Relativism is Alive and Well in Our Youth

If you've studied apologetics for any length of time, you've dealt with relativism.  Frankly, relativism is easily refuted.  That's why finding an opponent for a debate on the topic is virutally impossible in university philosophy departments.  Philosophers are (typically) too smart for relativism.  You have to rummage through the humanties or anthropology departments for an opponent (no offense intended to those smart humanities or anthropology students or profs!). 

And so, the temptation is to move quickly beyond relativism to more sophisticated challenges.  Howevever, we cannot underestimate the infection of relativism in our culture, particularly amongst our youth. 

Last night I spoke to a group of typical high schoolers from a typical youth group.  After distinguishing between subjective and objective truth, I asked students to identify whether the following statements were subjective or objective truth claims: 

1. That guy's shirt is red.
2. Red is the best color.
3. 2 + 2 = 4
4. Disneyland is better than Six Flags.
5. Brett can bench press 350 pounds. (On this one, I always have to remind students I'm not looking for a true/false answer!)
6. God exists.
7. Premarital sex is wrong.

Fairly simple.  But as typically happens, when we arrive at statements 6 and 7, confusion and disagreement ensue.  In fact, last night the majority of students (about 75%) argued statement 6 is subjective while every student but one argued statement 7 is subjective.  One girl's reasoning went like this:  "As a Christian I think premarital sex is wrong.  However, I could imagine that some weird cult thinks it's okay for children to 'get it on.'  Therefore, even though I think that's disgusting, they've got their own opinion about the matter and it's alright for them." 

The rampant relativism among Christian students is no longer a surprise to me.  Indeed, I have come to count on it.  And such anecdotal evidence is confirmed by the most comprehensive study of the religious lives of American teenagers to date:

"American youth, like American adults, are nearly without exception profoundly individualistic, instinctively presuming autonomous, individual self-direction to be a universal human norm and life goal.  Thoroughgoing individualism is not a contested orthodoxy for teenagers...'Whatever' is just fine, if that's what a person wants.  Consequently, certain traditional religious languages and vocabularies of commitment, duty, faithfulness, obedience, calling, obligation, accountability, and ties to the past are nearly completely absent from the discourse of U.S. teenagers...The typical bywords...are 'Who am I to judge?' 'If that's what they choose, whatever,' 'Each person decides for himself,' and 'If it works for them, fine'...Some teenagers champion this skeptic's view of individual, realtivistic truth with great relish...some version of this individualistic subjectivism and relativism is the dominant, assumed viewpoint about religion among most contemporary U.S. adolescents" (from the book Soul Searching, pp. 143-145).

We simply cannot take for granted our students have a handle on truth.  It may be obvious to you and I the claims "There is no truth" or "All truth is relative" are self-refuting but it is not obvious to the majority of our young people, despite the efforts of some people to persuade us of the absurdity that anyone could think otherwise (beside drunk college students).  Indeed, relativistic thinking is the greatest challenge we face in training our youth.  If they don't get truth right, they will succumb to all kind of error.  This Fall we will be releasing a new resource for students and youth leaders entitled, "Truth and the Real World," to address this challenge.  In the meantime, probe and question your students and those in your church's youth ministry to determine how much of the disease they've caught. 

Comments

[alan aronson]

Sounds to me like most of the audience understood the difference quite well. Am I missing what the problem is?

[Tim]

Hi Alan,
If relativism is valid, by what basis are you claiming there is a problem in Brett's observation? If just having an opinion means every one must accept it as valid, which is what relativism requires, then Brett's opinion is just fine. So is yours though. So there is a problem, but on the other hand, no there isn't. "Whatever!"
On another subject entirely. I've heard it claimed that the 14th Amendment was martial law legislation, and should have sunset when the Southern legislators were seated in Congress. I'm not so much interested in the 14th Amendment, as I am about where the doctrine concerning martial law decrees might have come from. Have you ever run across it in your research?

