BWS?

[Douglas <dougwils@moscow.com>]

Dear visionaries,

Rosemary Huskey finds that what I have written on the Confederacy is
"morally repugnant." I see that I will have to begin
abbreviating. BWS? By what standard, henceforth BWS?

Having a fixed standard of right and wrong in the Scriptures enables me
to admire that which was noble about the Confederacy, and reject that
which was sinful and morally repugnant. But those who are relativistic
are stuck with the worst of everything -- including all the contemporary
febrile hatreds of our white sheeted brethren of one tooth. If there are
no fixed boundaries of right and wrong, one cannot start hollering about
that which is "morally repugnant" when the fit takes
one.

It simply amazes me that people cannot see that moral relativism means
moral relativism. If there is an fixed, non-evolving standard, then
tell us what it is, and why we are obligated to pay any attention to it.
But in the 
meantime, who is Kant and why should I listen to him? Or who is Bentham,
and why is he in charge? Or fifty one percent of the voting
public?

But if there is no fixed, non-evolving standard, then don't come accusing
other folks of having fallen short of it. The trouble with relativists is
that they cannot live by their own worldview for ten consecutive running
minutes. They banish absolute standards out the front door, but then,
finding they cannot live without that invigorating feeling of moral
indignation that busy-pants liberals thrive on, smuggle them back in the
back door.

What a jolly time we live in. And the back door has been locked.