NB: AN UNCLE WALLY DISCLAIMER: Your Uncle Wally does not endorse the
contents or viewpoints expressed in the following article......HOOROO
!!!!

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/evans/060920

Why shouldn't Iran have nukes?


Peter & Helen Evans Peter & Helen Evans

September 20, 2006


A few nights ago at a panel discussion (on the theme "Is It World War
III?" inaugurating the David Horowitz Center for Freedom) a woman asked
the panelists a very important question. "What can I say to my neighbor
when she says 'If it's OK for us to have nukes, why isn't it OK for
other nations have nukes?'" Perhaps it was because they had already
addressed the absurdity of moral equivalency so many times that, by way
of response, they chose to chuckle about the example of a sign seen at
a recent demonstration saying, "Queers for Palestine!!" Apparently the
people proudly upholding that sign didn't realize that, if they lived
in Palestine, the people they were supporting would kill them. Open
homosexuality is a crime punishable by death under Muslim law. One
member of the panel mentioned that in the whole Middle East the sole
"gay pride" parade took place in the streets of Tel Aviv, Israel. While
it was an amusing example of the ignorance of equivalency, it wasn't
really a direct answer to the woman's sincere question. Here are some
tips for her and for those of you who would like to be able to confront
the moral equivalency argument.

Step one. You have to get back into the habit of acknowledging that
some things are right and some things are wrong. This might be the
hardest thing you have to do, especially if you've internalized the
idea that "what's right for you may not be right for me." Of course,
there are a myriad of things that are morally irrelevant, like the
'right' way to make a cup of coffee, or the 'wrong' way to dress for a
cocktail party. Those things are not right or wrong; they are fashions
or opinions. That's why opinions can be argued forever. When we're
talking about moral right and wrong, we're not talking about opinions,
but rather truths. It's wrong to murder and steal. It's wrong to betray
a promise. It's right to help the needy and protect the innocent. It's
right to try to prevent dangerous people from obtaining weapons with
which they are likely to harm others. These are truths in every culture
and will always remain true.

Step two. You have to decide who is right and who is wrong. Yes, this
means using that neglected faculty called "moral judgment." Remember
when President Reagan called the USSR the "Evil Empire?" Most liberals
didn't really care what names he called them. What really upset them
was that he was saying that "we are right and they are wrong." Consider
what this implies to moral relativists who could rationalize their
irresponsible behavior by saying that what they did was 'right' for
them 'at the moment.' It certainly would turn their
"if-it-feels-good-do-it" lives upside down. They don't want to make any
hard choices so they distract from their own weakness by complaining
that we're insulting someone else. They didn't care about President
Reagan insulting the Soviets any more than they cared about President
Bush insulting the Axis of Evil. They just didn't want their immoral,
irresponsible groove disturbed. And a lot of them were actually
uncomfortable with the idea that America was "better" than some other
nations.

If you still find yourself saying, "as long as they are happy, it's OK
with me" then go back to step one. Get used to thinking that "right"
and "wrong" really only apply to moral questions. Remember, we're not
talking about fashions or opinions; we're talking about truth.

After you've completed this exercise in moral inquiry, you will know
the answer to "why shouldn't Iran have nukes?" You will recognize that
Iran is now controlled by a dangerous regime. This regime has publicly
announced that they want to kill the millions who live in Israel.
That's why this regime is not right. They are wrong. Letting dangerous
people acquire weapons of mass destruction would be totally
irresponsible for those who try to do right. It is right to protect the
innocent from wrong-doers; we do it with our police force, with the
virus-blockers on our computers and with our military. It is the right
thing to do.

If you're still not convinced, consider this example. Two small
children of your acquaintance are playing with scissors. One of the
children doesn't seem to know how to handle the scissors safely or else
its mean streak is emerging, in either case, endangering the other
child and itself. You know it's right to prevent them from coming to
harm so you take the scissors away from the mean kid. It's pretty
simple. We are watching that same logic being played out on a much
larger and more complex scale in international politics. One thing that
doesn't change is that right is right and wrong is wrong.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------=

Peter and Helen Evans, http://www.peterandhelenevans.com. This husband
and wife team - freelance writers and speakers - teach a
philosophical approach to conservatism, and are scheduled speakers at
Blogging Man. They are also real estate agents in the Washington, D.C.,
area.

NB: AN UNCLE WALLY DISCLAIMER: Your Uncle Wally does not endorse the
contents or viewpoints expressed in the following article......HOOROO
!!!!

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/evans/060920

Why shouldn't Iran have nukes?