[alan aronson]

Hi Tim, one of the problems here is that it is easy to get trapped in "canned" positions. Everyone is a relativist when the issue is deemed unimportant. No one is a relativist on that which they consider vital. That is as true for we lefty's as for you all on the right. Where we draw those lies is where it gets interesting.

I am a relativist on same sex marriage, early term abortion and the like because study and experience informs me that these are issues of little long term import or, in the context of a secular republic, are properly individual decisions.

When it comes to issues like civil rights, health care, environmental policy, national security, habeas corpus, institutionalized torture, and our Constitution I am not so much the relativist.

Posse Comitatus was gutted after 9/11 so martial law is a real possibility. I would hope that American troops would choose the Constitution and the Republic over any illegitimate use of martial law.

[Aaron Snell]

>>Posse Comitatus was gutted after 9/11 so martial law is a real possibility. I would hope that American troops would choose the Constitution and the Republic over any illegitimate use of martial law.

Warning! Warning! Non-sequitur! Non-sequitur!

Whew! No need to worry, folks. Hijacking attempt narrowly avoided.

[Tim]

Thanks Alan,
Would you say then, that you are a selective relativist as oppossed to an open ended relativist?
Here's why I would disagree, say on the homosexual issue. If some one would try to convince me that homosexual marriage is viable, I would analyze their position something like this.'The next time you shower, note your genitalia, that determines your gender; now if you're confused about something so basic and easily determined, what recomends your arguement about changing the traditional definitions of one of the foundational units of civilization?
While some one may have the right to bring it to the public debate,I have the right to scrutinize and point out obvious problems. The fact that niether two homosexual men nor two lesbians can produce live fertile young, means that there are inherent problems with such parings from the start. This type of marriage is an attempt to 'equalize' through statutes, something that cannot be equal.
BTW, I lived as close to the homosexual life style as one can get, without becoming a homosexual, for over three years. While I was never drawn to it as a life style, I wasn't opposed to it then.( About 25yrs ago) But after what I observed first hand, long before I became a Christian, there isn't much I can see in it as a reason to change the definition of marriage. Most of the men and women I knew were divorced and chose the gay life style because they didn't want to be bound to one person. Promiscuity was what drew them into it. As a result I'm very suspicious of those pushing "Gay Rights". I suspect it's more of a political agenda, than the gender identity issue of homosexuality. Every one I knew was 'recruited' to the life style by their own addmission, there wasn't any ' I was born that way'at that time.

As to the martial law question, I'm interested in a supposed doctrine, that all martial law decrees sunset when martial law is recinded. I've never found it mentioned anywhere.

[alan aronson]

Hi Tim, my point was that necessity makes us all relativists on some things, just different things for different folks.

Having observed all orientations over many decades, I idealize none and anyway it's none of my business.

The key point for me on same sex marriage is that, like it or not, folks are going to form these relationships and they will eventually often involve matters of health, property, and children that are best resolved by applying the well worked out laws that have evolved in marriage. Equity and citizenship trump tradition in matters this serious.

Roger Pilon at Cato and Bruce Ackerman (Yale Law) have written on the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the 14th Amendment. As much of the United States were outside of the five southern military districts at the time of adoption, I doubt it could be termed a product of martial law. Georgia and Utah would disagree.

Hi Alan

When you state that "Everyone is a relativist when the issue is deemed unimportant. No one is a relativist on that which they consider vital."

This says nothing in regard to the actual objectivity of the issue. It just seems to say that people objectify subjective things they deem important!

You stated:
When it comes to issues like civil rights, health care, environmental policy, national security, habeas corpus, institutionalized torture, and our Constitution I am not so much the relativist.

The question I think you still have to ask yourself is, are the given values *actually* objectively good or are they *just* subjectively good. If they are objectively good, by what standard are they so?

sincerely,
todd

[Kevin W]

The fact that you can see a teenager or college student wearing a Che t-shirt with a peace patch on their back-pack says logic and rational thought aren’t even relevant. It’s all about the ‘coolness’ of ‘relativity and rebellion’. Very romantic.

[William Tanksley]

"Everyone is a relativist when the issue is deemed unimportant."

