In case you have been living under a rock for the past week, the Don Imus story has reached the tipping point and beyond. The Cliff Notes version of the story is that shock jock made a sorry attempt at humor by denigrating the Rutgers women's basketball team with a racial slur. It wasn't funny. The moral outrage was immediate and justified.
Is there a silver lining?
I think so.
Just like with the recent Mel Gibson story and the Michael (Seinfield's Kramer) Richards story, we find that America still believes in objective moral truth.
What objective moral truth?
That racism is wrong.
To borrow from Mark Twain, the news of the death of objective moral truth in America has been greatly exaggerated. Moral relativism has not won. If it had, then you would see someone making a moral argument that racist jokes (e.g. Imus) or racist tirades (e.g. Richards and Gibson) are morally neutral or morally acceptable. But no one besides racists make those arguments, and racists are not taken seriously. Racists are not given moral credibility. Nor should they. They ought to be marginalized and indeed they are.
Don't get me wrong, however. Moral relativism is still a huge problem. But the Imus story renews my conviction that deep, deep down in the American psyche, people still get it. The job of the Christian apologist is not so much teaching moral truth, or teaching that moral truth is objective after all. The job of the Christian apologist is to remind people of the objective moral truth that they already know because it is already written on their heart.
I'm not sure your reasoning is entirely sound on this. If someone did offer a defense of these comments because of moral relativism, they would be labeled a racist, even if they were perfectly non-racist, but deeply morally relative (not sure those are the exact words, but I trust you understand). So saying that only racists offer such a defense immediately negates the ability of such a defense to be made.
In other words - nobody eats oranges, and anyone who says so is by definition a liar, hence we know that nobody eats oranges.
Posted by: Paul | April 11, 2007 at 13:36
This is not about Don Imus but about an entire culture of miscreants (as Chuck Colson put it on today's Breakpoint) and the big corporations behind them. I say fire Don Imus but if a whole lot of other heads don't roll in quick succession (at CBS/Viacom, BET, Time-Warner, and the list goes on and on) then give the man his job back. He did apologize, after all, and if you know anything about him you know he's not a racist. I suggest we take the lead for once in praying "forgive us our sins as we also forgive others." As I see it, the extreme hypocrisy in all this is WAY over the top!
Maurice Hagar
Posted by: Maurice Hagar | April 12, 2007 at 13:09
Paul, a common definition of racism is discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race.
Going by this common definition, would you argue that racism is okay? Or, would you argue that racism is wrong. Please expain.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | April 12, 2007 at 14:10
Maurice,
Perhaps a second silver lining would be if a lot of heads rolled ... including music executives at CBS/Viacom, BET, Time-Warner yadi yadi.
I don't know Don Imus or what he stands for. I am not so much interested if he is fired or not. I am more interested in what this incident reveals about the ethos of our culture.
I find it encouraging to see that belief in objective moral truth is still strong. I find it * discouraging * that we seem to see a double standard and moral equivocatoin on what constitutes a wrong based on who said it. I think that is part of what you are getting at.
As far as forgiveness goes ... true forgiveness ... this culture is about as far away from being a culture of forgiveness as you can get.
Mrs. Dawntreader once asked me, "do you think those who are living outside of Christ can truly forgive?"
Not just say, "I forgive you" ... but truly forgive in the deepest part of their heart.
That question has intrigued me to this day.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | April 12, 2007 at 14:17
Jeff,
How is this not moral relativism? If a Black man had hurled this comment at a white man the situation would be totally and completely different.
If you are wearing one shoe one day, and then the other shoe another and can look at the situation the same, then maybe you are not relativistic in your thinking. Our culture just is not thinking that way.
Posted by: Carl Holmes | April 12, 2007 at 22:01
I agree with that definition, and oppose discriminatory (with certain provisos) and abusive behaviour against a whole range of groups, not just based on race.
Why do I have these beliefs? Partly because of the people who raised me, partly because of the society I was raised in, and partly because of the thinking I've done since then.
That does not, of course, mean I have the right to impose that view on anyone else. I do, however, take to myself the right to press for these views at any opportunity, and to consider those who hold opposing views to be wrong.
As to Mr Imus in particular - if he was on Sirius or cable I would say that he should be retained, though I would neither listen to him nor associate with any one or thing that supported him. He has the right to think and say these things, and people have the right to pay to listen to him saying them. As a broadcaster, however, he is using the public common that is the airwaves, and so should be held to a higher standard (which he has now been).
Actually scratch the cable bit from that - the vast public subsidies that cable companies have received mean that they should be held to that same standard.
Posted by: Paul | April 13, 2007 at 04:21
re: "How is this not moral relativism? If a Black man had hurled this comment at a white man the situation would be totally and completely different."
The reason is because racism is wrong. Black people know racism is wrong. White people know racism is wrong. Relativists like Paul know racism is wrong. Absolutists like yourself and myself know it is wrong.
Racism is wrong. That is objectively true. Everyone knows it. Those who argue that racism is right usually resort to pragmatic reasons to justify why it is right. In other words, even they know it is wrong and must resort to defending why racism is warranted in whatever case they think it is warranted. See the point? It is written on the conscience of human beings.
What your question delves into is what constitutes racism. You and Maurice have hinted that there is a double standard in our culture. You both make good points. That doesn't change the fact of this objective moral truth : "racism is wrong".
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | April 13, 2007 at 09:00
Jeff,
What I find discouraging is that the Church, once again, finds itself bringing up the tail rather than providing leadership. Mainstream entertainment is full of Imus-types and we never said a word until the world (vs. the Church) threw a pile-on-Imus party. And why Imus? Because he's an easy target.
Mr. Colson called for a boycott of companies supporting Imus if he stayed on the air. With all due respect, Imus is the tip of the iceberg. I hear nobody calling for boycotts of the big money behind BET, HBO, hip-hop labels, etc.
I think Mrs. Dawntreader has a good point about forgiveness. And the same applies to racism and sexism--Gal. 3. I once heard Charlie Rose interview an elderly black man who devoted his entire life to the civil rights movement. I'll never forget what he said (and I'm so sorry I've forgotten his name!): He said I wish I knew as a younger man what I know now. And that is that racism is not a civil right issue. Racism is a sin issue. Every one of is a racist because every one of us is a sinner. And the only solution is Christ.
Which reminds me of an interview with a church leader in India I read years ago in Leadership magazine. He said that in India the cults and false religions can reproduce everything Christians can do, including any miracle you might name, except for one thing. Only Christianity can eradicate racism. And that kind of radical love for our neighbor is the surest sign of the spread of Christianity in India.
Can we say the same? Someone has correctly observed that Sunday morning is the most segregated two hours in America. We have a token black or two in our church--because they've adopted white church culture. And I know a token white or two that attend black churches--because they've adopted black church culture. But I'm not sure the Apostles would approve.
Posted by: Maurice Hagar | April 20, 2007 at 12:46