I seem to have stirred up a very small tempest with my review yesterday. The author of the book I reviewed (who seems to be a splendid guy) linked to my review on Facebook, and his fans went into a minuscule feeding frenzy. A couple of them even commented here. One concluded that because I believe that “truth is one,” I must be opposed to freedom of religion. This is a common misconception, especially among liberals. They assume that, like them, we on our side wish to criminalize all ideas we disagree with.
Easy mistake to make, in the hall of mirrors that is the modern world.
I wanted to re-state and elaborate on what I wrote last night. I have two arguments, each of which involves a Great Rejection.
I reject the idea of connecting religious truth to race or ethnicity in any way (except for the special calling of the Jews, a unique case and not exactly a privilege). If truth is different depending on the color of your skin, then the races will never be reconciled, because people of one race are essentially different – at their very core – from people of all other races. If truth depends on race, segregated churches are a good thing.
Christianity has rejected this idea from its very beginnings (read Acts 10).
It would seem to follow from this argument that I’m accusing my opponents of being racists. I actually think that very unlikely. They are almost certainly not racists. They are either a) unthinking, or b) relativist.
Most modern people don’t actually think their ideas through. They absorb, from TV, movies, and web sites, what the culture tells them to think, and they think that (to the extent that they think at all). Especially if it feels good. The idea of ethnic religion – when applied to minorities – feels broadminded and multicultural. So they adopt it, without worrying about the implications.
Others consider the issue of truth irrelevant. They believe that there are many truths. Your truth may not be my truth, and therefore black or red truth can be different from white truth. Everybody’s truth is equally good. And if the truths contradict one another, well, you just say that because you’re Eurocentric (“white truth” is considered slightly less true than the others).
I have always rejected the view that ultimate truth is relative. I will continue to reject it, God willing, until the day I die.
If truth depends on race, segregated churches are a good thing.
Yes, but the arrow does not go the other way. Segregated churches may be a good thing in some societies. Part of the purpose of a church is to teach. While all churches should teach the same truth, the best way to teach may be culturally dependent.
If your truth is just as good as my truth despite contradictions, then nothing is true or the person holding the relative truth concept is simply a chauvinist.
Embrace the power of “and,” Lars. They are unthinking relativists. After all, being unthinking is about the only way that you can conclude that relativism is tenable.