Miley Cyrus has said more outrageous things recently. Here’s the latest as reported by Fox News:
“[Miley Cyrus] says she is the least judgmental person ever, yet she has some harsh words for Christian fundamentalists and her parents… [She] ‘maintains a particular contempt for fundamentalist lawmakers who rally against this sort of progressive, potentially life-saving changes [for the LGBT] community.’ The pop star told the mag [Paper], ‘Those people [shouldn’t] get to make our laws.’”
The least judgmental people are usually the most judgmental and dangerous. They would be more than happy to pass laws to restrict the freedoms of people they disagree with.
Do parents still take their daughters to see Miley Cyrus concerts? She’s no Hanna Montana if she ever was. She has turned out to be the poster child for the acceptance of a decadent form of “morality” led to the destruction of entire civilizations and making it fashionable and seemingly inconsequential for her fans to adopt.
It’s a shame to see somebody self-destruct right before your eyes. Cyrus truly believes that her lifestyle choices are freeing. They’re not. The claim that she is “sexually fluid” is a cover for sexual license. She’s a woman whose worldview has been corrupted by the moral relativism of the day. She is the epitome of Theodore Dalrymple’s “life at the bottom” and Patrick Moynihan’s “defining deviancy down.”
In reality, the super-rich Cyrus is feeding middle and upper class young people a steady diet or moral corruption that in the end will make them lower class in their thinking and lifestyle choices.
Of course, moral relativists are only morally relative on things that benefit them. They have a lot to say about people who don’t buy into the morally relative worldview, a worldview that has far reaching implications once a person is fully consistent with it.
The thing of it is, moral relativists can’t be consistent and live free. They constantly borrow certain fixed moral absolutes from the worldviews they despise. They live off stolen moral capital by bankrupting the worldview from which they stole it.
Cyrus went to say in her interview with Paper magazine:
“‘I am literally open to every single thing that is consenting and doesn’t involve an animal and everyone is of age. Everything that’s legal, I’m down with. Yo, I’m down with any adult—anyone over the age of 18 who is down to love me,’ she said. ‘I don’t relate to being boy or girl, and I don’t have to have my partner relate to boy or girl.’”
On what basis can an atheist or even a modified theist fully claim that consent is the line drawn between right and wrong? Where does the concept of “consent” originate? Theirs is nothing in an atheistic/evolutionary worldview where consent is a moral constraint. “Nature, red in tooth and claw” knows nothing of consent. In the evolutionary worldview, consent to act would have severely hindered the advance of animal evolution.
Ken Ham at Answers in Genesis makes a very good point:
“Question for her: Why not involve an animal? On what basis does she decide that? Besides, if there’s no God and she’s just a result of evolution, then she is merely an animal anyway. And those she interacts with sexually are just animals—so why not any animals? In other words, she has decided to draw a line for some reason—but what reason?”
Atheist Dan Arel writing for Patheos tries to defend Cyrus:
“Apparently Ken Ham has never heard of the word consent. A word Cyrus uses herself, very clearly. Cyrus is down for anything, apparently, but she would need a consenting partner to make those things happen. An animal, etc. cannot consent to such acts.”
When one animal kills another animal, does the stronger animal ask for consent? When male animals engage in sex with other animals, do they ask for consent? When dogs and cats are spayed and neutered, do humans ask for consent? Does a veterinarian ask dogs and cats about to go under the knife for their consent before performing the procedure?
According to Cyrus, she’s “down with . . . everything that’s legal.” Since it’s legal to kill and eat cows, pigs, and chickens without their consent, then I don’t see within the confines of Cyrus’ worldview why it would be morally wrong to engage sexually with animals without their consent. If you can kill and eat a pig, how is it possible to say that it’s illegal to engage sexually with a pig?
Arel the atheist argues that “as a society, we have decided on ages for consent and when someone is mentally capable of making such decisions.” But as we’ve seen with the societal change about same-sex sexuality, societies change. What argument will Cyrus and Arel give if society changes its views on consent? What if it gives its consent that it’s OK to have sex with animals without the consent of the animals? Or what will happen if a dog or pig gives its consent?
And what if enough people wield enough political power to question that consent is something that’s required before an action takes place. Hitler, Lenin, and Mao didn’t seem to need it.