Do you believe that the tension between relativism and absolutism is merely a matter of subjective opinion? Then you're a relativist.

Simple, wasn't it? Even trying not to take sides on this issue, you take a side.

[Tim]

Thanks Alan,
I can see by the other responses, that as in legal matters before a court, terms should be clearly defined. Unless I'm wrong, Brett's original post was on,'cultural relativism' as it is used today to deny absolutes. That is self refuting, as it would require the doctrine of no absolutes to be absolutely true.
My particular position on homosexual marriage is relative though. It is relative to certain inherent biological facts, my personal observations etc. The fact that 'Hate crimes legislation' would make both my religious, personal and biological based opposition to such unions subject to state police actions, requires me to scrutinize not only the basis of the arguement, but also "who" is pushing it.
If it stays in the arena of ideas that's one thing, but when a group is attempting to invoke the police powers of the state to enforce their agenda, then I become very suspect of their motives. Though many of our founders were 'Christian' in their world view, they did not create a theocracy at the national level, though some states were quasi-theocracies at the time.
So far I see no imperical evidence that would recomend changing our laws. My family was impacted by such private decisions, and though the children were taken care of, the other complications had profound impact. The negative far out wayed any positives that may come from changing the definitions of marriage.
In short I, like our founders, don't trust politicians. I don't trust either side of the isle. I welcome open debate and scrutiny of my positions,' Iron sharpens iron', that's why I enjoy talking with Alan as well as others. He makes me dig deep.

[alan aronson]

Good points, Todd and William, but it still remains that few of us, if any, are absolutists on everything and that all of us are absolutists on the things we consider important; we just disagree on the things and often the facts that delineate things.

"Do you believe that the tension between relativism and absolutism is merely a matter of subjective opinion? Then you're a relativist."

How can it be anything else in the matter of that on which we choose to be absolutist. In the original post there was agreement on some of the items and not on others. I voted with the majority on six and seven but Brett seems to disagree. As we all, I am sure, agree with #1 - #5, perhaps this isn't as clear-cut as you all would want it to be.

Recall the administration official Ron Suskind quoted in his famous article: "The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' ... 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"

As a proud member of the reality based community, I do try to observe the maxim that "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

As facts and solid information are important some of you may be interested in the following report:

http://corky.wgaeast.org/decline_news/737.html

Tim, you have gotten the wrong impression as to the nature of the term "hate crime" in the United States. Under our present Constitution, it is simply impossible for such legislation to do what you describe. All the ones I have seen simply prescribe penalty enhancements following convictions for underlying violent acts that are by their very nature already illegal. One may disagree with the theory behind such legislation but that is another matter. One thing I learned long ago is to always read the underlying legislation as the folks urging others to take action on this or that piece of legislation are often challenged in some manner. This is as true for advocates on the left as on the right.

[William Tanksley]

"How can it be anything else in the matter of that on which we choose to be absolutist."

Oh, absolutely. If you've chosen not to be a relativist on one or two items, though, you've simply using the term 'relativism' differently than Brett was. Relativism isn't something you pick and choose from; it's the philosophical belief that "truth" proceeds from some foundation other than correspondence with reality.

What you describe is something more like 'tolerance' -- the understanding that I should let people believe the wrong thing so long as their beliefs don't hurt anything too important to me. (This is closely allied with 'humility' -- the realization that I could be wrong after all, so perhaps I should err on the side of tolerance rather than defense by allowing possibly harmful beliefs to be expressed and even enacted rather than merely assuming that they'll be harmful.)

Alan, thank you for the source of that term 'reality-based community'. I see why you use the word now; it always before seemed to be absurd and bragging. Now I see it's legitimate -- you're using someone else's pejorative to describe yourself. This is a very amusing and even appropriate thing to do.

It's an interesting irony that leftists have wound up representing the 'realist' faction of international politics -- in general, leftism supports action rather than inaction, while realism requires inaction unless a nation's needs are directly threatened. ('Idealism' is probably the best opposite to realism.)