Peter & Helen Evans Peter & Helen Evans

September 20, 2006


A few nights ago at a panel discussion (on the theme "Is It World War
III?" inaugurating the David Horowitz Center for Freedom) a woman asked
the panelists a very important question. "What can I say to my neighbor
when she says 'If it's OK for us to have nukes, why isn't it OK for
other nations have nukes?'" Perhaps it was because they had already
addressed the absurdity of moral equivalency so many times that, by way
of response, they chose to chuckle about the example of a sign seen at
a recent demonstration saying, "Queers for Palestine!!" Apparently the
people proudly upholding that sign didn't realize that, if they lived
in Palestine, the people they were supporting would kill them. Open
homosexuality is a crime punishable by death under Muslim law. One
member of the panel mentioned that in the whole Middle East the sole
"gay pride" parade took place in the streets of Tel Aviv, Israel. While
it was an amusing example of the ignorance of equivalency, it wasn't
really a direct answer to the woman's sincere question. Here are some
tips for her and for those of you who would like to be able to confront
the moral equivalency argument.

Step one. You have to get back into the habit of acknowledging that
some things are right and some things are wrong. This might be the
hardest thing you have to do, especially if you've internalized the
idea that "what's right for you may not be right for me." Of course,
there are a myriad of things that are morally irrelevant, like the
'right' way to make a cup of coffee, or the 'wrong' way to dress for a
cocktail party. Those things are not right or wrong; they are fashions
or opinions. That's why opinions can be argued forever. When we're
talking about moral right and wrong, we're not talking about opinions,
but rather truths. It's wrong to murder and steal. It's wrong to betray
a promise. It's right to help the needy and protect the innocent. It's
right to try to prevent dangerous people from obtaining weapons with
which they are likely to harm others. These are truths in every culture
and will always remain true.

Step two. You have to decide who is right and who is wrong. Yes, this
means using that neglected faculty called "moral judgment." Remember
when President Reagan called the USSR the "Evil Empire?" Most liberals
didn't really care what names he called them. What really upset them
was that he was saying that "we are right and they are wrong." Consider
what this implies to moral relativists who could rationalize their
irresponsible behavior by saying that what they did was 'right' for
them 'at the moment.' It certainly would turn their
"if-it-feels-good-do-it" lives upside down. They don't want to make any
hard choices so they distract from their own weakness by complaining
that we're insulting someone else. They didn't care about President
Reagan insulting the Soviets any more than they cared about President
Bush insulting the Axis of Evil. They just didn't want their immoral,
irresponsible groove disturbed. And a lot of them were actually
uncomfortable with the idea that America was "better" than some other
nations.

If you still find yourself saying, "as long as they are happy, it's OK
with me" then go back to step one. Get used to thinking that "right"
and "wrong" really only apply to moral questions. Remember, we're not
talking about fashions or opinions; we're talking about truth.

After you've completed this exercise in moral inquiry, you will know
the answer to "why shouldn't Iran have nukes?" You will recognize that
Iran is now controlled by a dangerous regime. This regime has publicly
announced that they want to kill the millions who live in Israel.
That's why this regime is not right. They are wrong. Letting dangerous
people acquire weapons of mass destruction would be totally
irresponsible for those who try to do right. It is right to protect the
innocent from wrong-doers; we do it with our police force, with the
virus-blockers on our computers and with our military. It is the right
thing to do.

If you're still not convinced, consider this example. Two small
children of your acquaintance are playing with scissors. One of the
children doesn't seem to know how to handle the scissors safely or else
its mean streak is emerging, in either case, endangering the other
child and itself. You know it's right to prevent them from coming to
harm so you take the scissors away from the mean kid. It's pretty
simple. We are watching that same logic being played out on a much
larger and more complex scale in international politics. One thing that
doesn't change is that right is right and wrong is wrong.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------=

Peter and Helen Evans, http://www.peterandhelenevans.com. This husband
and wife team - freelance writers and speakers - teach a
philosophical approach to conservatism, and are scheduled speakers at
Blogging Man. They are also real estate agents in the Washington, D.C.,
area.

NB: AN UNCLE WALLY DISCLAIMER: Your Uncle Wally does not endorse the
contents or viewpoints expressed in the following article......HOOROO
!!!!

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/evans/060920

Why shouldn't Iran have nukes?


Peter & Helen Evans Peter & Helen Evans

September 20, 2006


A few nights ago at a panel discussion (on the theme "Is It World War
III?" inaugurating the David Horowitz Center for Freedom) a woman asked
the panelists a very important question. "What can I say to my neighbor
when she says 'If it's OK for us to have nukes, why isn't it OK for
other nations have nukes?'" Perhaps it was because they had already
addressed the absurdity of moral equivalency so many times that, by way
of response, they chose to chuckle about the example of a sign seen at
a recent demonstration saying, "Queers for Palestine!!" Apparently the
people proudly upholding that sign didn't realize that, if they lived
in Palestine, the people they were supporting would kill them. Open
homosexuality is a crime punishable by death under Muslim law. One
member of the panel mentioned that in the whole Middle East the sole
"gay pride" parade took place in the streets of Tel Aviv, Israel. While
it was an amusing example of the ignorance of equivalency, it wasn't
really a direct answer to the woman's sincere question. Here are some
tips for her and for those of you who would like to be able to confront
the moral equivalency argument.

