Of course, some of the anti-human sacrifice absolutists out there will complain of her eagerness to condemn Gibson and her peculiar quietude about ritually slaughtering human beings. Some of the most arrogant of these Human Sacrifice Pharisees will even charge that she is a "Human Sacrifice Apologist." In fact, however, she is simply "anti-anti-human sacrifice." All she really wants is for us to be open to the rich diversity of religious options in life's colorful pageant. Can anyone fault her for that?Does one laugh or cry? And thanks for defending me, Mark, and providing more proof of what a twit Shea is; you know the guy has brought tweezers to a gunfight when he's reduced to "all my libel-suit-threatening flake-pal Comerford (or I myself) are doing is saying 'torture bad'."
But ... I digress ... to The Professionally-Aggrieved Lady. She was arguing from cultural relativism.
If you are reading this, Shea, (and I know you do) ... please cite where Torq or I have ever argued from cultural relativism. With a link or a precise citation. Not your telepathic powers about "what I really mean." But a cite.
I speak only for myself (though I'm 99.99% sure that Torq agrees) ... but I don't believe "autre temps, autre moeurs" is much of an argument.¹ Whatever else might be said about what I have argued on torture or other matters, I am very far from a cultural relativist on moral matters and it is simply false for you to imply otherwise (even by sarcastic indirection). I have sometimes argued things about Church teaching from certain historical facts that some dumb sophomores use to argue for cultural relativism ... but I'm certain you understand the difference.
¹ Actually, that requires a bit of unpacking. Like all sane persons, I of course know that societies differ across space and time on many fronts, mores and morals being one. And there are many matters about which we should be indifferent and nothing more need be said than "autre temps, autre moeurs" (to pick an easy one: eating horses or cows or pigs or dogs). What I'm saying is that "autre temps, autre moeurs" is not a principled, foundational argument -- i.e., you see a different more or act, so it must be a matter of indifference. Rather, I think that some things are a matter of indifference, but some are not. "Autre temps, autre moeurs" is meaningless in determining what act or more is in which category.