[alan aronson]

Hi William, Brett's list clearly had two items on which there was disagreement. If 100% of the audience agreed that red is red and God's existence is subjective while Brett believes red to be red and God's existence is objective then where does that leave us regarding the standards for objectivity?

Let us be clear that the "action" to which you refer re: "realism" is military action. Realism encourages normal diplomatic initiatives. The arrogance of the idealism represented by quoted official is what got us into our present mess. As the banner on Mark Kleiman's blog states, facts are independent of wishes.

[Amy]

>>Hi William, Brett's list clearly had two items on which there was disagreement. If 100% of the audience agreed that red is red and God's existence is subjective while Brett believes red to be red and God's existence is objective then where does that leave us regarding the standards for objectivity?

Alan, I think you're misunderstanding the terminology being used here. Brett is talking about *types* of statements. "God exists" is an objective type of a claim. It's a claim about reality. The statement may be true or false, and people might disagree as to whether it's true or false, but it's the kind of claim that is either true or false, independent of our preferences, because it refers to an objective reality outside of us.

On the other hand, if I say that grass flavored Jelly-Bellies taste good, that's a subjective statement. It might be true for me, but not for you. The statement depends on our preferences, not a reality outside of ourselves.

So while people might disagree on the truth or falsehood of an objective claim, *that* it is an objective claim about reality is not really in question.

[alan aronson]

Understood Amy, but I guess the point I was inartfully getting at are objective claims about which we can't be certain. We can agree on the standards for "red" but how does one do that for "God"?

Perhaps that is what the 75% of the students were intending. If we can never know God in the sense that we know red, can God be objective in the sense that red is?

[William Tanksley]

"Hi William, Brett's list clearly had two items on which there was disagreement. If 100% of the audience agreed that red is red and God's existence is subjective while Brett believes red to be red and God's existence is objective then where does that leave us regarding the standards for objectivity?"

There are two different questions tangled up here. First, what is truth? Second, how can we recognize truth?

The standard for objectivity you cite isn't a standard for whether a statement _is_ true or false; it's a standard for _recognition_.

It's the standard used in our courts -- taking into account the fact that the two sides must be opposed in interest, of course.

[Kevin W]

>>”Understood Amy, but I guess the point I was inartfully getting at are objective claims about which we can't be certain. We can agree on the standards for "red" but how does one do that for "God"?”

Alan, it doesn’t matter. I would take issue with Brett’s terminology. He doesn’t need the word ‘truth.’ In other words, by merely saying: “Aliens exist” or “My house is located on the tip of Mt. Everest” one is making an objective claim.

This isn’t difficult to grasp but we muck it up all the time.

[Amy]

>>Perhaps that is what the 75% of the students were intending. If we can never know God in the sense that we know red, can God be objective in the sense that red is?

I think they were making the mistake you describe in the above sentence. Disagreement about something doesn't change the nature of the claim. The existence (or non-existence) of God is as objective as the existence of anything else. It might be more difficult for us to come to a personal decision about what we thnk about it, but that does nothing to affect whether or not He exists. When I say God exists, I'm not just saying I believe in Him, I'm saying He exists outside of and apart from me. That's an objective claim even if I'm wrong and even if people have different opinions (and opposite objective claims) about it.

I think what you're trying to say is that you can't be as certain about God's existence as you can be that something is red, but that doesn't change the nature of the claim as an objective one, and it's the nature of the claim that Brett wanted them to understand.

[Bill]

Alan, have you ever worked in either the humanties or anthropology departments?

