It will serve no purpose to aggressively counter those on the left with my conservative viewpoint so, I'll try the Socratic approach. Why is it that many on the left always seem to fall back to a position of moral relativism? Is there really any equivalence between a lone disturbed gunman with personal issues and a terrorist enthralled with a specific socio-political agenda? What purpose does it serve our Secretary of State to tell parties in the Middle East that we have terrorist violence in our country too? Why is it that those on the left choose to view terrorists and criminals in the same light? If liberals are open minded, why do they assume that those on the right are close minded? Is there no difference between the close minded positions of both far left and far right viewpoints?
Naturally, as with almost every issue in life, there are no easy answers however; assuming that there are no answers amounts to a philosophical cop out. All of us take positions on issues every day. That said, it is important that our stances are based on principles, values, and norms. We must also remain cognizant of the fact that our views are not necessarily held by others. All of us in the United States are lucky enough to live in a representative republic where non violent debate is the rule of the land. With the exception of the Civil War, national debates have always remained non violent but, they have been incendiary since the days of our founding fathers. Somehow, we've always been able to correct one another when either side crosses a line of social responsibility. In this particular situation, some on the left have crossed a line of philosophical propriety and I ask that they reconsider their venomous vicissitude.
De Oppresso Liber
