What's your morality meter?
Click here to find out. This is a really interesting test. It isn't perfect, but I really liked the way it distinguished between coercion and disapproval. Take the test, for fun and to be familiar with it, and then read my results and comments below. Then please post your results, and thoughts, in the comments section. (If you read my results and comments it will probably skew your own test scores, so take the test 1st, please.)
Taboo - My Results
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.43.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.
Are you thinking straight about morality?
There was no inconsistency in the way that you responded to the questions in this activity. You did not evaluate the actions depicted in these scenarios to be across the board wrong. Where you have judged an act to be morally problematic, it is likely that you did so because you think that what makes it wrong comes from God or some other source of morality external to nature, society and human judgement. You indicated that an action can be wrong even if it is entirely private and no one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it. So, in fact, had you thought that the acts described here were entirely wrong there would still be no inconsistency in your moral outlook.
My moralising quotient is about average. But my universalising factor is off the scale. That's because I believe in universal values, probably because I'm a Christian. (I think my moralising quotient is average because I'm an it's all about the Gospels, these guys had mystic experiences but weren't directed by His hand kind of Christian.) That universality thing can be scary because people might object with:
1: He's judging me!
2: He therefore thinks he can make me do what he wants me to do!
But for me, and I think for the vast, VAST majority of Christians, those objections are easily answered. The answer to objection 1: "He's judging me!" is I judge the sin, not the sinner. This may seem cliche or simplistic, but in practice it is profound and complicated. Try it. (By the way, I have to do this. Otherwise I'd hate myself- nobody can live up to Christ's example.) The answer to objection 2: "He therefore think he can make me do what he wants me to do!" is a bit more complicated.
I don't believe in coercion. I hate it. Whether it is in the form of high taxes, government land grabs, IRS audits to harass dissenters- whatever. There is lots of room in the Bible for Christians to wiggle- we don't have to coerce non-believers into believing, or acting like they believe as we do- in order to be good Christians. Give unto Ceasar and all that... And there's a LOT of all that.
But for fun i asked myself which I would choose if I had to choose. If there was NO wiggle room, would I choose to defend free speech or prosecute blasphemy? Would I support Christian-ONLY prayer in schools or separation of church and state? Would I back the mullah saying Jews drink Muslim baby's blood, or the bishop saying that mullah should be put in jail?
I choose free speech, separation of church and state, and free speech again. I reject coercion.
The VAST, VAST majority of Christians would answer the exact same way. This is why I believe the (now ebbing) Christian bashing was hysterical, and why I think Andrew Sullivan is the suck.