[Tim]

Hey Alan,
You seem to be as busy as the proverbial,'cat on a hot tin roof'.
I'm not so worried about current hate crimes law as I am about the wording of some proposed laws. When my position/opinion becomes actionable/cognizable by a court simply because some one 'feels' threatned by it, that is when I really question the true motives behind it. I repeat, I don't trust any politician, elected or un-elected. You and I may well have to agree to disagree on this one, but such is the nature of political debate isn't it? I think you would agree with me though, that much of our perception about our founders is based on an urban legened type of view, than reality. Most don't realize how close the Convention came to failing because of political, economic and religious differences.
I do agree with you though about being absolutists. Amy brings up a good point, but I would add this to it. A universal truth doesn't require anyone to believe it, for it to be true. PI,3.1416, was still a constant before it was discovered. It was and is a universal law. The question then becomes, who is the 'law giver', and does He require anyone to believe He exists for Him to be the law giver? And, perhaps the most important point, has He revealed Himself to His creation, and can we gain some insights into His attributes through His creation?

[alan aronson]

Hi Bill, no but I have to wonder at the point of the distinction. I get the formal statement but where does that go? As I tend to be agnostic on question six, we still get to a "maybe" and that reflects a judgement as to the importance of the statement. Perhaps you can tell me where applying a formal philosophical rigor, as opposed to an existential relativism to the statement gets us? What is the practical value here?

[alan aronson]

"When my position/opinion becomes actionable/cognizable by a court simply because some one 'feels' threatned by it,"

Hi Tim, what proposed law actually did this? I have yet to see one.

[Bill]

The aim of my rhetorical question is to make the point that you still don't get it. Even though the answer has already been given to you in the comments above.

Come on man, it really takes the fun out of a joke when you have to explain it.

[alan aronson]

Hi Bill, I understand the philosophical shiny thing. I don't see much significance to it. Do you? If so, what?

[Bill]

Alan, have you had your home checked for radon?

[Amy]

Sorry to continue on the subject of hate crimes, but Alan, you said:

>>All the ones I have seen simply prescribe penalty enhancements following convictions for underlying violent acts that are by their very nature already illegal.

I just wanted to mention that I did just come across this case that didn't involve a violent act:

>>NEW YORK (AP) _ A 23-year-old man was arrested Friday on hate-crime charges after he threw a Quran in a toilet at Pace University on two separate occasions, police said.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--vandalismquran0727jul27,0,6882662.story

[JR]

Busted!

[alan aronson]

Hi Amy and Tim, Volokh has written on this and his take is at variance with the Newsday story - his reading of the harassment statute seems accurate and the complaint doesn't list that charge. I apologize for my use of the qualifier "violent", I was thinking of a specific law but vandalism and theft are crimes and can be serious. We are still dealing with an enhancement issue here - read the Volokh post.

http://volokh.com/posts/1185829677.shtml

Another story in the Daily News would seem to indicate a potential theft as the underlying crime.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/2007/07/28/2007-07-28_student_nabbed_in_koran_dunk-1.html

The problem with the way news is reported can often make it necessary to tease out the real story.

[alan aronson]

Hi Bill, I will take your reply to mean you can't tell us why the distinction is of any real-world significance in the examples given. Amy, maybe you can help.

[alan aronson]

Just an addendum here. Property crimes are not nothing. If folks can't be secure in their property as well as their person, the community as a whole suffers. Some anti-property acts have presaged more serious acts. Kristallnacht and burning crosses are obvious examples.

[Bill]

"I will take your reply to mean you can't tell us why the distinction is of any real-world significance in the examples given."

Wow - I'm having to explain again that it was a joke. You must either be thick or have no sense of humor at all. I'll assume the later.

"I apologize for my use of the qualifier violent"

Definition - I'm wrong but I'm not going to admit it.

"The problem with the way news is reported can often make it necessary to tease out the real story."

Definition - Put on your tin foil hat and drink the Kool-Aid.

God is not dependant on your ackowledgement of his existence.

I can't make it any simpler than that Cool Hand.

[alan aronson]

"Wow - I'm having to explain again that it was a joke. You must either be thick or have no sense of humor at all. I'll assume the later."

Brett didn't sound like he was joking when he wrote, "We simply cannot take for granted our students have a handle on truth." If you don't understand him either then what's going on?

Bill, do you understand what the word "enhancement" means?

