|
Ian writes:>…My guess is that what we need is a
reframing of moral argument that massively shifts the justificatory burden onto
the Right: >"What is the justification for homophobia?"... >The goal of such simple questions could be directed at
pointing out just how much capriciousness, anti-pluralism and authoritarianism
lurks in the very discursive approach the Right takes on issues of morality;
that is, moral discourse itself is the source of a lot of our inability to
solve deep problems of social suffering. As Theodore Lowi points out in
"The End of the Republican Era" this makes Conservatives very
nervous; so Reich and others who think the adoption of moral discourse is something
that needs to be done need to be prepared. >The non-metaphysical aspects of Theism are far harder to
crack than the metaphysical ones. < Don’t you think that a lot of people will answer that
question with “gays are YUCKY” or similar? Or simply say “it’s
tradition”? I’m an agnostic when it comes to theology, but I don’t
see any point in trying to undermine theism. Metaphysical assumptions seem
impregnable. Might it be better to put forth the alternative moral point
that it’s good to be tolerant of human differences unless they actively
hurt others and that hatred of gays hurts people? It seems that there are good
Judeo-Christian reasons to oppose hatred of gays (and maybe some can be found
in Islam, too). JD |
