Chivalry – a word some need to learn

Time for me to wade in here as well, as I do ascribe to the notion of chivalry when seeing a damsel in distress (although from her posts, the Letters to the Editor, and the comments, she brings to mind the image of a top female martial artists taking care of business – albeit, in a more genteel fashion).

Being a part of ConserveNH, it seems that Judy has been put upon by some that espouse the gay agenda and the bigoted attacks on her for defending her views.

And yes, I did use the word "bigoted" – for those that are throwing that word at Judy are, indeed, exhibiting the same behavior of which they accuse of her.  

There seems to be this notion of those of the "progressive" persuasion (ok, common liberals on the Left side of the aisle and usually Democrats) that if someone from the Right dares to challenge the agenda or motives, they are automatically bigoted, close minded, Neanderthals that are cold, uncaring, thoughtless, and uneducated.

A clue – as conservatives, we’ve been listening to these kinds of ad hominem attacks and dull attempts of persuasion for years on all kinds of topics.  They don’t work – insulting those that you are trying to persuade doesn’t get you good marks for debating style.  Try logical, well thought out, reasoned lines of argumentation – those will have more effect.  Otherwise, it just seems to be rather churlish – we want what we want and we want it now – and all of you that don’t want to give it to us are just plain ignorant and nasty!

Case in point.  A while ago, we had Ron Tunning, the Laconia (NH) Democratic  Chair on our radio show, Meet The New Press as a result of a local student group going to visit the  NH State House during the  NH civil  union debate (and I give Ron a hat tip for coming into "the lion’s den").

What captured my attention was the following (snippet, 4 minutes 12 seconds), which gave me cause to reflect in the larger sense outside of the singlular civil union debate (For the entire interview, click here). 

Notice two things:

• Although there was a proclamation that all should be treated equally (and assumed, alike), the refusal to allow other groups of other than heterosexual or homosexual identity to have those same rights.
• The claim that only those that demonstrate and advocate for themselves deserve to obtain civil rights.

Of the two, the latter concerns me much more than the former.  The first is just plain selfishness – ‘I want it and to heck with anyone else that "is oppressed" ‘.  This is a demonstration, in my opinion, of a specific agenda on behalf of a single, tiny (but extremely vocal) minority group.  By framing it as a civil right, they have moved their issue forward. 

To me, this shows that it IS more of an agenda than for equal civil rights for everyone.  If it were truly the latter, why not be open and inclusive of all? To me, saying that all should be treated equally but not working towards it is a bit of hypocrisy (yup, all or nothing).

Yet, by making the claim that only those that lobby for civil rights deserve them  explicity undermines the whole concept of rights in the first place.  We could get quite philosophical by diving into the area of from where rights are derived (our entire system states that they stem from the Almighty), who grants them, who is owed what, or even, what are fundamental rights anyways.

Anyways, the above is only setting the groundwork.  Kevin over at the ScienceBlogs takes quite the umbrage at Judy’s stance on homosexual civil union or gay marriage.  It is quite clear in looking around his blog that they are atheistic in outlook (and going to a more militant stance in being pretty much anti-God from the look of it).  Certainly, they have the right to be that way.

And that is where the problem lies – not in that they are anti-God but the two totally opposite philosophical systems under discussion – at the macro level, it is relative moralism vs absolute morality.  The latter is tied to a text, considered sacred, that is used to create the moral underpinnings that can be seen at the ‘Grok – a belief in the Judeo-Christian philosophy / theology that has been the main philosophical system in the Anglosphere. When followed (and I freely admit that as an adherent, I consider myself pathetic in reaching its lofty goals), it does provide moral absolutes – this is right, and this is wrong.  While some things have been debated for centuries, there are certainly those that are held true with little discussion.  Thus, there is always a stable foundation for this belief system. 

Not so with the militant atheism shown at the ScienceBlogs. 

First, science in and of itself is not a moral system – it is an investigative process.  A hypothesis is formed, an experiment devised to test that theory, and the result of that are checked by other peers to assess its validity.  

And that is all that it is.  However, some have taken that process and turned it into a moral system often referred to as moral relativism.  Building on the nihilistic writings Nietsche and combining it with the deconstruction theories that gained promenance within the academy at the end of the last century, it allows that there is no real single truth and that there are no absolutes. The main problem with this system, as I see it, is that eventually, it is only what society professes to be moral is moral.  With government playing such a large role in society, it can be what government decides is moral will be moral and right – a very dangerous area for the governed.

So, the problem?  A clash of philosophies that define good and bad by inherently different viewpoints.  Instead of recognizing these differences rationally, Kevin decided to tee off on Judy’s lack of agreement with his relative morality system.  Judy (and I include myself in her and Doug’s camp) believe in an absolute morality system (even as imperfectly kept as it is).  For us, we do not see civil unions (along with other things) as right.  Therefore, why shouldn’t we be allowed to argue against it without fear of hostile reactions such as homophobe, bigoted, close minded, and the like?  

No ranting from us (and we ARE opposed to the Westboro Baptist group led by Mr. Phelps – may God have mercy on his soul, for he needs it) on this issue.  However, we have the right, under the laws of this nation, to continue to advocate against this NH civil union bill. Kevin, you may not like it, and it seems like you perhaps rail against it, but slurring Judy or Doug because of their beliefs or their stances is beneath you (I think, anyways, that you are capable of better).  

Based on our two philosophies, let our two blogs continue the discussion in a rational way by (smirk!) reaching for the heavens during that discussion.  Anything else is simply the low road and the gutter.