[Paul A]

The practicality, importance, or significance of the statements do not change whether they are objective or subjective. Regardless of how someone feels about it, the statement "God exists" is objective in the same way "Alan Aronson exists" is. Now, maybe one could quibble about defining the subject being key to the truthfulness of the statement (i.e., if by "Alan Aronson" one meant a 50-foot tall purple giant, that probably makes the statement false), but the statement itself is still objective -- its truth value does not depend on the subject making the statement. Statement #4's truth value changes depending on the subject making the statement.

[Bill]

Brett didn't sound like he was joking when he wrote, "We simply cannot take for granted our students have a handle on truth." If you don't understand him either then what's going on?

"Bill, do you understand what the word "enhancement" means?"

Alan, do you understand what the term out of context means?

Nice Job - Paul A.
That's about the tenth time this same simple principle has been explained to Alan. Maybe it will sink in this time.

Yes, I'm an optomist.

[Mo]

'The problem with the way news is reported can often make it necessary to tease out the real story.'

What 'real story' is there to find? This guy has felony charges against him, for simply putting a book in a toilet. (On two separate ocassions, actually.) Now, it does seem neither book was his. So he should be definitely charged with theft or vandalism or whatever is standard for such an act. But a felony hate crime? Ridiculous.)

Do you honestly think if this had been a Bible the punishment would've been the same? Come on now. The ACLU would've been all over it, championing this guy's right to free speech.

Where are they now?

[Mo]

Coming late to the party.

Wow, I am not sure that relativism is easily refuted among adults, as you said in the very beginning of theis post. I deal with it every day, and among very intelligent, 'reasonable' people.

People don't even know how to distinguish between objective and subbjective statements. It's a problem for adults as well as teens. This thread is proof of that.

[alan aronson]

Hi Mo, there are really two issues here. One is that some actions deserve and enhanced penalty; the other is the concern over prosecutororial overreach (Ken Starr) and outright malfeasance (the recent Duke rape case). The latter is a real concern but is somewhat disingenuous if confined only to hate crime legislation. Are you concerned with the topic in general or are you making a special case here?

I find it odd that you, as a good conservative, should so trivialize the outright theft of a sacred object. For the record, I would have no problem with enhancing a penalty for anyone who enters a place of worship, steals something held sacred and holy and then destroys it. This would go for a Bible or Torah scroll as well as a Koran (N.B., given the value of most Torah scrolls, we would already be well into felonious territory). Why do you consider such an inflammatory act to be so trivial?

[Mo]

I don't even know what your point is with the first part of your comment, so I will leave that alone.

As to the second, I don't know that I've ever labeled myself as 'conservative', 'liberal', or anywhere in between. In fact I've never commented on that one way or another, so your pointed jab is um... pointless.

As to the actual comment itself, please show me where I said or even implied it was trivial. Is it not true that I said the guy should be receive the appropriate punishment due for theft and/or vandalism?

What you have not addressed is the fact that this man has felony charges against him - again, for a book in a toilet. How is this level of punishment equal to the crime? Where's free speech in all this?

[alan aronson]

Hi mo, read your second paragraph. It reads to me as if the theft is a minor point to you. You don't seem to get that the theft is the underlying crime. Actions like his can have ramifications that go beyond a simple theft. I have no problem with an E felony here, you do.

That you don't understand what prosecutorial overreach and malfeasance consist of is probably why you reproduce canned sneers at the ACLU. A genuine concern for civil liberties is difficult if you don't get the threats (I even gave you a couple of examples).

[Mo]

I don't know how many times or how many ways I can give my position on this guy's theft/destruction of property. You just keep repeating the same old thing about me not taking it seriously or whatever.

I've tried repeatedly with you, on various topics. I've have had enough of your condescending attitude.

I'm done.

[Garrick]

This is classic Alan Aronson.

I had a friend once who loved to argue. If he couldn't win with the facts, he would immediately go after the other person's "lack of nuanced understanding." Then he would start in with the straw man arguements and ad hominem attacks. All mixed in with just the right amount of arrogant superiority.

The kicker was that the guy was wrong most of the time. He thought that by never agreeing with his opponent and outlasting him that he had won somehow. In reality, it only proved he was more stubborn.

