I'm not ready to jump, canon-ball-like, back into the blogosphere just yet. Very soon I'll post some of the journal entries I wrote while dealing with the Baby Blues and yucky, anxiety-filled sleeplessness. My transition to motherhood has been--as I expected--an emotional one.
BUT, slowly I'm trying to balance the "new me" with the "old one," and I managed to find a minute this morning to visit some of my favorite political websites. There, I found an interesting story: The American Flag is Offensive in Schools. According to the report, a teacher refused to let an elementary student display his picture of the American Flag because the boy next to him was offended. The super intendent says that's not how it all went down, but I appreciate the author's commentary either way. Regardless of whether a boy's civil rights were encroached upon in this situation, the author pointed out the ridiculousness of claiming "offense" as a legitimate qualm in ANY case:
"The thing I find most irritating about [the American Flag Story] is the ridiculous idea that "offensiveness" should be a guide for anything. And it not only shouldn't be...but it cannot be.
This is because offensiveness is completely relative and subjective: most everything offends someone and most everyone is offended by something. Yet we won't prohibit everything. Would we kowtow to a child who was offended by sitting next to a black classmate? In short, we have to discriminate among people's feelings. And what will be the yardstick that we use to judge? Unless it is the "feelings" of the given authority figure -- in which case the judgments are completely arbitrary -- the standard of right and wrong must be applied.
Once you recognize this, the offensiveness argument goes out the window. It passes muster only in a relativistic universe in which, without a conception of Truth as a yardstick for making decisions, people use the only thing they have left: emotion. Yet this reduces society to the law of the jungle: we fight, using fists, votes, or words (maybe lies), and those who prevail see their will done. And that higher one, and civilization, are casualties.
The truth is that when people take offense, it's usually just a ploy. They're not really offended. They just don't happen to like what you're saying.
But if they were honest and said just that, they'd seem intolerant. So they try to seize the moral high ground by putting the onus on you and claiming you're "offensive." Yet they usually have neither the high ground nor anything moral. If they had the latter, they'd likely be able to mount an argument as to why you're wrong in a real, absolute sense. Instead, all they're saying, properly translated, is that they don't like how you taste. If they looked to Truth, however, they might find that the problem actually lies with their palate.
Something else that can exist only in a relativistic universe is the spiritual disease that today wears the label "liberalism." Get people to believe in Truth, and this disease will die as surely as will a fungus exposed to the light."
I like how this guy challenges those who are "offended" to explain WHY, with a "real, absolute" yardstick. I like how he talks about standards and spells Truth with a capital 'T.' I like how he points out that too many of our arguments stem from emotional issues and not from a genuine search for right vs. wrong--whatever the "offended" person may claim.
I'm still not ready to compose my next, big, offensive post about homosexuality or abortion or religion or whatever. But, when I do, I hope my readers are ready to discuss specifics and weigh my statements against the Truth.
I couldn't care less if they're just "offended."
No comments:
Post a Comment