expressed his feelings for his male partner, to the applause of the studio audience and the warm encouragement of host Regis Philbin.

This, however, is not the frightening incident of which I speak. I refer, rather, to the astonishing fact, reported by The New York Times, that nobody called ABC Television to protest this abomination. (This is no longer true; after I read the article, I called.) Lloyd Braun, the co-chairman of the ABC Entertainment Group, explained the program’s attitude toward contestants’ personal lives: “It’s not judgmental. It’s totally accepting.” With those words, ABC consigned thousands of years of moral teaching to the dustbin of history. And viewers, it seems, agreed, which is what should really scare us.

Let us rewind to 1973. That year, the program “Bridget Loves Bernie” centered upon the comical misfortunes of a Jewish man married to a non-Jewish woman. Protests from Jewish and Christian groups rained upon CBS, and “Bridget Loves Bernie” was canceled after one season. CBS attributed the cancellation to poor ratings, but this was an obvious cover, since the show ranked number six in the season’s Nielsen ratings. If it aired today, “Bridget Loves Bernie” likely would engender not a peep. And any protest that did arise would meet with derision and would dissipate quickly.

In 1972, the television movie “That Certain Summer” aired amidst considerable controversy about its relatively tame gay theme. Fast forward to 1998, when the actress Ellen DeGeneris announced that she is a lesbian. Shortly thereafter, at a gathering in Washington, D.C., DeGeneris was publicly and warmly greeted by President Clinton at an event she attended with her female partner.

How is it that in the brief span of three decades, morality has suffered such a precipitous decline — that what was then condemned is now accepted?

Those of us who subscribe to the eternal teachings of the Torah are appalled by this deterioration. We must ask three questions. First, what is the cause of this backsliding? Second, how does it concern us as Americans? Finally, should it especially trouble us as Jews?

Jews have derived great benefit from American democracy, which has afforded us the ability to practice our faith without fear of discrimination. Given the oppression that Jews suffered for centuries, this open-mindedness is no small matter. Many leading rabbis have commented that the U.S. is a medinah shel chessed, a tolerant nation.

But today this tolerance has extended beyond the cultural, social, and economic spheres to the moral sphere. Beginning with the Earl Warren era, the Supreme Court has widened the right of free expression to almost all quarters of speech and conduct. Simultaneously, it has banished most vestiges of religion from government. Rather than interpreting the Constitution’s Establishment Clause as a mechanism for preventing the government from favoring any one religion, the courts have constructed an impermeable firewall between religion and state.

This rescission of legal barriers reflects a retreat from moral values at the personal and communal levels. In the homes, in the streets, even in some houses of worship, millions of Americans have defined morality down, chucking it in favor of a morally relative environment where nothing is absolutely right or wrong. It is not clear which came first — legal definition or personal reevaluation — but the effect of these two elements has devastated our national moral character. And as we discovered last year, morality is out to lunch even in the hallowed hallways of the White House.

The result is a society where the single-parent family is endorsed as a valid a priori domestic structure; where pre-marital relations are a given; and where gay couplings are accepted as a legitimate personal arrangement. It is a society where Orthodox Jews are perceived as peculiar for challenging Yale University’s insistence on housing them in a co-ed college dorm — and a society where Yale, which originated as a divinity school, no longer acknowledges the moral teachings of the faith to which it nominally subscribes.

We can trace the loosening of moral boundaries to the 1950’s. It was then that the Beat Generation, personified by Jack Kerouac and Allen Ginsberg, began to mock our long-held moral codes.

Until then, the moral rules were pretty clear. Sexual expression was acceptable within the confines of marriage. Premarital relations were considered inappropriate; saving oneself for marriage was regarded as a virtue. Adultery was viewed as a betrayal of marriage vows. Homosexuality was deemed an abomination. As the calendar flipped from the fifties to the sixties, these moral building blocks began to tumble.

The “me generation” sixties witnessed further moral corrosion, as youth rebelled against society’s rules. Our moral boat had been punctured, and it sank fast, with abortion, an escalating divorce rate, and casual sex becoming part of the landscape.