He also had a pattern of changing the subject whenever it was clear that he was in error. He would then continue on with a related subject ignoring the prior.

My favorite part of this post is where Alan claims that hate crime legislation only affects those who have commited violent crimes. Amy gives him a current event example that refutes his position. Then Alan continues making the case for hate crime legislation as though he had never said it.

Kind of ironic that these comments were posted on a story about relativism.

[alan aronson]

Hi Garrick, while I understand that you have never mis-spoke or have never had to clarify a statement, not all of us have been so fortunate. I had H. R. 1592 (which we had recently discussed on this blog) in mind when I was writing:

" (1) IN GENERAL- At the request of State, local, or Tribal law enforcement agency, the Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that--

(A) constitutes a crime of violence;

(B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or Tribal laws; and

(C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or Tribal hate crime laws."

The relevant state laws are broader which may or may not be problematic depending on ones point of view. Amy raised a legitimate point and I clarified my position, one that I would hold for the burglary of any sacred object from a place of worship with the goal of publicly desecrating it. This is something on which reasonable people can disagree without having to be disagreeable.

As for the main topic, I have yet to receive an answer as to the importance of the distinctions made when the assertion is unprovable by any objective standards. Perhaps you can help.

[Garrick]

Thanks for confirming my points Alan.

"Hi Garrick, while I understand that you have never mis-spoke or have never had to clarify a statement, not all of us have been so fortunate."

Straw Man Argument: Even when I point it out as one of your tactics, you continue use it. Amazing.

I have never claimed to be right all the time Alan (notice I didn't equivocate by using weasel terms like "mis-spoke" or "clarify a point") when in actuality you were just plain factually incorrect. It only seems like I am right all of the time when compared to you.

But I am man enough to admit it when I am. And I guess I just don't have the impudence to continue on unphased as you do.

"Amy raised a legitimate point and I clarified my position."

Definition - my statement was wrong so I pretended like it didn't happen and continued with my argument.

"Tim, you have gotten the wrong impression as to the nature of the term "hate crime" in the United States. Under our present Constitution, it is simply impossible for such legislation to do what you describe. All the ones I have seen simply prescribe penalty enhancements following convictions for underlying violent acts that are by their very nature already illegal."

You build your argument on hate crimes being violent acts and when Amy shows you that you are wrong, you pretend like that had nothing to do with your case. Too bad there is a paper trail, huh?

"As for the main topic, I have yet to receive an answer as to the importance of the distinctions made when the assertion is unprovable by any objective standards. Perhaps you can help."

Not true Alan. You have received the answer several times in this post. Problem is you ignored it and continued with your argument. Just like when you ignored Amy's refutation and continued with your argument. Do we see a pattern forming here?

Of all the answers listed above, I thought Paul A put it best:

"The practicality, importance, or significance of the statements do not change whether they are objective or subjective. Regardless of how someone feels about it, the statement "God exists" is objective in the same way "Alan Aronson exists" is. Now, maybe one could quibble about defining the subject being key to the truthfulness of the statement (i.e., if by "Alan Aronson" one meant a 50-foot tall purple giant, that probably makes the statement false), but the statement itself is still objective -- its truth value does not depend on the subject making the statement. Statement #4's truth value changes depending on the subject making the statement."

There's your answer Alan. See if you can remember it until your next post.

"Perhaps you can help."

Perhaps. I suggest you consider donating your mind to science when you pass on. My guess is that they would be forced to replace the diamond as Earth's hardest substance.

[Mo]

Garrick, I see you are getting the same sort of responses from Alan. How many times, how many ways, and by how many different people can the same thing be repeated to him?

I have no problem with discussion, even if it gets heated. What I do have a problem with is a situation where a question is asked and an answer given (or a point is made and a counterpoint is made that completely refutes it), and yet it is completely ignored.

As you said, it's a good thing we're on blog. Everyone is able to simply scroll and see exactly what was said, and by whom.

