Theories of relativity.

One of the theocratic right's most frequent accusations is that liberals and secular humanists (in one zealot's words, "two battalions of the devil's army") have caused most of the world's problems by perpetuating the concept of moral relativism. Right-wing Christians like Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition define relativists as people who don't believe in truth or even in the concepts of right and wrong.

In reality, of course, the left is not populated with moral anarchists. We do believe in right and wrong. Countless numbers of us dedicate our lives to fighting injustice and trying to shed light on life's fundamental truths. We simply believe that some questions have more than one correct answer.

Reed and his flock claim to exist in a world of moral absolutes. They are, however, as relativistically inclined as the rest of us. Their assumption is that, without divine intervention, humans cannot rationally assess ethical dilemmas and ultimately do what is good, fair, and just. Christian fundamentalists claim to look to "God's revealed and unchanging law" for answers to life's complex ethical questions. They believe that the Bible not only holds all the answers but also is to be interpreted literally. It is, after all, "the word of God."

The most common non-Christian response to this idea is that imaginative interpretations allow the Bible to contain the appropriate passage to prove or rationalize just about anything. A bewildering maze of seemingly contradictory passages provides a theological minefield through which apologists must carefully tread; and it is in their attempts to rationalize these contradictions that the relativity of fundamentalism emerges.

For example, how does the loving and forgiving God of the radical Christians view some common human behaviors? If you work on Sunday, Exodus 35:2 says that you shall be "put to death." Cursing your mother or father is also punishable by death, according to Matthew 15:4. My guess is that you'll find few Christians who would agree today with the morality of those punishments. Why? Because relativism must play a role in our analysis of moral and ethical issues. We don't live in a static world of absolutes.

In the moral universe, there is a big difference between general rules and rigid laws. Immanuel Kant's The Critique of Practical Reason illustrates this point quite well. Kant used logic and reason to propose the existence of the categorical imperative, which impels us to "act as if the maxim of our action were to become . . . a universal law of nature." Without going into all the details, Kant concluded that, in light of the categorical imperative, it was always wrong to tell a lie--even to a murderer stalking your friend.

How many people, Christian or otherwise, would not lie in that situation? Is lying therefore an absolute moral wrong? No, because ethics are inescapably situational. Although there is general agreement across the ideological spectrum that lying is wrong, there are still situations in which it is the morally correct thing to do.

At this point it is probably important to point out that, just as no humanist would claim to speak for all humanists, the Christian Coalition does not speak for all Christians. If the coalition were a denomination all by itself, it wouldn't even come close to being one of the largest Christian denominations. Not only does the Christian Coalition not represent the views of most Christians, but some of the finest watchdog activity on the so-called religious right is done by religious groups like the Interfaith Alliance. Everything is not absolute in the Christian world. Not all Christians are striving for an ultraconservative, authoritarian, theocratic society.

Then, too, it seems ironic that these right-wing culture warriors would condemn relativism, since Christianity is a model of relativism. Note the hundreds of Christian denominations; there are at least 19 kinds of Baptists alone. Even the "religious right" is made up of evangelicals, fundamentalists, charismatics, Pentecostals, and various other orthodox believers. It is precisely because of relativism that these religious institutions even came into existence. There is no absolute agreement on dogma or even on Bible translations among the believers.

Similar denominations are often split by their stands on secular as well as theological issues. Prophetlike pronouncements based on scripture provide pious validation for the secular views of religious leaders. Take Pat Robertson, for example. His standing as the spiritual leader of a right-wing political movement depends on his being able to decide what the Bible has to say about the Federal Reserve Board or which provisions of the Communications Act of 1996 God favors. It seems like quite a task, but he seems to be able to do it with relative ease.

Finally, I mentioned that we liberal secular humanists believe that questions can have more than one correct answer. So in the interest of looking at as many sides of the issue as possible, perhaps we should look to the Bible for social and economic policy positions. Let's start by making Isaiah 10 the passage of choice for welfare policy: "Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless."

I wonder if Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson have their bookmarks on that one?