I've noticed a lot of Americans take great pride in being moralistic. Since I am slowly and grudgingly growing up I've somehow learned to accept and respect other people's ethical beliefs, despite how they might conflict with my own, but it doesn't stop me from noticing the differences. Somehow, here in America, the terms "morality" and "interfering with the lives of strangers" have become interchangeable.

    To say things in the least offensive way possible, I find myself politely bemused.

    I'm no expert on world cultures, but from what little I've observed I've concluded that morality is more or less relative. There are consistent elements, but these tend to be too straightforward and simple to answer any big questions. Basically, all people can agree that doing things to make others happy is good, while prompting anger or sadness is bad.

    And yet somehow we demand more than this. We look within ourselves, probing further than ever was necessary, demanding answers to the mysteries of life. This is, as you might imagine, rather unnerving for our flustered consciences, who thought they had settled things pretty well. "Oh, I don't know," they say back disappointingly, nervously, like a student grappling to explain a portion of his report he hadn't researched thoroughly enough. "I guess whatever you're afraid of. Whatever you're afraid of is immoral." Our consciences don't tell us this because they know it for a fact, but because they suspect it will leave us satisfied. And usually, it does.

    I don't know a lot about religion, but I've gotten the sense that the rules established within well-known texts - that a person shouldn't wear cotton and polyester at the same time, that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry, that in order to gain the approval of the Heavens it is necessary to bathe in goat sweat in a field of barley beneath the full moon each month, whatever they may be - are not necessarily the key points. This actually bodes well for religion, because if the stories in the bible were the foundation for morality, it would be easy to point out inconsistencies and label Jesus and his pals as unreliable and uneducated. I suspect if God did not have an underlying regime to what sometimes seemed to be simply ridiculous shenanigans, he would have faded from public view years ago, only to be embarrassed on occasion by critics. "And as you can see, on page 628, Mr. God neglects to mention that the Earth is not flat," a student might point out pompously to his friends, and they would laugh mean-spiritedly, cruelly at the poor deity's expense.

    Because let's face it: God or Jesus or whoever authored the bible really didn't have much of a knack for writing, but there is no denying that his heart was in the right place. And that's why there are morals to go along with the sometimes improbable stories. When Moses abandons his comfortable life in the Pharoh's kingdom to help the Israelite slaves, he reminds us about the value of freedom. When Lot's wife is turned to a pillar of salt for looking back at a burning city, we see how dwindling on the past can destroy a person. At the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus addresses his congregation, telling them to reject their inclinations and strive to judge no one - and somehow, all of this is overlooked in favor of a tiny passage that loosely implies two men shouldn't have sex.

    I don't personally find morality to be a legitimate justification for denying other people happiness, and I think it's sad that it's often been acceptable for groups of people to be eradicated or tormented under the guise of righteousness. Regardless of whether or not you agree with someone's actions, they are still a human being and should be granted the right to do what they want with their lives. I read a saying somewhere - I think it's used a lot in Pagan texts - and while I am decidedly Atheist, I've always liked the line: "If it harms none, do what you will."

    I don't see how anyone can go wrong with that one.