Public acceptance of immorality was often subtle. When streaking was dismissed as a fad in the early seventies, my eleventh-grade religious studies teacher warned that it would have a permanent effect on society. At the time I was skeptical, but I now acknowledge that he was right. Streaking itself is passe, but it has left an imprint: that one’s body is not private. In the ensuing quarter-century, the descent into the moral abyss has intensified.

How rapid has this descent been? Consider that in 1984, presidential candidate Gary Hart was forced to abandon his campaign after the disclosure of a personal indiscretion. A mere eight years later, Bill Clinton emerged unscathed from much more severe charges leveled by Gennifer Flowers.

If the Founding Fathers were to observe the moral deterioration of our republic, they would be mortified. Seekers of religious freedom, believers in G-d, they never envisioned a society that purges the Deity. To the contrary, G-d was their source for morality. And indeed it cannot be any other way.

Imagine trying to construct a moral system without G-d. It is impossible! While one man may advance the belief that theft is a moral wrong, his neighbor may suggest otherwise. As long as men and women decide moral questions without Divine guidance, there is no absolute truth. In a moral vacuum, one can make an equally valid argument in favor of Nazism as one can make against it. Is this farfetched? One need only look at the Netherlands for the answer. In the very country that stood out for its resistance to the Nazis, euthanasia, wherein doctors actively murder their patients, is now permitted by law!

In a moral-neutral system, the law cannot reflect an ethical vision. In such a system, the law is limited to protection of a state’s citizens — at the same time not making any judgment as to the morality or lack thereof of acts that threaten the citizenry. After all, if morality is relative, one cannot say that murder is “wrong”; at most, one can say that society will not long survive if murder is a tolerated avenue of expression.

This road of moral relativism, where there is no absolute right or wrong, is precisely where our society is headed. There has been a concerted effort to wear away the moral values that are the bedrock of our society. Newspapers, magazines, and broadcast outlets portray an increasingly more decadent lifestyle. In print media, many editors have shifted their editorial bias toward approval of deviant lifestyles. This bias is expressed in many ways — some subtle, some not so subtle, but all dangerous. For example, several years ago, New York Times obituaries began to print information about a deceased’s gay or lesbian “survivor.” On the surface, this may seem innocuous, but it is not, because it inculcates within the reader the idea that a homosexual relationship is normal.

What a contrast from The Times of 1971. That year, the paper announced that it would no longer accept advertisements for x-rated movies if the ads included prurient photography. As an early teen, I was profoundly impressed by The Times’ morals. Here was a newspaper willing to forego advertising revenue rather than print material that violated its sense of decency.

Today one finds Times advertisements whose explicit nature goes beyond anything that was conceived in 1971. Indeed, The Times is on the front lines of the anti-modesty movement. In its lifestyle sections, The Times regularly features gay couples in their home setting without commenting that such a union is abnormal. And in its editorials, The Times has avidly promoted the recognition of same-sex marriages. How does an organization go from one extreme to the other? When it has no yardstick and so must create its own. For The Times, all the morals that fit they print. (Ironically, The Times recently editorialized against the death penalty on the premise that it is immoral. Lacking a barometer, how would it know what “immoral” is?

Similarly, The Times features “The Ethicist,” in which columnist Randy Cohen dispenses ethical advice. The column has been doomed from the start, because all its ethics originate in the author’s mind. As an example, he has called for a boycott of the Boy Scouts. Their “ethical” crime? Standing up for traditional ethics!)

Moral relativism is the antithesis of the historic Jewish perspective. In Judaism we assert that there exist eternal objective truths, and that these truths emanate from the will of G-d. Yes, they are subject to a certain amount of human input; G-d has given us the power to interpret His law. But our input must lie within certain limitations.

Thus, murder is wrong, but not because we “feel” it is wrong. Murder is wrong because G-d says it is wrong. The same goes for theft, deceit, cruelty, and the other foundations of a cohesive society. This does not mean that our feelings about morality carry no weight. In truth, most of us do have an inner sense that murder is a detestable act. G-d has implanted within us the ability to determine the essentials of a moral life. But He is the final moral authority.

Until thirty-five years ago, the Western world held moral truths in the same light as it holds mathematical truths. In mathematics, it is universally agreed that two plus two is four. One would never take seriously a man who proposed that two plus two equals five. No reputable mathematician would even sit down to debate the issue. A concession to debate would be tantamount to admitting that two plus two may equal five, that this is a matter worthy of discussion.

