Moral Absolutism
It boggles the mind that moral relativism, cultural morals that, seen through the prism of the religion, heritage and culture of a society can lay claim to equal respect with moral absolutism. The commandment to do unto others as you would have done to you; the commandments to respect life, and property, to refrain from giving false witness, all should, logically, reasonably, be recognized as moral imperatives irrespective of any society, its culture, the religion and the heritage.Alas, a new, albeit not too new, brand of civil orthodoxy has arisen whereby the cultured, the tolerant, the open-minded - mostly to be seen within the cerebrally-elevated corridors of academia along with the more gritty trade unionists, and in most liberal media - proclaim that to be an enlightened being is to recognize the viability and respectability of moral relativism. We do not stand in judgement of others without condemning ourselves for our lack of sensitivity to cultural underpinnings.
Academics revel in moral smugness; that they are above and aloof from the rationality of judging all by the same yardstick of civility, abandoning the principle of universally objective moral standards for the standard of moral neutralism. Which handily explains the indignant self-assurance of professors at Carleton University's sociology and humanities department defending the employment of a man standing accused of mass murder, before a trial that would either exonerate or find him guilty.
Moral ambiguity suits them just fine, just as it does the unionists who have righteously adopted the stance of damning the just and celebrating and defending the moral integrity of social-political entities who espouse, train for and conduct murderous enterprises upon those whom they claim oppress them. And in defence of the indefensible, seek to impose isolating strictures on a democracy with an independent judiciary while indulging in defamation.
Western society walks on tenterhooks to avoid offending the sensibilities of those within the Muslim population who unabashedly support the concept of violent jihad, who see nothing amiss in killing 'heretics', those who choose to leave Islam and embrace another religion. They are held to have a right to their point of view, living within Western society which holds organized violence and honour killing as uncivil anathema.
The spectacle of one religion insisting that it must be more privileged than any others - from the honoured human-rights groups in the United Nations to the streets of Muslim rage over 'insults to Mohammed', or the Koran, while vilifying the religions of others, and destroying other religions' sacred relics has become increasingly common.
And accepted, because the zeitgeist of mollifying, appeasing and grovelling to Islamist demands is paramount.
Lest we offend.
Within Canada various Human Rights Commissions are unceasingly called upon to bring into line any who dare be seen as critical of militant Islam. Accused of defaming Islam, of inciting to hatred and violence in their annoying habit of pointing out in public writing and dissemination of published works that Islamists are threatening peace and stability globally.
Whereas it is fanatical jihadists who preach hatred and violence, a truth that cannot be stated. Lest we offend.
The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has heard a complaint filed by a Muslim couple claiming to have had their religious beliefs violated when they were served a sandwich at a deli comprised of salami which contained pork, despite that they had been informed beforehand of the presence of pork in the meat product. Case dismissed.
Would that all those who find it impossible to live civilly with due respect for all could be dismissed. From the sublime to the ridiculous.
Labels: Human Relations, Human Rights, Political Realities, Religion
posted by Pieface @ Sunday, August 09, 2009
<< Home