An Unreasonable Debate

"Reasonable people can disagree." That is the catch phrase for dialogue between conflicting parties in our post-modern society. The underlying assumption is, of course, that two or more parties in a given dispute have equally "reasonable" arguments and that the free exchange of ideas will ultimately lead to a resolution acceptable to all involved. But in a day and age when the lines between right and wrong, truth and falsehood, good and evil are so clearly drawn, it is becoming increasingly clear that this underlying assumption is fallacious.

When did it become "reasonable," for instance, to argue that the barbaric practice of partial birth abortion--in which the skull of an almost born child is crushed and its brains sucked out--ought to be an acceptable, legal medical procedure? Well, the slippery slope to that kind of logic began when abortion itself was domesticated, using the "reasonable" language of "freedom of choice" to mask the ugly fact that an abortion always involved the taking of a human life. A civil society which values the dignity and sanctity of human life should never have allowed the terms of the debate to be defined by persons making an utterly unreasonable argument. Yet, that is precisely what American society has allowed to happen.

Those who hold the most unreasonable position are being permitted to define what is "reasonable." This has forced the most reasonable among us to conform to rules of engagement in which we must accept the reasonableness of an argument that, from our perspective, is not only unreasonable but utterly contrary to the very foundation of civil society. In other words, to engage their unreasonable opponent, reasonable people must themselves become unreasonable in order to appear reasonable within the context of the ongoing debate.

If this sounds confusing, that is the whole point. Whether the issue is abortion or any number of other moral and cultural issues, the debate itself has become unreasonable and counter-productive. The fringe has become the mainstream and the mainstream has become the fringe, yet the "debate" continues as though it were a simple disagreement between "reasonable people."

If the present war against radical Islamic terrorism requires razor sharp moral clarity to draw the distinctions between right and wrong, truth and falsehood, good and evil, the same should be no less appropriate for the Culture War for the heart and soul of American society. Niceties aside, we can no longer pretend that there is anything "reasonable" in the arguments for moral relativism, especially on issues as essential as the sanctity of human life, sexuality, and marriage. As revisionists and secularists continue to try to chip away at the moral fabric of our society, it is only reasonable to call their arguments what they really are: wrong, false, and, at their root, a most nefarious form of evil.