Moral Relativists Aren't

David French makes a very astute observation about relativism at the National Review Phi Beta Cons blog (hat tip to Constitutionally Correct)

Our colleges are not overrun with either moral or cultural relativism. The problem is the opposite — moral and cultural absolutism that is occasionally so extreme that it would make a Bob Jones theology professor blush.

It's a point I've made before, that no one is truly a relativist, and certainly not a moral relativist. Were that the case, then I could go up to one, steal his wallet, and when he protested, he would immediately lapse into reverent compliance when I told him, "Stealing may be wrong for you, but not for me." I should also be able to do the wild thang with a "moral relativists" wife and receive his admiring acquiescence with the defense that, "Adultery may be wrong for you, my good man, but not for me."

But it doesn't work that way, does it? Of course not. Because liberals who claim to believe in moral relativism DON'T REALLY; they just believe in it when it extends to what THEY want to do, and what doesn't bother them. When it comes to things that affect them (their property or relationships), or things that they don't like (condemnation of immorality, condemnation of wealth redistribution, etc.), suddenly they believe in things that are "universally wrong."

...academic relativism is a tactic, not a substantive position. When a student of orthodox faith or a person of traditional belief presents a position, they are often countered with the classic relativistic verbal shrug ( i.e. "that may be true for you but not for me"), but when the shoe is on the other foot — when the issue is dear to the heart of the academic — the position could not be more absolute. Insults like "racist" or "sexist" or "homophobe" do not come from relativism, but from absolutism.

When is Treatment Appropriate?

So they have "treatment programs" for calling someone a name now?

I refer to this juvenile, overblown incident where a star from the TV show "Grey's Anatomy" called someone else a faggot.

While I don't condone hate toward homosexuals, I have to shake my head that society now has "treatment programs" for people who call homosexuals derogatory names, but that same society denies there is anything wrong with a man who would sodomize another man and says that behavior is normal, natural and healthy.

A Mockery of Justice

WorldNetDaily has a piece from Michael Farris on the stay of execution granted to Ronald Chambers.

It illustrates much of what's wrong with our once noble justice system in this country.

Scalia has now stayed his execution. It is stayed until the petition for certiorari is granted or denied. There is some suggestion in the media that the Court may be waiting until another case raising similar issues is decided. Michael's mother has told the press that she can't take it any more.

Here is the human cost of such judicial fooling about:

Bennie and Mabry have suffered the tragedy of every parent who loses a child – the marriages that never happened and the grandchildren that never came along, the milestones that were never achieved, the calls never received, and the hugs never given. But for Michael's parents and his devoted sister, Janna, the passage of time has not only been a reminder of that loss and the emptiness it brings, but it has been 31 years of emotional torture that arises from the lack of resolution. How can anyone blame them if they have begun to doubt the ability of our justice system to deliver anything that resembles justice?

This is what we do to people with our pathetic excuse for a justice system. We once recognized that justice should be swift, and recognized that as a benefit both for the accused and for the victim/loved ones of the victim. This is specific in the Sixth Amendment for the trial and implicit for the execution of the justice determined at that trial.

The average time today from sentence to execution for those sentenced to the death penalty is 12 years. This is beyond pathetic. It's a mockery. It mocks the victim and it mocks justice.

Fans Upset

My fans at the Coat Hangers are upset that I haven't gone to answer some of their ultra-feminist buddies' prattle about how integrity and abstinence are things worthy of mockery.

Doing so would be like trying to argue with a pack of yard dogs that had treed a coon.

The Bible says we should warn someone if they're doing something wrong. After that, it says not to answer a fool according to his folly (in other words, if he's too stubborn or too stupid to listen, you just move on and leave him to his self-destructive behavior).

That's what I've done, and that's what I'm doing, respectively.

If Only

Cybercast News Service has an article entitled "Environmentalists 'Abandon Hope' After Bush Speech" today.

If only we could be so fortunate...

The Case for Spanking

Californians should pay attention to this story entitled "Girl Kicked Off Plane After Tantrum," in light of a bill being introduced in their legislature to ban spanking.

I'd be willing to bet this little hellion has never been spanked. If she had, the parents would have had better control of her, and she probably wouldn't have been so out of control in the first place.

I guess if you have a nice little compliant child, you might (MIGHT) get away with not using spanking for occasional discipline (defiance and rebellion are where it should be used), but many kids are too strong-willed to respond to anything else.

(Hint: "stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop" doesn't count as discipline and correction, but it is a good example of stupidity and impotence).

This kid is Exhibit A for the need for spanking.

Vaccinations Gone Wild: ACP Makes a Statement on HPV

The American College of Pediatricians has issued a statement on Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccinations as a requirement for entry into public schools. Seems they're opposed to it.

A couple of excerpts from their statement that illustrate a little of why many family-values-conscious parents have a problem with promoting widespread HPV vaccinations:

this vaccine prevents a disease which is exclusively sexually transmitted; mandating it as early as 9 years of age places the medical provider in an ethical dilemma. First, the administration of the vaccine requires explanation to both the parent and the child. Parents may have chosen not to introduce the subject of sexual activity to their nine year olds due to their physical and emotional immaturity. Also, most 9-12 year old children are not sexually active; many have not entered puberty. Forcing a parent to forsake his/her better judgment and discuss this information with the child would be inappropriate and unnecessarily intrusive.

The American College of Pediatricians recommends that parents use the availability of this vaccine to usher in a discussion of human sexuality in a way consistent with their culture and values at a time when they determine their child is ready to receive the information. Parents should closely monitor their children’s activities, reinforce their values, and consent to vaccination when appropriate. At that time, physicians should introduce the value of sexual abstinence as the only way to completely eliminate the risks associated with sexual activity.

Apparently it isn't just Bible-thumpers who have a concern about HPV vaccinations. Besides, there usually is a practical aspect to most biblically-based concerns. God doesn't tell us not to do something just to spoil our fun.

Preschool Plan: Taxpayers Get Taken to the Cleaners

The latest in a series by Cindy Flakoll/Concerned Women for America on Governor Mike Rounds' preschool plan has been posted at dakotavoice.com. This installment points out that the bang for the buck just isn't there with preschool.

I'm also planning a piece on the preschool initiative in my Rapid City Journal column next week. It shouldn't just be a rehash of Cindy's research, as I've found there is a lot of information out there on preschool, it's effectiveness and it's detrimental effects on children (some of the architects of preschool point this out, as seen in Cindy's piece today).

I oppose it for reasons concerning family values, but I've found that the practical considerations are at least as substantial.