His Majesty Ozymandias
11-11-2004, 04:09
Good, now that I've got your attention:
I owned this fool
Mr. Cal Thomas,
The Scottish historian and philosopher David Hume once said, “Truth springs from argument among friends.” With that genial spirit, I extend to you my response to your article, so that maybe your next article might reflect a better understanding of social liberals like me. I do not want to believe, as Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman have suggested, that the result of the election will result in ureckonable differences between the left and the right in America, whose ignorance of each others’ true perspectives and beliefs seems to be causing more of a breakdown than any specific issue. Please hear me out.
You said in your recent column that appeared in the Danville, Va.’s Register & Bee today,
“The condescension and elitism expressed by the left displays intolerance at its worst. The left is again exposed as hypocritical, preaching tolerance and inclusion, but practicing intolerance and exclusion of all ideas not in conformity with their own. Has it never occurred to liberals that they might be objectively wrong? . . . A majority of the public is tired of being forced to accept every ideology, sexual depravity, and secular idea the left wishes to shove down their throats.”
I think that it has been hard lately for the left to emphasize tolerance as a virtue again. I think the difference between the left and the right on this matter (and apparently between you and me) is our view of tolerance itself.
Faith, Mr. Thomas, is believing something one cannot prove. This is the root of so many peoples’ lives, and, by the way, it is the root of my own. Ultimately, in perceiving the world reason must end, and many people find a higher power. Religion or spirituality delivers to them morals and values that are -- in light of reason -- purely arbitrary. I have many convictions myself that I cannot justify with reason, but that I hold in my own actions.
This established, I assert that the intolerance dished out by social conservatives (and particularly Protestants who are in the majority) is one based upon arbitrary rules that they hold for themselves or their sects. I argue that it is not paradoxical that the left might consider itself “intolerant of intolerance” because liberals do not (at least, they should not) attempt to legislate values that begin only with their respective visions of a higher power. I have my own faith-based values I follow, but I do not see them as legislatable in the United States. To do otherwise would be to establish a law “respecting an establishment of religion.”
Mr. Thomas, I want to defend your right to act in disaccord with my values! The only moral system that can with reason be imposed upon the masses in the United States is one based on the idea that people can do whatever they choose, as long as they do not harm another, because that would prevent the other from ever establishing his or her own private morals in the first place.
I hope I am making this clear. I do not mean to be condescending, but if you consider homosexuals sexually depraved, I suggest that you not have sex with men. If you do not agree with abortion rights, I suggest that you share this belief with women you know and care about. If you believe that evolution is wrong or even immoral, I suggest you teach your children that it is, either yourself or through a faith-based school.
The social difference in the results of a liberal-controlled government and that of a conservative-controlled government is that when the former exists, all can pursue their own faiths without jailing one another.
In your editorial, you also said,
“Perhaps the biggest myth perpetrated by the media is that we are a divided nation. Several publications printed a remarkable marp that breaks down the vote county-by-county instead of state-by-state. It shows an enormous sea of red (Bush counties) with only tiny patches of blue (Kerry counties) in the usual places where elites and other condescending liberals reside. If you study this map, you have to conclude that America is not becoming more divided; it is slowly, but perceptively, becoming more conservative and Republican.”
While the number of counties that voted for the president is indeed remarkably higher on the map, virtually all of the counties that voted for John Kerry had significantly larger populations. An “enormous sea of red” does not necessarily suggest that the president is gaining significant ground, but rather that the people who voted for him tend to live in rural areas. Also, I find it hard to label the residents of the Kerry counties “elites” because they comprised 48% of the popular vote. That is a very large group to be considered elite, right?
And if 48% of the population voted for Kerry and 51% for the president, that is a divided nation. If the media is lying to me, as you say, it is not on this point.
You said also,
“The president says he believes he has a mandate to proceed with . . . putting judges on the bench who believe in the Constitution and not what they think the Constitution says.”
One question: What is the difference between believing in the Constitution and believing in what one thinks that the Constitution says? How can a justice tell the difference?
I would appreciate hearing back from you. Having an honest, genial exchange with someone I highly disagree with would really reassure me that Maureen Dowd is wrong, which I would love to believe.
