Replies

I knew that my little caveat would bring allegations of moral relativism. I almost put in a clarification, but I didn't just to see who would be the first to take the bait. "You are a moral relativist." Well, for the record, I am not. I generally subscribe to the casuistic ethics of Thomas Fleming in his book "The Morality of Everyday Life" with some reservations. It is a great book and I suggest you read it. I agree that the great moral teachings of the Bible are universal, but beyond that it is not so simple as some would like to believe. It is the liberalism of the Enlightenment that insisted on universal principles of universal applicability. It is the more organic, the more natural, the more ancient, and hence I would suggest more conservative approach to pay great respect for the folk ways and folk ethics of various places and times. It springs from the realization that things are the way they are for a reason, that they arose as the result of multiple factors, and that they are generally protective of the society they arose in. That some societies are superior and more worthy of protecting, I have no problem with. Since this is a little off topic, I will send you an example of what I'm talking about, if you are interested.

However, this is not entirely off subject because it helps us understand the whole civil rights issue. The issue is often characterized as a simple morality play of good vs. evil. That is certainly the way you are portraying it, but it is not that simple. To understand Jim Crow, you have to go back to Reconstruction and the brutal oppression of the South by the Yankees and the Republicans. An oppression in which Blacks were used as pawns. That resentment would rise up from that is understandable. So you ask, has "civil rights" been a good thing? On the whole no. While I do not believe the government should be able to discriminate, issues such as schooling were State issues, not Federal. Brown was wrongly decided, Constitutionally. I also do not believe people have an inherent right to do what is wrong. Some of my libertarian friends would argue that prohibitions against discrimination in the private sector, such as housing or employment, are wrong because it is peoples' right to discriminate if they want to. I would not necessarily agree with that, but I think anti-discrimination laws when it comes to public things are unenforceable without greatly tilting the matter in favor of the State as has happened with civil rights. Opponents of civil rights legislation said they would inevitably lead to quotas. Civil rights proponents said they would not. Well guess who was right. Unless someone is dumb enough to say I'm not hiring you because you are black, then it is virtually impossible to determine motivation. Therefore, they quickly resorted to numbers. 25% of your area is Black. So therefore, 25% of your work force must be Black. If not you are obviously a racist. But of course, that is ridiculous on the face of it. There could be hundreds of reasons why the work force is composed the way it is. If you don't think this mindset is prevalent just look at some of the threads here. At least one person (bencarter) has already denounced every one who has posted anti MLK statements as racist, as if he has some magic crystal ball and can look inside all of our hearts. Quit being brow beaten by political correctness. It takes as much courage now to stand up and say that Brown was wrongly Constitutionally decided as it did to stand up for civil rights in MLK's day.

The only reason I see for character assassination, which is what this is (you could have a perfectly normal conversation about MLK's bad personal habits without it becoming character assassination), is to discredit what that person accomplished. And seeing what MLK accomplished (and it is an accomplishment. The extremes the civil rights movement's legacy is taken to today does not change the fact that is not longer OK to view blacks as second class citizens), the only reason to rail against it is if you feel that blacks should be second class citizens. Ben Franklin said that what makes us rational is our ability to rationalize anything. The rationalization of these attacks only serves to cover their real feelings, and not cover very well.