Put Your Beliefs To The Test: Question Number Sixty-Nine

By Brannon Howse Live, 17 October, 2006

The following is question 69 out of 82 from Brannon's new book, Put Your Beliefs To The Test, 82 Questions That Reveal If You Think Like a Christian or a Modern-Day Liberal. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

To see portions of this book or to order your personally signed copy click here: http://www.worldviewweekend.com/secure/store/product.php?SessionID=&CustomerID=&ProductID=265

One of the greatest virtues one can possess is the virtue of tolerance as defined by our postmodern world-namely, we accept everyone's lifestyles and beliefs as equal. False. (Test question #69)

People of faith are often attacked for their belief in absolutes which we desire to see maintained in our nation's schools, legal system, and public policy. Strangely, though, while attackers make their claims under the banner of tolerance and moral relativism, they are at the same time trying to force their "new absolutes" on everyone.
In a review of William Watkins' book The New Absolutes, Rick Wade explains how the new absolutes compete with the old:

Though these new beliefs might not be "absolutes" in a strict, philosophical sense, they function as absolutes in contemporary society. According to Watkins, the old absolute was: "Human life from conception to natural death is sacred and worthy of protection." The new absolute is: "Human life, which begins and ends when certain individuals or groups decide it does, is valuable as long as it is wanted."
Two issues that bring this new belief to the fore are abortion and physician-assisted suicide. Few practices are as fiercely opposed or defended as abortion. Opponents say abortion is morally wrong for all people. Proponents say it is a matter of individual choice. Physician-assisted suicide draws similar responses . . .they think of it as a right not to be tampered with. It is rooted, they say, in a Constitutional "right to privacy."
In claiming this right, however, any foundation in relativistic thinking must be abandoned. For the very "right" proponents claim is itself an absolute. They think the right of individuals to decide for themselves should be observed by everyone else. When they say it is wrong for pro-lifers to try to press their beliefs on others, they are stating an absolute. If they say that the value of human life is a matter of its quality rather than of intrinsic worth, they are stating another absolute.[1]

Wade also explains the impact of these new absolutes on religious freedom in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />America:

It used to be held that "religion is the backbone of American culture, providing the moral and spiritual light needed for public and private life." Now, according to Watkins, we have a new absolute: "Religion is the bane of public life, so for the public good it should be banned from the public square."[2]

One significant reason this has happened is a popular, gross misconstruing of the First Amendment. Countless legal and media sources repeat ad nauseum that the separation of church and state prohibits the government from any involvement with religious matters. Public policy, we hear, should be kept separate from "religious matters."
The hypocrisy of the new absolutism is seen most clearly in "political correctness." To be politically correct is to be in line with certain ideals-abortion rights, multiculturalism, feminism, homosexual rights. To say or do anything which goes against these is politically incorrect. And thinking that way, PC proponents believe, is absolutely wrong.
Consider, too, the logical problem with saying there are no absolutes. The statement "there are no absolutes" is itself a statement of an absolute truth. But if a statement claiming that there are no absolutes is true, then the statement itself can't be true. That is a logical impossibility. There simply is no way to conclude we live in a world of no absolutes.
Liberal arguments are rife with statements that contradict their assertion of moral relativism. To discern the convolutions, you need only to listen to what they are saying. When you catch one, use it as an opportunity to help the person examine the faulty foundation on which the non-absolute, "tolerant" worldview is built.