Admittedly it is more difficult to defend a moral truth than it is to defend a mathematical fact, since there exist gray areas in the former. However, the religions that serve as the ethical basis for our society are universal in promoting certain moral absolutes. Among these truths are that behaviors such as adultery and homosexuality are wrong. The issue of individual rights does not carry weight here, because the overall good health of society calls for these standards. These standards traditionally have been held in such esteem that they have been enshrined in law.

A civil libertarian would argue that by imposing these values upon society, we interfere with one’s freedom. This argument is illogical. Where does the civil libertarian acquire the notion that there exists a right of personal freedom? Unless it emanates from a religious sense, the notion carries no weight. But once we concede that the source for the notion is religion, we must also concede that the same religious sources also promote a moral code.

The dearest values held by society include the sanctity of human life and of property. Thus murder and theft are condemned in our value system and in law. Proponents of the new immorality try to differentiate between these values and those that are more personal in nature. The thinking goes like this: there is a difference between, say, murder and homosexual conduct. When one murders another human being, he is hurting the other person; when one has a consensual relationship, no one is hurt. “What business is it of yours?” is a refrain we commonly hear.

Now no one is prepared to plant a monitor in every home to observe the private behavior of each individual. And Judaism generally allows men and women to find their way to the truth, rather than having it superimposed. Part of our growing process is to fail our way to success. We build upon our errors, hoping that as we mature, so does our behavior. Western democracy is also founded upon deep respect for individual rights. Indeed, in our democratic republic, the rights of the majority cannot trample the personal rights of the minority.

Yet that is a far cry from saying that immoral behavior should be a legally acceptable alternative lifestyle. The law should — and until recently did — reflect the moral foundations of a society. What is law if not an expression of a society’s dearest beliefs?

How does moral depravity gain acceptance? The first step is to make the behavior the subject of discussion and debate. When gay activists first raised their issue, they encountered virulent opposition. But they did succeed in putting the issue on the table, managing even to get same-sex marriage on the legislative agenda in Hawaii. Once a matter is deemed debatable, it may eventually win out. (I do not intend to draw a parallelism, but Holocaust deniers have used a similar tactic. Rather than simply seeking approval for their view, they have sought to get it on the table, to be debated as a legitimate alternative viewpoint. Perhaps the Holocaust occurred; perhaps it did not.)

Next, proponents seek to make the behavior an acceptable “alternative lifestyle.” Why, they ask, is there only one acceptable type of marriage relationship? And how is anyone harmed if alternative lifestyles are institutionalized in law?

The third step is to demonize opponents of their view. Rashi (Parshas Bechukosai) writes that sins against G-d can be progressive. Thus, one who despises G-d’s commandments eventually abhors those who teach them. We find the same pathology when it comes to societal mores. After people reject society’s moral foundations, they mock the citizens who try to preserve them. In the case of homosexuality, opponents are labeled “narrow-minded” and “racist.”

In similar fashion former Vice President Dan Quayle was excoriated for daring to criticize the TV program “Murphy Brown” because its lead character, an unmarried woman, became pregnant. The immorality movement painted Quayle’s view as antiquated, so outmoded, in fact, that anyone thinking like him must be intellectually challenged.

But Dan Quayle was right. “Murphy Brown” had struck a potent blow against the traditional family structure by inferring that premeditated single parenting is a legitimate first option for women. In reality, the single-parent family has had terrible practical consequences in our country, especially in the black community, where millions of children are bereft of the upbringing that only a mother and father, living together, can provide. Quayle’s detractors do not care about such trivialities (indeed, they deem it racist!).

To attain legitimacy, gay activists argue that there exists a “minority” gay community. For example, a recent advertisement in The New York Times refers to “sexual minorities.” This catchphrase is employed for the sole purpose of inferring that being gay is equivalent to, say, being black. Just as the civil rights movement is acknowledged for its moral rectitude in advancing the cause of equality for blacks, so — we are told — is the gay rights movement pursuing equality for a defined community. Surely we all are in favor of equality for our citizens.

What an insult to the civil rights movement! Blacks constitute a group of citizens united in definition by their race. Gays do not constitute a defined group; they are merely a conglomeration of people with a shared predilection.