[Paul A]

Hi Alan,

You wrote: "For the record, I would have no problem with enhancing a penalty for anyone who enters a place of worship, steals something held sacred and holy and then destroys it. This would go for a Bible or Torah scroll as well as a Koran (N.B., given the value of most Torah scrolls, we would already be well into felonious territory)."

I would have a problem with the "enhanced penalty", even if it was a Bible that was stolen and desecrated. Why should there be an enhanced penalty? Because someone holds it more dear than other things? How is that measured, in a legal sense? I find it interesting that you call for an absence of recognition of anything religious in our "secular government", and yet you call for that same "secular government" to deem a "holy book" to be of higher worth than any other book.

"Why do you consider such an inflammatory act to be so trivial?"

Why does it matter if it is "inflammatory"? Whom must it "inflame" to be labeled as such? I don't consider it to be "trivial", I consider it to be theft and defacement/destruction of property, nothing more. If it were the priceless scrolls you mentioned, it might be elevated to grand larceny.

[alan aronson]

"Why should there be an enhanced penalty? Because someone holds it more dear than other things?"

Hi Paul, that is how we do the law. That is why we may take another's life to protect our own but not to protect our property. A religion isn't a bridge club. One doesn't have to be religious in order to acknowledge the central role of the various religions in our public and private life; secular isn't anti-religious and the law has to take into account the realities of community life.

There is no faster way to polarize and disrupt civil society then to attack others based on their race or religion. That can carry over to property. The effect on a religious community if someone stole a folding chair from a parish hall and broke it up is going to be quite different then if a bible is stolen and desecrated. Burning a cross on the lawn of an African American family carries a message that goes well beyond a simple description of the act.

The costs to society of acts like this can and likely will be quite high, hence an enhanced penalty to discourage such acts is justified.

[Amy]

>>There is no faster way to polarize and disrupt civil society then to attack others based on their race or religion...The costs to society of acts like this can and likely will be quite high, hence an enhanced penalty to discourage such acts is justified.

And yet, an artist displays a cross in urine and our society rewards him handsomely. Christopher Hitchens writes a book intended to persuade people to hate and fear Christianity and he receives endless interviews and publicity.

I doubt you protested either of those things, and that's why your words sound hollow. Neither of the above instances would ever be punished by law, nor do I think they should be. And they certainly aren't condemned as "polarizing and disrupting civil society."

The case of the Quran in the toilet is similar to the ones I describe above because it was not a crime against a person (leaving aside the theft which ought to be punished as the theft of any book ought to be punished). No one was targeted by this action. It was a statement against a belief system as were the "art" and the Hitchens book. By implication (but not direct attack), people would be insulted, but no more in the first case then in the next two. (In fact, the second two directly influenced the prejudices of far more people than the first because more were exposed to it.)

Just because these second two didn't involve a crime, that doesn't change the fact that the message you want to punish in the Quran incident is *the same* as the messages in the two I describe here. So why is that message of hate punished in the first incident but not the others? It's because people are picking and choosing which messages to punish, and which messages to protect, and I don't want the government to do that.

If you don't believe this is the case, just ask yourself how you would respond if someone stole an American flag and burned it. Should he be prosecuted for a hate crime? Would he be?

[Mo]

Well stated, Amy.

The kicker that I see so often is that those who talk the loudest about respecting Islam and Muslims are the same ones who would have no problem with the same exact things being done to Christianity or Christians.

It is a ridiculous double standard. And no matter how many ties I've pointed it out (whether in blogs among stranger or my own journal among friends!) I have never seen it addressed. People just ignore it, hoping the topic will soon go on to something else.

[Garrick]

I really enjoyed reading the comments on this topic. Even though it changed from relativism to hate crimes. As I stated earlier, Alan likes to change the subject when he starts losing.

After almost 50 comments, it is crystal clear that propopents of hate crime legislation are using it to punish those who they disagree with politically. That's why it doesn't apply to those who don't support the left's agenda.

I have no false expectations that the libs will ever admit to that. But down deep they know it and we know it too. The emporer has no clothes.