When I first saw the photos, like the overwhelming majority of Americans, I was shocked and horrified. The feelings of outrage were intensified by the fact that the perpetrators were American soldiers. How could American boys and girls do things so contrary for all we stand for in the world?
As I struggled to answer that question in my own mind and heart, I was reminded of a little book called The Abolition of Man written in 1947 by C.S. Lewis, the British author and social commentator. Responding to a textbook that introduced subjective and relativist values into post-war British schools, Lewis defended traditional Judeo-Christian morality.
Lewis explained that in the properly ordered composition of a human being, the head (the intellect) ruled the belly (the visceral appetites) through the chest. Lewis defined the chest as the "higher emotions organized by trained habit into stable sentiments or character." Lewis went on to argue that the higher emotions of the chest-in essence, the workings of the heart--were the essential liaison between the cerebral and the sensual. Without the chest, human beings become self-idolatrous worshipers of their own minds and their own appetites.
C. S. Lewis understood that moral relativism eventually eviscerates moral character. When schools train students to "clarify" their own values, tell them they have the right to question parental or societal values, and that each person's values are as valid as any other person's values, then you have made all morals relative and each person becomes the final arbiter of what is "right" or "wrong" for them.
When such thinking permeates society, there are no agreed-upon absolute Truths (with a capital "T") where some things are always right and some things are always wrong. Instead, you are left with an almost endless number of personal idiosyncratic "truths;" nothing is always right or wrong but entirely dependent upon the situation, circumstance, or personal opinion. Additionally, no one has the right to assert that anyone else's values are wrong. In such a society, where nothing is always objectively wrong, anything is possible.
Post-modern relativism tears out the "chest" so necessary for stable moral character. As Lewis put it so poignantly: "In a sort of ghastly simplicity, we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked when we find traitors in our midst. We castrate and then we bid the geldings to be fruitful."
Perhaps these soldiers were taught by precept or example, or both, to view the Ten Commandments as the Ten Suggestions to be affirmed or rejected by personal choice. Examples abound in our society of Buffet Baptists and Cafeteria Catholics who believe they have the right to pick or choose which parts of their religious tradition to affirm or reject and that the moral imperatives of their religious traditions are mere suggestions until personally affirmed by themselves, the final arbiter of right and wrong. Both The Barna Group and the Pew Forum have done surveys which show a remarkable disconnect between the teachings of various religious traditions and the personal beliefs and practices of those tradition's adherents.
Dennis Prager, a popular social commentator and Jewish ethicist, tells a story that illustrates the impact this moral relativism has had on our children. He says that for more than a decade now he has been asking young people in various forums this question: "If your pet dog and a stranger were both drowning and you could only save one, which would you choose?" Consistently, one-third answer their dog, one-third answer the stranger, and one-third say it's too hard a question and they can't answer it.