Religion Rights are NOT Human Rights

Nice thing about those in Latah County and Moscow, is that I learn from them all the time. I learned causing harm to a stream is okay if Moscow does it. I learned that you can overuse water, as long as you complain about someone *else* doing it. This goes along with carbon offsets. You can overuse, as long as you are smug about it. You can cut down the trees on your property, as long as you make an issue about someone else doing it. Do as I say, not as I do.

I learn a lot from Moscow and Latah county, and I have now learned thatreligion rights are not human rights.

Religion has no part in process

A dispatcher from the Latah County Sheriff's Office posted a message to her church's e-mail list regarding job openings suitable for "good Christian men." In response to concern by members of the Latah County Human Rights Task Force, Lois Blackburn and I visited with Sheriff Wayne Rausch on Aug. 17. We were pleased he was willing to discuss this matter with us. We learned he had written a letter of correction to the dispatcher, who had apologized.

We assured Rausch the concern we expressed did not relate to the particular church that was contacted, but rather the principle that religious affiliation should never be a part of a job search and that it is unconstitutional to have a religious test for hiring. Our concern is to maintain the separation of church and state and to assure Latah County residents that people of all religions or no religion are welcome to apply for government positions and all will be treated equally and fairly.

Rausch assured us religious affiliation is not a part of the hiring process. We also believe he understands that it is inappropriate for religion to be discussed by his government employees relative to their professional work, and contacting any church regarding open positions and discussing the religion of the people in office gives the wrong impression to our community.

We asked the Sheriff to explore ways to contact the media to clarify his policies regarding this matter, and he agreed to do so. (Opinion, Aug. 21)

Joann Muneta, chair, Latah County Human
Rights Task Force, Moscow

When I read this message I am so shocked to see that it is not about protecting *everyones* human rights. What about the human rights of the person who posted a job notice to fellow worshippers? Does he not have human rights? Do human right exist for Christians? Why did the Sheriff even meet with these people and give them credibility? He should have said that any of his people can, via word of mouth, announce job openings.

This whole thing sickens me like you would not believe.

I need The PES!

It's Only Wrong When It's Israel

Headline:

Lebanese army shells refugee camp
-- BASSEM MROUE, Associated Press
I'm waiting for widespread Arab/Muslim condemnation of Lebanon, for Ahmadinejad to call for Lebanon's destruction, for Al-Qaeda to do the same, for the usual cast and crew of anti-Israeli national governments to threaten Lebanon with this and that, for a chorus of loons to condemn the U.S. for supporting the democratically elected Lebanese government, and for our own homegrown lefties to hold an anti-Lebanese candlelight hackeysack/lack of bar soap/save the rainforest/cause-of-the-week peace vigil, with lots of pictures of Che Guevara.

I will not hold my breath for this, however.

"The Myth of Moral Relativism"

There have been several comments in the last week about how no one has the right to "the moral high ground" on any issue. This is a concept known as moral relativism and is a cancer that represents, in my opinion, everything that is wrong with the American education system today.

Philosopher Dr. Jonathan Dolhenty has a great essay exposing the hypocrisy of moral relativism. An excerpt:

The purpose of this brief essay is to show that moral (or ethical) relativism is a philosophical myth that is accepted by no one who has critically examined its tenets and that those who claim to be moral relativists are really not. We are dealing here with two aspects of a specific condition:

First, with a "belief" that states there are no fixed values, there are only fluctuating human valuations, or that ethical truths are relative, that is, the rightness of an action depends on or consists in the attitude taken towards it by some individual or group, and hence may vary from individual to individual or from group to group.

Second, with "actions" based on this belief which clearly show that the agent is, more or less, acting or behaving in a way that is consistent with the belief that moral relativism is, in fact, the true and only philosophical position.

As is usually the case in this type of reflective situation, the belief comes first, the action follows, but the action taken tells us something about the commitment to the belief undergirding the action taken.

It is easy in our contemporary society to find statements which apparently show a commitment to moral relativism. Consider just a sampling:

What's true for you may not be true for me.

Nothing is really right or wrong, but thinking makes it so.

Ethical judgments are just a matter of personal opinion.

Anything goes.

One man's meat is another man's poison (in regard, of course, to morals).

We should not judge another's personal morality.

No society is better or worse than another (in regard to social ethics).

The above statements, and ones similar to them, are now bandied about in ordinary conversation as if they were truths about which no one should disagree. Moreover, those who claim to be moral or ethical relativists and are bold enough to declare it would simply say: "All morals are relative and that's the end of it," or some such "philosophical" assertion.

Opinion surveys recently taken in America have shown the pervasiveness of the position promoted by moral relativism. For instance, in one survey where adults were asked if they agreed with the statement "there are no absolute standards for morals and ethics," seventy-one percent said that they agreed with it. Other surveys have shown even higher numbers who think that morality and ethics is a matter of personal opinion and that there are no universal standards by which one can determine the rightness or wrongness of a human act.

Now, I never question what a person tells me regarding his or her personal beliefs, unless I have a valid reason to think otherwise. If someone tells me that truth is a relative matter, then I accept that that is what that person believes. I then consider that person's actions to see if they are consistent with the beliefs stated. And that is where the "rubber meets the road," so to speak. I find that those who claim "all truth is relative" may spout that belief, but they never act as if its true. Similarly, I find that those who say they believe in moral relativism never act as if they really do. In fact, I find them to be moral absolutists, not moral relativists. Belief is one thing; actions are another. And it is in the realm of action that moral relativism takes the fatal "hit."

The old adage "actions speak louder than words" has a special significance here. If the "words" (beliefs) are really committed to by the moral relativist, then his or her "actions" should be consistent with those words or beliefs. And it is precisely here that moral or ethical relativism becomes a "myth." While many may claim to be moral relativists, their actions show they are not. In fact, their behavior shows them to be moral absolutists of a type, the very opposite of what they claim to be. And it is this point that I want to address in the remainder of this essay.

The self-proclaimed moral relativist does not and cannot maintain his or her commitment to the "philosophy" of moral relativism. In fact, the record clearly shows that these "moral relativists" are not relativists at all, but moral absolutists. This assertion is based on their behavior, not on their alleged support of a philosophical position. To wit:

Modern "liberal" political groups who promote "political correctness." These groups want to suppress what they consider to be offensive language and views. Most of these people claim to be moral relativists, yet they promote a doctrine that includes an "absolutist" program, that is, "statements that are politically incorrect must be eliminated or even made illegal." No relativism here.

Groups promoting "Multiculturalism." All the beliefs and practices of non-Western cultures must be considered as "good" regardless of the belief and practice, but Western civilization and the "white European" are evil and to be eliminated as soon as possible. No relativism here.

Pro-abortion groups. Claiming that morality is a matter of personal opinion, these groups are now attempting to legally quash any opposition to their position. They want "special protection" and do not want to confront any philosophical opposition. No relativism here.

The above are simply examples of "absolutist" behavior parading as moral relativism.