Monday, December 20, 2010

Another Arbitrary Law For The Books

Don't ask don't tell, an interim compromise between President Clinton 17 years ago and a nation of people not yet willing to do such integral tinkering with America's front line defenders, was repealed today. What strikes me most about this decision--and is the point of this post--was its basis in arbitrariness. Now I'm sure for anyone who supports this legislation there is nothing at all arbitrary about it; that in fact it was the right thing to do. For those who think--or perhaps more aptly put, "feel"--this way, it is virtually impossible for them to grasp the fact that it actually was arbitrary.

One example of this can be seen in the next generation of deviancy. Although this particular strain of deviancy is still predominantly thought to be deviant, as we will see, the fact remains for most that the basis of it being considered deviant is still arbitrary.

In December a self published book found its way onto Amazon that caused quite a stir. The name of the Book was: "The Pedophile's Guide To Love And Pleasure". After protests, Amazon removed the book but complained that it did not believe in censoring certain books because someone found the content objectionable. A question that both sides of the "debate" should be asking themselves after making such a moral proclamation, whether to the positive or negative, is "why?". Why is it good to not censor material for example? The answers one gives to himself in such an examination of thought will give insight into whether the stance is arbitrary, or based on an objective value. For teh person who finds that each answer only leads to another "why?", then for him it is arbitrary and his position will either be convinced to change, or will gain or loose ground based on raw power. Such is the way of a world based on arbitrary morals.

One should keep in mind while doing such an evaluation that not only was homosexuality once predominately thought of negatively, but so were other sexual sins like adultery and promiscuity. These sins however have since been removed from their foundation of objective truth then then blown away by the hurricane winds of pop culture. As can be clearly seen in the incremental acceptance of these sins and others, one can only assume the decade of the pedophile is on its way. I can almost hear the scoffs and claims that such will never happen. But I've heard it all before. You'll know it has arrived when you find yourself defending yourself against the label: "Pedophobe".


Anonymous said...


Stan said...

One of the arguments has been "You rotten Christians who serve in the military need to get real. You'll just have to serve alongside them!" Nonsense, of course, to me. Christians in the military serve alongside adulterers, fornicators, thieves, all sorts of sinners. Big deal. The difference, though, is that before they could say, "You need Jesus because you're a ___" and fill in the agreed upon sin ("adulterer, fornicator, homosexual"). If it is "homosexual" now they will get disciplined for it. It isn't a matter of acceptance, but rejection. It's not "accepting gays in the military", but rejecting the belief that there is any moral concern at all "and if you dirty rotten Christians want to believe there is, you can just get out! Homophobe!"

Dan said...


I thought to myself as I wrote this that I would say what you said if I were to read this afresh. It's funny how predictable we all are. But I think one of us spelled it wrong.


It's funny Stan, my thoughts on this is that DADT has been in effect for Christians in the military, and in fact for society as a whole, for much longer than 17 years.

And you're right about the rejection. But the ramifications of that rejection is total arbitrary law. Unfortunately for the materialist, the ramifications are not tidily contained in the compartment of "morality", but, much to his amoral chagrin, transcends into the almighty economy as well.

Craig and Heather said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Craig and Heather said...

It is interesting how the juvenile "I-have-nothing-intelligent-to-say-so-I'll-call-you-'chicken'" taunt has been co-opted by those who have no convincing argument to support their inclination to perverse forms of behavior.

The worst possible crime against humanity is to be a (whatever)-phobe? And people actually can be penalized for being accused of "fearing" behavior that used to be considered criminal?

Anyway, interesting point about the arbitrary nature of the beast.

Dan said...

Yes Heather-this today, that tomorrow; looks like shifting sand to me. Actually, the charge of phobaphobe could be leveled against the phobia police; but then again, that would only be a jaunt down a different arbitrarily chosen road.

christian soldier said...

great posts my friend--liked the one on argumentation very much---

Dan said...

Why thank you Miss CS