Sincerely,
Tyler Bass
Danville, Va.
I owned this fool
Mr. Cal Thomas,
The Scottish historian and philosopher David Hume once said, “Truth springs from argument among friends.” With that genial spirit, I extend to you my response to your article, so that maybe your next article might reflect a better understanding of social liberals like me. I do not want to believe, as Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman have suggested, that the result of the election will result in ureckonable differences between the left and the right in America, whose ignorance of each others’ true perspectives and beliefs seems to be causing more of a breakdown than any specific issue. Please hear me out.
You said in your recent column that appeared in the Danville, Va.’s Register & Bee today,
“The condescension and elitism expressed by the left displays intolerance at its worst. The left is again exposed as hypocritical, preaching tolerance and inclusion, but practicing intolerance and exclusion of all ideas not in conformity with their own. Has it never occurred to liberals that they might be objectively wrong? . . . A majority of the public is tired of being forced to accept every ideology, sexual depravity, and secular idea the left wishes to shove down their throats.”
I think that it has been hard lately for the left to emphasize tolerance as a virtue again. I think the difference between the left and the right on this matter (and apparently between you and me) is our view of tolerance itself.
Faith, Mr. Thomas, is believing something one cannot prove. This is the root of so many peoples’ lives, and, by the way, it is the root of my own. Ultimately, in perceiving the world reason must end, and many people find a higher power. Religion or spirituality delivers to them morals and values that are -- in light of reason -- purely arbitrary. I have many convictions myself that I cannot justify with reason, but that I hold in my own actions.
This established, I assert that the intolerance dished out by social conservatives (and particularly Protestants who are in the majority) is one based upon arbitrary rules that they hold for themselves or their sects. I argue that it is not paradoxical that the left might consider itself “intolerant of intolerance” because liberals do not (at least, they should not) attempt to legislate values that begin only with their respective visions of a higher power. I have my own faith-based values I follow, but I do not see them as legislatable in the United States. To do otherwise would be to establish a law “respecting an establishment of religion.”
Mr. Thomas, I want to defend your right to act in disaccord with my values! The only moral system that can with reason be imposed upon the masses in the United States is one based on the idea that people can do whatever they choose, as long as they do not harm another, because that would prevent the other from ever establishing his or her own private morals in the first place.
I hope I am making this clear. I do not mean to be condescending, but if you consider homosexuals sexually depraved, I suggest that you not have sex with men. If you do not agree with abortion rights, I suggest that you share this belief with women you know and care about. If you believe that evolution is wrong or even immoral, I suggest you teach your children that it is, either yourself or through a faith-based school.
The social difference in the results of a liberal-controlled government and that of a conservative-controlled government is that when the former exists, all can pursue their own faiths without jailing one another.
In your editorial, you also said,
“Perhaps the biggest myth perpetrated by the media is that we are a divided nation. Several publications printed a remarkable marp that breaks down the vote county-by-county instead of state-by-state. It shows an enormous sea of red (Bush counties) with only tiny patches of blue (Kerry counties) in the usual places where elites and other condescending liberals reside. If you study this map, you have to conclude that America is not becoming more divided; it is slowly, but perceptively, becoming more conservative and Republican.”
While the number of counties that voted for the president is indeed remarkably higher on the map, virtually all of the counties that voted for John Kerry had significantly larger populations. An “enormous sea of red” does not necessarily suggest that the president is gaining significant ground, but rather that the people who voted for him tend to live in rural areas. Also, I find it hard to label the residents of the Kerry counties “elites” because they comprised 48% of the popular vote. That is a very large group to be considered elite, right?
And if 48% of the population voted for Kerry and 51% for the president, that is a divided nation. If the media is lying to me, as you say, it is not on this point.
You said also,
“The president says he believes he has a mandate to proceed with . . . putting judges on the bench who believe in the Constitution and not what they think the Constitution says.”
One question: What is the difference between believing in the Constitution and believing in what one thinks that the Constitution says? How can a justice tell the difference?
I would appreciate hearing back from you. Having an honest, genial exchange with someone I highly disagree with would really reassure me that Maureen Dowd is wrong, which I would love to believe.
Sincerely,
Tyler Bass
Danville, Va.