The front line of the battle between the moral and anti-moral forces today is over same-sex marriage. This is a critical issue, because the acknowledgment in law of same-sex unions would constitute legitimacy. The bad news is that proponents of deviancy have already won the battle. As noted above, the simple fact that same-sex marriage is considered a legitimate subject for discussion means victory. In Hawaii and California, same-sex marriage was defeated, for now. In Vermont, however, an analogous issue, the granting of legal partner rights to gay couplings, is becoming law.

Proponents of deviancy are moving closer to their final goal: when their lifestyle becomes unremarkable, when it is seen as normal. ABC’s Lloyd Braun says that his network was being “not judgmental” in accepting a deviant relationship on “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.” Quite the contrary; it cast definitive judgment by deeming this abnormal behavior normal.

Another critical issue is the adoption of children by gay couples, acceptance of which would reflect recognition by society of a gay union as a unit capable of raising the next generation. The American Civil Liberties Union, which has helped spearhead the immorality movement, is now giving legal representation to a lesbian woman in Florida whose application for adoption was turned down. The ACLU has also, in its own words, “opposed every state law aimed at preventing lesbians and gay men from marrying.”

Watch how the ACLU couches its views in civil rights terminology. States the ACLU’s Lesbian and Gay Rights Project: “Discrimination based on sexual orientation remains the number one civil liberties issue for the project.” But this is not a civil rights issue; it is a recognition of an abnormal lifestyle issue, and society should not, must not, blur the lines between the two.

Interestingly, Americans generally declare their fidelity to mainstream religion. But proponents of moral relativism have usurped the airwaves. By dominating the primary media outlets, they preclude legitimate consideration of the majority view.

An example is the recent hullabaloo over the “Sensation” exhibit in the Brooklyn Museum, a disgusting display that used pornographic imagery to disparage Catholicism. When New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani went to court to revoke the museum’s funding, the museum successfully countered his challenge on free-speech grounds. The media generally backed the museum. How many average citizens, so inundated with immorality, also sided with the museum? How many were afraid that to argue otherwise would be viewed as intolerant?

A chief target of these immoral forces is Dr. Laura Schlessinger. An Orthodox Jew, Dr. Schlessinger dispenses sage moral advice to an audience of twenty million weekly radio listeners. But in trying to take her act to TV, she has been obstructed by the immoral minority, which has painted her as a racist. (See separate article.)

Proponents of immorality are experts at disseminating information. As in the “Sensation” case, they start with the enormous advantage that they are promoting something new, and hence newsworthy. They even promote their views in the public schools, using slick videos and textbooks. (See sidebar.)

The erosion of the universal consensus on morality has even infected the clerical community. Today one can readily find spiritual leaders of the Jewish and Christian faiths who will sanctify a same-gender union. Last January, thousands of Jewish and Christian clergy signed their names to the aforementioned advertisement in The New York Times, which endorsed legal recognition of same-sex marriage. (Fortunately none of the Jewish signatories was Orthodox.) These clerics are unable to let go of belief in G-d but unwilling to accept His rules. They ignore crystal-clear Biblical precepts, but truth is just another sacrifice on the immorality altar.

Early this summer, mainstream Presbyterians defeated the legitimization of same-sex marriage by a very narrow margin. Said a proponent of the innovation: “It is not helpful for our life as a denomination for the church to impose one interpretation of Scripture.” The Torah states, “You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22). One wonders how these words are possibly subject to “interpretation.”

As observant Jews, why should all this concern us? Can’t we just live our lives within the Talmudic “four cubits of halachah”? Two reasons militate against this approach. First, whether we like it or not, we are impacted by the society at large. We too have become inured to objectionable conduct. If “Bridget Loves Bernie” aired today, how many Orthodox Jews would protest? When I mentioned the “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire” episode to a friend who is strictly Orthodox, she wondered why I felt it was a big deal. Sadly, we no longer see moral issues in clear-cut terms.

The Jewish Week recently discussed a new trend in the Orthodox community: unmarried women becoming mothers by artificial insemination. Technically speaking, halachah is not violated; morally, the fiber of Judaism is sundered.

