Good Morning

[Douglas <dougwils@moscow.com>]

Dear visionaries,

D.B. Hughes here.

The debate between rival absolutes is one kind of debate, like the kind
that happened at the battle of Tours. Obviously, when two contradictory
claims of absolute truth collide, both can be wrong, but both cannot be
right. The rules of engagement in this are of interest to those of us who
believe there is an absolute and that we know what it is. We need to be
prepared for the discussion (and the possible ensuing war) when we
encounter those who worship another god who speaks a contradictory
ultimate word. This is the kind of debate that exists between Islam and
the Christian faith. But that is not the kind of debate we are engaged in
here.

What we have here are relativists who say that there is no arche,
no ultimate standard. Nevertheless, we can troubleshoot as we go, working
out what seems best to us. But advocates of this relativism almost never
have the courage of their convictions -- they consistently shrink back
from the implications of their own position. My complaint is that however
much they complain about the threat of conservative Christianity,
relativists are far more afraid of their own position than they are of
ours. This is because if relativism is the case, then anything goes,
including the worst forms of absolutism. Consider this. Relativists
are even, in principle, supporters of . . . mandatory modesty!

Ted says that my claim that the US Constitution could evolve to the point
where lynching blacks became a civic duty was "way over the
top." What top? There is no top. What limit to the
evolutionary process is there? Why? Who says? If there is a top that I
can be way over, then tell us what it is, and why it is there. If there
is no top, then stop telling people that they are way over it. Given
your relativism, not mine, I can justify anything -- wife
abuse, child pornography, abortion, racism, you name it. If I
can't justify anything, then it is not relativism. There is a
limit, apparently. Oh? Where did that limit come from and why is it
binding on anyone? By what standard? This is how we discover that our
relativists are not really relativists -- they are surreptitious
absolutists, but they don't know or won't admit what their ultimate
values are, and they won't acknowledge why or how they have them. They
won't even admit that they have a vast machinery for the inculcation of
these values called the government schools that they make me pay
for.

But no society can function without a standard. We are a relativistic
culture, and yet we still execute people, still go to war, still launch
cruise missiles, conduct moralistic crusades against faggot-bashers like
Fred Phelps, and work ourselves into a high dudgeon over the troglodytes
who managed to get on vision 20/20. What on earth for? If you have an
ultimate standard you are defending, then tell us what it is, and we can
have a debate between rival absolutes. But if there is no ultimate
standard (as has been claimed), then why get upset over alternative
choices? Some people go in for body piercings. Some go for green hair.
And yet others in this splendid array of choices opt for that sexual
kinkiness that makes their women dress up in prairie muffin dresses by
day and submit to spousal rape by night. Why do you care? I care,
of course, but I have this absolute standard that I appeal to. But why do
you care? About anything?

And "common sense ethics" in this very pluralistic world is a
thin soup solution. The common sense ethical system you appeal to is
provincial, not common. Try explaining it to Osama, Pol Pot, Atila,
Stalin, or the Grand Inquisitor. The ethic found on the Cosby show is not
the way the vast majority of the human race has lived. You need to be
more careful -- you are starting to believe your own 
propaganda.