Imposed truth

[Douglas <dougwils@moscow.com>]

Dear visionaries,

Carl Westberg asked:
"And whose truth are you speaking of? Yours, Ted's, Charles
Manson's, Martha Stuart's, Joe Blow's, Jane Doe's? Are you the sole
arbiter of what's true?"

I don't object at all to this question -- because it is the same question
I have been posing since I began posting to this list. I am simply
insisting that everyone who resorts to coercion in matters of public
policy is obliged to address and answer the question. All laws are the
imposition of somebody's truth. The government schools are currently
imposing somebody's ideas of how the world goes around -- not mine, maybe
Ted's, etc. -- and I am arguing that everyone who wants to see society
ordered in a particular way has to answer the question.

But to pose the question and to answer it are different issues: I am a
trinitarian Christian of the old school and this statement reflects what
I believe reality to be. But part of this faith insists that men are all
sinners and never to be trusted with absolute power (and belief in an
absolute outside themselves is a necessary check against this). If there
is no God above the state, then the state is God. Consequently, I believe
a trinitarian social order would maximize personal liberty (including
that of non-believers), and conversion from one social order to another
should rest as much as possible on persuasion, not coercion.

The example we started with on this is that many of you support me being
forced to pay for an education that I object to, but I don't want you to
have to support an education that you object to. I gave thousands last
year to educate kids in state-sponsored agnosticism. How much did
agnostics give to educate our kids in the Christian faith? This
illustrates the difference between unnecessary coercion versus
persuasion. Once a social order is established, a certain measure of
coercion is inescapable (because all laws are imposed morality), but
certain worldviews value personal liberty far more than others do. In my
vision for Moscow twenty years hence, far more laws would disappear than
would arrive.

Ted Moffett wanted a domestic example of state approved carnage.
Okay. Abortion clinics.

He also wondered whether I was questioning "logic." I
co-authored a textbook on logic, and am not trying to dispute the
rationality and coherence of the world God made. But his statement that
the categorical syllogism concerning Socrates is one on which everyone
can agree "regardless of their ethics or theology" is
provincial and naive. The acceptance of the authority of rationality in
argumentation is certainly worldview dependent, just like everything
else. Has Ted never heard of Zen?

With regard to Ted's request that I provide proofs that would keep my
Christian claims from being eaten up by my universal acid -- proofs that
show revelation from God and proofs that show why one religious tradition
outranks another -- I can only say that our discussion hasn't matured to
that point yet. I think the request entirely reasonable. But I have
wanted us to agree that everyone who has a social vision that includes
others has this burden of proof in common. It looks as though we may be
closer to that point, and when we get there, we can debate the competing
claims of contrary absolutes.

And it would be nice at that time if both sides of the debate agreed upon
persuasion in this debate, and not coercion.