Second, a lifestyle that undermines the moral underpinnings of society will act as a termite and destroy that society. Homosexuality, especially male homosexuality, is counted among the strictures that all people, Jew and non-Jew, must observe. The Torah reckons it along with murder, theft, and idol worship. Society cannot survive forever in an atmosphere of moral depravity and moral indifference. We, the receivers of the Torah, must speak up.

Moreover, the immorality tide has spread to Israel. Yes, gay movements are alive and flourishing in the Holy Land. The Torah states that the Land of Israel will spit out the Jews for tolerating such behavior. (Perhaps those who lament the years of inadequate rainfall in Israel ought look to the Torah for the cause. It warns, after an exhaustive listing of forbidden relations, that the land will spit out those who defile it [Leviticus 18:28].)

What can we do about moral deterioration? If we don’t challenge it, our voice will not be heard. And it must be heard, loudly and clearly. When you read an article or view a program that endorses deviancy, take a stand. Write a letter. Send an e-mail. Speak to advertisers — they are very sensitive to public perception — about your concerns. As the producers of “Bridget Loves Bernie” discovered, public opinion counts. But do something, before the battle is lost.

IN THE SCHOOLS

Children are a particular target of the new immorality. Just as the Soviet Union destroyed Judaism by brainwashing Jewish children concerning the “evils” of religion, so do proponents of deviancy manipulate school curricula.

What do kids learn in the public schools? If you think it’s still the Three R’s, think again. In Minnesota, for example, here are some guidelines for teaching children ages five to eight: “Some men and women are homosexual, which means they will be attracted to and fall in love with someone of the same gender.” The nine-to-twelve-year-old group gets a more specific lesson: “Homosexual love relationships can be as fulfilling as heterosexual relationships.” For fifteen-to-eighteen-year-olds, the phone number of the gay and lesbian switchboard is provided.

The Washington Times (Aug. 31, 1997) reported that in Provinceton, Massachusetts, the school board “voted to begin teaching preschoolers about homosexual lifestyles and backed hiring preferences for ‘sexual minorities.’ ”

Children absorb this or similar material in public schools around the country. In the best situations, parents will instruct their kids as to proper morality. But in homes where religion is not a priority, no mechanism exists to battle the corrosive effects of sex education.

Even our yeshivos are not immune. There are Orthodox schools that utilize the system devised by the late Lawrence Kohlberg to teach morality. In his age-sensitive program, Kohlberg strives to get children to decide what is and what is not moral based on their personal ethos. Each child constructs his or her personal view of right and wrong, contrary to Judaism’s view that there is an objective morality.

The next generation is being programmed to understand gay rights as civil rights. As these kids grow into adulthood, this thinking will pervade the fields of endeavor into which they enter. Already court cases are testing the right of a landlord to refuse to rent to a gay couple. What will happen when the majority of judges, educated in public schools, sees no difference between the rights of a gay couple and of a black couple? The implications should make us shudder.

What do Jewish organizations have to say? At least one, B’nai B’rith, has fallen into the gay rights/civil rights trap. “It’s Elementary” is a pro-gay video designed for schoolchildren. Ellen Bettmann, the Director of Research and Development of A World of Difference, a project of the Anti-Defamation League, called it “highly recommended for parents, educators, and other adults.” For an organization whose very name refers to the everlasting covenant between G-d and the Jewish people to endorse a program of this nature is nothing short of obscene.

And New York City School Board member Luis O. Reyes praised the film as “groundbreaking, a must see for educational policymakers everywhere.” The consequences for schoolchildren are chilling.

How can we deal with morality in the framework of public education? Schools are in a quandary. It is impossible to impart a moral vision outside of a religious context. Thus, schools do teach their charges that stealing is wrong. However, teachers are not permitted to tell the kids why it is wrong. Yet there can be only one reason: G-d says that it is wrong. But teachers are not allowed to mention G-d.

One thing is clear; any moral teaching one absorbs in school means little if morality is not taught in the home. Kids are influenced most by what they see their parents do. The numbers speak for themselves. Among the marginally religious, synagogue and church attendance are way down. And these parents no longer take the time to talk about G-d to their kids. What lesson do kids learn? That G-d is not a relevant matter in their lives. The resultant vacuum is readily filled by the immorality that children are being taught. Only by reclaiming the obligation to teach morals to their kids will parents succeed in raising virtuous children.