http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2008/12/16/a-crucial-question-revisited/ Beating Them With Their Own Sickle And Hammer Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:22:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2008/12/16/a-crucial-question-revisited/comment-page-1/#comment-110225 eaglewingz08 Tue, 16 Dec 2008 20:38:24 +0000 http://www.stoptheaclu.com/?p=18273#comment-110225 If the moral relativist all viewpoints are equal and equally good (or bad) is valid then there is no moral or constitutional basis for finding constitutional rights to either abortion, gay rights or gay marriage. Since any finding of those 'rights' have to appeal to a special human rights argument, since these rights were nowhere long standing or enshrined in western legal or moral structures, the argument has to be that there is a 'right thinking' moral/legal viewpoint the adoption of which must inexorably leads to establishment by the Courts or by the plebiscite. However, if those supporting these viewpoints are not superior to those opposing them (western liberal viewpoints not superior to biblical fundamentalist viewpoint) a Court would have to defer to the legislative viewpoint-the weigher of competing (equally assessed) viewpoints to grant whatever additional rights may be granted to persons supporting these ideals. Otherwise, the libs and/or the courts would be compelling or prohibiting acts that others believe to be if not evil, than socially untenable, and imposing a moral/legal framework as superior that by dint of liberalist ideology, no ideology, and especially no western ideology (such as liberalism) may be enthroned with. Ah, the pretzels of liberal thought twist and turn, and the only engine that powers it (due to such convolutions) is naked power and self righteousness. If the moral relativist all viewpoints are equal and equally good (or bad) is valid then there is no moral or constitutional basis for finding constitutional rights to either abortion, gay rights or gay marriage. Since any finding of those ‘rights’ have to appeal to a special human rights argument, since these rights were nowhere long standing or enshrined in western legal or moral structures, the argument has to be that there is a ‘right thinking’ moral/legal viewpoint the adoption of which must inexorably leads to establishment by the Courts or by the plebiscite. However, if those supporting these viewpoints are not superior to those opposing them (western liberal viewpoints not superior to biblical fundamentalist viewpoint) a Court would have to defer to the legislative viewpoint-the weigher of competing (equally assessed) viewpoints to grant whatever additional rights may be granted to persons supporting these ideals. Otherwise, the libs and/or the courts would be compelling or prohibiting acts that others believe to be if not evil, than socially untenable, and imposing a moral/legal framework as superior that by dint of liberalist ideology, no ideology, and especially no western ideology (such as liberalism) may be enthroned with.
Ah, the pretzels of liberal thought twist and turn, and the only engine that powers it (due to such convolutions) is naked power and self righteousness.

]]>