Is there any other perspective than Relativism?
Yes. All others. Relativism says that a rapist is a good person relative to a mass murderer. Do you think that's wise?
Relativism also denies objective reality, yet several millennia of historical documents have undeniably demonstrated a clear locus (term from chaos theory) of operation when it comes to human interaction, regardless of race, belief, geographic location, or environmental conditions. Historical fact itself reveals that mankind has always operated from an objective reality, and that any significant departure from the norm (statistically speaking) results in greater instability and likelihood of decay. The same historical facts hammer home the concept that relativism without an objective anchor point is as prone to decay as no system at all (chaos).
Critics of relativism abound, from Plato to modern professors of philosophy, including Larry Laudan, who, in "In Science and Relativism," writes "The displacement of the idea that facts and evidence matter by the idea that everything boils down to subjective interest and perspectives, is—second only to American political campaigns—the most prominent and pernicious manifestation of relativism of our time."
The perniciousness of an idea or concept is no evidence or support of it's worth. Countless "old wives tales" persist to this day, despite having been thoroughly debunked via countless more means. They persist, and their proponents will swear up and down on a stack of Bibles the tales are the truth.
Yet they, like relativism, remain pure bunk, no matter how many people ignorantly throw their faith behind them.
When it comes to stare decisis, "to stand by judged matters," it's "a doctrine or policy of following rules or principles laid down in previous judicial decisions unless they contravene the ordinary principles of justice."
The problem is:
What if what's already been decided was wrong?
A lot of Supreme Court decision is based on the concept that our Constitution is a "living document." By that, I'm not referring to the fact that it contains within itself the means outlying necessary modifications (amendments). I'm referring to the slippery slope of attitude espoused by several sitting Supreme Court Justices where they believe those who framed our Constitution knew much about what they were doing, but not everything, and therefore it's ok to "tweak the interpretation" in a court of law if necessary to make it more relevant (there's that word again) to modern society.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it originates in ignorance, and the false idea that relativism is a sound doctrine when it's not, particularly when it comes to the law. The ignorant part usually involves a lack of understanding of the historical and contemporary concept in which an idea was formed.
Take our Second Amendment, for example. Most relativists on the Supreme Court, like Kagen, believe it's no longer relevant today, or at least largely irrelevant, as we do not have a routine need to hunt and we're not actively engaged in a Revolution, therefore we don't need those nasty little firearms which cause so much damage in our society!
She, like Clinton and the UN gun-banners, are ignorant of the multipurpose nature of a firearm. They are ignorant that the clause "necessary to the security of a free state" refers to a state citizen's ability and responsibility to throw off an oppressive federal government.
Those who penned the Second Amendment knew exactly what it meant -
that's why the Second Amendment was included in our Bill of Rights! They discussed it amongst themselves, mainly via letters, but also in speeches given both in public as well as a matter of federal record. They knew full well they were arming the general population, and they did so in the hopes that it would keep the federal government honest.
Of course that's long before we violated the provision not to keep standing armies in times of peace. That is one matter which, because of the long ramp-up involving both training and technology, we need to keep a core cadre of military specifically focused on protecting our Country, and focused on their Constitutional Oath of Office, so that no one may ever allow civil authority to ever turn them against The People of this country.
This is why the recent legislation authorizing widespread military intervention into civilian affairs is such an utterly contemptable violation of that Oath of Office - it violates our Constitution. Those who passed it need to be booted for violating their oaths! They're not trustworthy to be in Congress. Their integrity stands in question due to the violations of their oaths.
It's why relativism is so dangerous to a free people. It's why when you let that bit of yeast into the batch of dough, it winds up working it's way through the entire batch of dough, souring the entire thing.
It's why we absolutely must have an absolute standard, a foundation for our Country, and why that foundation must begin with the one upon it was established: The Constitution of the United States of America.
When our Pledge of Allegiance was first established, I think they got it wrong. We shouldn't have been pledging allegiance to a colorful, but flimsy piece of cloth blown about by the wind. We should have been pledging allegiance to our "Constitution, and to the Republic, which rests firm on it."
Ok, so I'm not a poet... I am, however, a realist, and any shred of relativism in our country, if it's allowed to continue, will slowly erode our nation just as assuredly as ocean waves will erode a sand castle. We cannot allow the waves of relativism to wash away the foundation upon which our Republic stands.
