Here’s a headline from concerning what Sharpton has apparently said about Imus’ racist comments : “SHARPTON VOWS MORE: ‘It is our feeling that this is only the beginning. We must have a broad discussion on what is permitted and not permitted in terms of the airwaves’… Developing…”

The same people who pound into everyone else freedom of speech when their view is at stake and who vow legal action when they feel they are being silenced, are the same people who seek to silence those who differ with their opinions. This no exception. One minute, Sharpton speaks about his and everyone else’s right to say whatever they want, no matter what, and then in the next says we need to have a “discussion on what is permitted and not permitted in terms of the airwaves”. This is the philosophical dilemma of the moral relativist. Relativism does not work, it cannot logically be sustained, it must contradict itself. And so it does as in this example. As long as you agree with his relativism, he has no problem with you; but as soon as you turn on him and state otherwise in any manner, you must be silenced. And he enforces this with a political vengeance.

For the relativist viewpoint to truthfully stand on this issue of freedom of speech, then Imus must be allowed to say whatever he wants on his own show without fear of being silenced. That does not make it morally right, but he has an opinion, he expressed it, and now he is being silenced by those offended parties involved. Sharpton and his whole entourage are bursting forth with philosophical worldview contradictions. What will happen in our society if the majority agrees that Christians should never witness or “impose” their worldview on others, excluding those they disagree with, and it becomes law? Where does it stop? It doesn’t.

Every viewpoint logically excludes its opposing view. Everyone has a viewpoint whether they admit it or not. Everyone believes in something and believes it is absolute, even the secularist who claims a belief in nothing: that is a belief. If you exist you have some form of a belief about morality. It is inevitable. The moral relativist states that it is morally wrong to say another viewpoint is wrong. So what is this worldviews’ opposing view? Those who state absolute moral truths exist and that other viewpoints are wrong. So in their worldview, anyone who says another viewpoint is wrong is excluded from any conversation with them. They are doing the very thing they believe is morally wrong! Those they disagree with are silenced. What’s an example? Well, the Today Show. This past week, during the whole Imus debacle, they only had far-left liberal democrats appear as guests who adhere to this relativism wholeheartedly. And as a result, every question asked of the guests by the hosts were designed to intensify and solidify the relativist viewpoint on this issue. They excluded those they disagree with by not inviting them on, thus contradicting their own worldview. This is a form of passive exclusion to make it appear as if they are morally neutral when they are just as militant about their worldview as the most far-right fanatic. They just use the means of political power and control over the media to silence individuals instead of weapons and violence.

The only moral relativist that has a made a comment consistent with her own worldview in place during this whole thing was Rosie O’Donnell. … node/11950 She basically is defending Imus’ right to say whatever he wants on his show under the article of freedom of speech. She even says freedom of speech “is not a freedom if you outlaw certain words or thoughts, because then the thought police come and then before you know it, everyone’s in Guantanamo Bay without representation.” Now while she’s taking a jab at conservatives on the war, she has a point that is consistent with her worldview. Does she not?

Relativists position themselves as morally neutral, yet they are anything but that. They believe things are absolutely right and wrong like those who believe certain “truths” are totally wrong. When are people in our society going to see that relativism is a dead-end worldview? It cannot be successfully sustained as truthful, namely because it is absolutely wrong. I guess I’ll be silenced next for saying anything about it now.