Acton Institute Powerblog

PowerLinks – 04.01.13

Share this article:
Join the Discussion:

District Court Rejects Challenge to September 11 Cross
Marc DeGirolami, Mirror of Justice

In an opinion issued March 28, the court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in a case brought by American Atheists, Inc., which challenged the constitutionality of displaying the September 11 cross in a state museum.

Forward, and downhill
John Hayward, RedState

In truth, slippery-slope concerns are perfectly reasonable. They are a standard part of the “progressive” battle plan. A core tenet of progressivism is to take incremental, but irreversible, steps toward the total State.

Markets & Morality from a Biblical Perspective
Hugh Whelchel, Institute for Faith, Work & Economics

In a recent Washington Post article Steven Pearlstein, a professor of public and international affairs at George Mason University, asked the question “Is Capitalism Moral?” His answer, although interesting, seemed incomplete.

An America that is losing faith with religion
Michael Gerson, Washington Post

There is a close relationship between culture and cult — between the shared attitudes and values of a people and their religious views and practices. American culture is increasingly shaped by men and women who would rather sleep in or play golf on a Sunday morning.

Joe Carter Joe Carter is a Senior Editor at the Acton Institute. Joe also serves as an editor at the The Gospel Coalition, a communications specialist for the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, and as an adjunct professor of journalism at Patrick Henry College. He is the editor of the NIV Lifehacks Bible and co-author of How to Argue like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History's Greatest Communicator (Crossway).


  • RogerMcKinney

    The Institute for Faith, Work & Economics article on the morality of capitalism is excellent. ! Because “morality” is subjective today, if any person thinks capitalism is moral it is. What the author really asks is can the two sides arrive at some kind of consensus? But even if they did, why would they have the right to impose their definition of morality on others?

    Also, modern discussions of morality spotlight the dishonesty of modern thinkers. Through most of human history morality meant objective, universal right and wrong, that which is right/wrong regardless of opinions. Philosophers of morality understood that morality had to have a source outside of human preferences in order to be objective and universal. Opinions on right and wrong were called ethics or mores (there should be an accent sign above the letter e).

    Honest philosophers, such as Nietzsche, the existentialists and post-modernists, admitted that they couldn’t come up with objective, universal morality without a god, so they welcomed the death of morality. Other philosophers were not so honest: they redefined morality to mean what ethics and mores used to mean, nothing more than opinions on morality.