"Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again..."

Location: Tampa, FL, United States

Thursday, May 12, 2005

The Myth of Neutrality

When it comes to stereotyping there's a wealth of options available to both the stereotyper and the sterotypee. Focusing on the political realm, there's libertarians, independents, social conservatives, pro-life democrats, humanists, right-wing extremists, green partyists, anarchists, communists, socialists and others. Those claiming to be "neutral" purport to have some degree of agreement and disagreement with the other parties.

To declare allegiance to any party with an assertion that your position is superior by definition requires a belief in the existence of truth and a strong sense of what truth is. This enables the ability to define your position. To claim to be politically enlightened yet relativistic when it comes to matters of truth strips oneself of having any legitimate position of superiority, politically speaking.

If there "truly" are no absolute standards of truth then it should matter little with regards to what you believe, what you do and who you are. Any goals in life are entirely self-imposed. The coersion and manipulation of some by others for self-contrived and self-serving purposes beomes rampant.

To the extent others may reap short-term benefits under an unjust political system would count merely as a consolation prize with a limited shelf life. A sense of futility in matters of politics is inevitable when someone rejects absolute truth.

Any credible political entity must be Christian at its core to breed a just and Godly society. This is not to say the Christian faith should be foisted upon an unwilling person or people for that itself would be anti-Christian in nature. Christian law benefits unbelievers as well as believers without any accompanying threat, which would not be the case with false religions.


Post a Comment

<< Home