What Is Truth?

I’ve noticed a recurring pattern among some of my fellow travellers on the spiritual path: an extreme reluctance to make a definite moral statement. I understand that in this postmodern age there is (supposedly) no such thing as absolute truth. And I can understand why many (especially in the GLBT community) are reluctant to make any definite moral statements: many of us have been abused or alienated by those who have used such “absolute” statements as weapons against us.

But it seems to me that if we never stand up for what is true – if we never speak our truth with conviction – we slip into a kind of moral vacuum, where every viewpoint is given equal weight, no matter how harmful the consequences of those viewpoints may be to others.

An example from the current news: Pat Robertson has called for the United States to assassinate the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez. As good liberal postmodernists who value tolerance and dialogue between those of differing paths, are we supposed to consider Pat Robertson’s viewpoint a valid one? Are we intolerant if we refuse to tolerate an intolerant viewpoint? Is it OK to call Pat Robertson (or at least his words) vile and loathsome, or are we judgmental and absolutist ourselves if we do so?

I have no answers, just concerns. I welcome your feedback.

Comments

[NancyP]

Short answer: it's not intolerant to condemn Robertson's statement, and many other statements he has made. Call a fart a fart, already! Furthermore, it isn't intolerant to infer that he is a sleazeball more interested in his own financial welfare than in the spiritual wellbeing of his listeners.

Assassination is 1. killing, which requires very serious moral consideration (just war doctrine, etc) 2. meddling in foriegn affairs without thought of consequences - we have diplomats for managing foriegn affairs, and amateurs are not welcomed. So Robertson's comment is thoughtless and irresponsible.

Robertson's version of religion is a "God will smite my enemies" sort of thing. When he brings God down to the level of a glorified prize-fighter, it's hard to take Robertson seriously as a moral or religious thinker.

[Mark]

Maybe Venezuela could invade the U.S. and take out Pat Robertson and the rest of the Christian Taliban? Any maybe stay a while to fix the constitution and install a democratic government?

Gosh, I'm bound to end up on a no-fly list for saying that!

[Alan]

The problem it seems to me, is the difference between fact, opinion, and taste. A fact is just something that can be shown, with adequate evidence and warrents to be true. If it isn't, then it's false and not a fact. An opinion, is a synthesis of facts. If any of the "facts" are not true, then the opinion becomes false. A taste is simply one's feelings or thoughts about something that can't necessarily be backed up by facts.

For example, the sky is blue. We can measure the wavelength refracted by the water in the atmosphere. That's a fact.

I have an opinion that the sky should be blue. If I'm in LA and its brown, then I think that's a bad thing. My opinion can be supported by facts.

I think a blue sky is beautiful. That's simply a matter of taste.

We liberals have gotten all confused on the matter of opinon versus taste. Being gay, for example, may not be someone's particular cup of tea, but that's just a taste. Their opinion that being gay is somehow morally wrong is not supported by fact. It is not the case that it is just "wrong for them" and "right for me."

[Ulysses]

Is it "intolerant" to call Pat Robertson's words intolerable? Of course it is. That's what those words mean. Sometimes being intolerant is okay, especially when it is used to speak truth to oppression and naked power.

Re: relativism vs. absolute truth, this article by Brian McLaren goes a long way to clarify these issues: http://www.anewkindofchristian.com/archives/000018.html ... pay attention especially to the 7 different meanings of the word "truth" that he describes there.

[Ulysses]

Is it "intolerant" to call Pat Robertson's words intolerable? Of course it is. That's what those words mean. Sometimes being intolerant is okay, especially when it is used to speak truth to oppression and naked power.

Re: relativism vs. absolute truth, this article by Brian McLaren goes a long way to clarify these issues: http://www.anewkindofchristian.com/archives/000018.html ... pay attention especially to the 7 different meanings of the word "truth" that he describes there.

[tony g]

Last week on his show, Bill Maher, speaking on the evolution versus intelligent design question, said it's not necessary to teach or tolerate alternative opinions when they're "a load of crap."

This reminds me of the long-standing media practice of always including a differing opinion (read: anti-gay voice) whenever reporting on gay issues. Sometimes, it's plain and clear that something is right, something is wrong, and we should not be afraid to say it.

Pat Robertson issued his own version of a fatwah. The US government and media would condemn such a statement from an Iraqi or Pakistani or Iranian or other Muslim religious leader. They should flatly condemn Robertson's statement too. I'm tired of the moral vacuum (thanks for the phrase, Darrell) that says we have to discuss and hear all opinions when clearly some are not worth hearing. I don't care what the KKK thinks about racial quotas, and neither do most people in our country; so why do we allow the anti-gay bigots so much airplay?

[Coke]

In which a person can't be logical or linguistic.

A friend recently told me that she is a Christian who does not judge. In the same breath, she claimed that she did not agree with my "lifestyle."

I have news. Deciding upon whether or not to accept or reject someone's way of living (lifestyle) is to make a judgment call. It most certainly IS judging.

I suppose next she would say that she loves the sinner but hates the sin, but in doing so, she would be making a judgment about what is a sin and what is not, so there goes more judging.

It is impossible to say something like "being gay is wrong" or "acting on gay urges is wrong" without there being a very explicit judgment made, and let me tell you ALL something.

"Gay urges" are only as much about sexual attraction as "straight urges" are, and are issues of love and romance exactly as much as straight love and romance are.

Love and caring and even sex among adults should be valued no matter who feels the love or to whomever the love or the act of love is directed. NEVER should love be belittled because of technicalities of gender.

It's a sickness in this country right now to say that only straight people can feel or express love. It's incorrect, it's bigoted, and it's unnecessarily judgmental.

Celebrate love. Celebrate romance. Never, ever hate or judge those who love.