I'm Right and You're Wrong

Shocking title, isn't it? To hear some people tell it, everybody is right all the time. No one is ever wrong. It's considered the height of arrogance, or even cruelty, to tell someone he is wrong. Asserting that one who disagrees with you is wrong is unseemly; it's insensitive; it's...er...wrong.

In the new millennium, the socially acceptable, "right" way to express one's belief is as follows:

I personally believe that X is true and Y is false. But of course that is merely my own point of view, and in the spirit of pluralism I acknowledge that you are also correct in believing that X is false and Y is true.

I personally believe that America needs to sit down with Strunk and White and learn how to construct a simple declarative sentence. If you really believe that X is true and Y is false, you should not be afraid to say so, simply and directly, without resorting to what Strunk and White referred to in The Elements of Style as "twenty-dollar words."

X is true. Y is false.

Ah, the refreshing ring of honesty! Please, people, either believe a thing, or don't. Pick one. Go with it. If two statements are mutually exclusive, they cannot both be true. You can hem and haw all you want about different points of view, and pluralism, and multiculturalism, but the fact remains, you either believe a thing or you don't. If you don't really believe it, then don't pretend you do. And if you really do believe it, don't be afraid to say so.

That's right, afraid. All our dithering about sensitivity and everything being relative is merely an excuse for abject cowardice. If the time and place are inappropriate for discussing a particular religious or political issue, then simply refrain from discussing it. If you are at a cocktail party thrown by your employer, for example, that's probably not the proper venue for a debate on capital punishment. So keep quiet about it. But if you choose to engage in such a debate, then for God's sake, show a little integrity. If you're so desperate for acceptance, and so terrified of disagreement, that you must equivocate and conciliate in such a transparently craven fashion, then please, remove yourself from the debating floor. You are not contributing anything of value.

Where would this country be today if the abolitionists had adopted such exaggerated concern for their opponents' feelings? Just imagine:

I personally believe slavery is wrong, but I don't feel it's my place to impose my moral standards on other people. I think it should be the plantation owner's choice. Slavery is an intensely personal decision, between the plantation owner and his or her slave provider.

In the olden days, thank goodness, Americans had quite a bit more stuffing in them than we do today. The abolitionists had absolutely no problem coming right out and saying what they really thought:

Slavery is morally wrong. It is a violation of human rights and an offense against God. It must end now.

I remember having a conversation years ago with a Korean-American co-worker whose husband was black. The two of us were hardcore feminists who enjoyed moaning about our patriarchal society. This co-worker told me about an article she had read about female castration in Africa. In some cultures, women's genitals are mutilated, preventing them from ever enjoying sex. My co-worker unabashedly expressed her horror at this practice. I, on the other hand, felt vaguely uncomfortable with the idea of disapproving of an African custom. Who was I, a middle-class white woman, to pass judgment on someone else's culture? My co-worker, however, felt no such compunction. It would never have occurred to her to subordinate her own heartfelt beliefs in deference to the gods of multiculturalism. Why didn't I feel equally entitled to my own point of view?

The tradition of female castration which persists today in some African cultures is wrong. It should be banned. If it is an inherent part of your culture, then your culture has something wrong with it. Fix it.

Faithful Muslims don't believe in eating pork, nor are they afraid to say so, privately or publicly. As long as the pork-eaters of this world are permitted to go on eating pork, they do not care what the Muslims think. They do not demand that the Muslims applaud their pork-eating. They do not organize massive Pork Pride parades through Mecca making obscene gestures and screaming about the injustice and backwardness of Muslim beliefs. They simply continue to eat pork, as is their legal right.

Imagine a bacon enthusiast who reacted thusly:

So you're a Muslim, eh? One of those arrogant moralists whose religion forbids the eating of pork? How dare you espouse such a notion, stigmatizing me and my pork-eating friends with your unkind disapproval? Eating pork is all about who I am as a person. Your intolerant hate speech should be banned. Your Scriptures are nothing but anti-pork hate literature. No one must ever be allowed to say anything bad about eating pork. In the name of religious freedom, public schools must lecture children on the goodness of pork, and distribute free pork chops in every classroom. In the name of diversity, anti-pork hatemongers must be excoriated in public service announcements on every television channel during prime time. Intolerant religious fanatics who say that pork is unhealthy must not be tolerated!

No, those whose religion proscribes the eating of pork are not subjected to such silly excesses. They are free to flaunt publicly their views on this matter, and not even the most enthusiastic lobbyist for the pork industry is offended. On the contrary, such differences are lauded as evidence that modern society can handle cultural and religious diversity. So if we're such a wonderfully diverse and tolerant society, what are we so afraid of?

I personally believe that a juicy pork tenderloin makes for a delicious dinner. If you disagree, that is your prerogative, just as it is my prerogative to think you are wrong, and to stolidly ignore your irrational anti-pork prejudice. It is not the end of the world if you withhold your blessing as I dig in. Vegetarians are not carnivorophobes. I do not accuse vegetarians of hating me simply because they disapprove of something I do. I do not come parading down your street waving a flag made of ham and insist that you salute it.

Our society is either capable of tolerating differences of opinion, or it's not. If it is, then let's stop waffling and say what we really think. If it's not, then we have become a fascist society and the self-censors are right to be afraid.

Abortion is wrong.

Capital punishment is wrong.

Homosexual conduct is wrong.

Bacon is yummy.

I particularly want to edit out that third statement, because it's so unpopular, and when people read it they will say, "Ugh! What an intolerant person!" Actually, I'm only intolerant of killing, i.e. I think it should be illegal. I do not believe in legislating sexual morality. But why must I explain that? What am I so afraid of, that I am so anxious to qualify my statement?

I am a coward. I really want to be a moral chameleon. It must be so pleasant to be able to adjust one's beliefs so as to be in constant alignment with popular opinion. Never to feel different. Never to be afraid that when people find out what you are really like, they will hate you. Never to feel compelled to hide one's natural inclinations in a closet. If only society were more tolerant and accepting of diversity, then I would feel free to be me.