Step one. You have to get back into the habit of acknowledging that
some things are right and some things are wrong. This might be the
hardest thing you have to do, especially if you've internalized the
idea that "what's right for you may not be right for me." Of course,
there are a myriad of things that are morally irrelevant, like the
'right' way to make a cup of coffee, or the 'wrong' way to dress for a
cocktail party. Those things are not right or wrong; they are fashions
or opinions. That's why opinions can be argued forever. When we're
talking about moral right and wrong, we're not talking about opinions,
but rather truths. It's wrong to murder and steal. It's wrong to betray
a promise. It's right to help the needy and protect the innocent. It's
right to try to prevent dangerous people from obtaining weapons with
which they are likely to harm others. These are truths in every culture
and will always remain true.

Step two. You have to decide who is right and who is wrong. Yes, this
means using that neglected faculty called "moral judgment." Remember
when President Reagan called the USSR the "Evil Empire?" Most liberals
didn't really care what names he called them. What really upset them
was that he was saying that "we are right and they are wrong." Consider
what this implies to moral relativists who could rationalize their
irresponsible behavior by saying that what they did was 'right' for
them 'at the moment.' It certainly would turn their
"if-it-feels-good-do-it" lives upside down. They don't want to make any
hard choices so they distract from their own weakness by complaining
that we're insulting someone else. They didn't care about President
Reagan insulting the Soviets any more than they cared about President
Bush insulting the Axis of Evil. They just didn't want their immoral,
irresponsible groove disturbed. And a lot of them were actually
uncomfortable with the idea that America was "better" than some other
nations.

If you still find yourself saying, "as long as they are happy, it's OK
with me" then go back to step one. Get used to thinking that "right"
and "wrong" really only apply to moral questions. Remember, we're not
talking about fashions or opinions; we're talking about truth.

After you've completed this exercise in moral inquiry, you will know
the answer to "why shouldn't Iran have nukes?" You will recognize that
Iran is now controlled by a dangerous regime. This regime has publicly
announced that they want to kill the millions who live in Israel.
That's why this regime is not right. They are wrong. Letting dangerous
people acquire weapons of mass destruction would be totally
irresponsible for those who try to do right. It is right to protect the
innocent from wrong-doers; we do it with our police force, with the
virus-blockers on our computers and with our military. It is the right
thing to do.

If you're still not convinced, consider this example. Two small
children of your acquaintance are playing with scissors. One of the
children doesn't seem to know how to handle the scissors safely or else
its mean streak is emerging, in either case, endangering the other
child and itself. You know it's right to prevent them from coming to
harm so you take the scissors away from the mean kid. It's pretty
simple. We are watching that same logic being played out on a much
larger and more complex scale in international politics. One thing that
doesn't change is that right is right and wrong is wrong.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------=

Peter and Helen Evans, http://www.peterandhelenevans.com. This husband
and wife team - freelance writers and speakers - teach a
philosophical approach to conservatism, and are scheduled speakers at
Blogging Man. They are also real estate agents in the Washington, D.C.,
area.

NB: AN UNCLE WALLY DISCLAIMER: Your Uncle Wally does not endorse the
contents or viewpoints expressed in the following article......HOOROO
!!!!

=========================================================

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/evans/060920

Why shouldn't Iran have nukes?

Peter & Helen Evans Peter & Helen Evans

September 20, 2006

A few nights ago at a panel discussion (on the theme "Is It World War
III?" inaugurating the David Horowitz Center for Freedom) a woman asked
the panelists a very important question. "What can I say to my neighbor
when she says 'If it's OK for us to have nukes, why isn't it OK for
other nations have nukes?'" Perhaps it was because they had already
addressed the absurdity of moral equivalency so many times that, by way
of response, they chose to chuckle about the example of a sign seen at
a recent demonstration saying, "Queers for Palestine!!" Apparently the
people proudly upholding that sign didn't realize that, if they lived
in Palestine, the people they were supporting would kill them. Open
homosexuality is a crime punishable by death under Muslim law. One
member of the panel mentioned that in the whole Middle East the sole
"gay pride" parade took place in the streets of Tel Aviv, Israel. While
it was an amusing example of the ignorance of equivalency, it wasn't
really a direct answer to the woman's sincere question. Here are some
tips for her and for those of you who would like to be able to confront
the moral equivalency argument.

Step one. You have to get back into the habit of acknowledging that
some things are right and some things are wrong. This might be the
hardest thing you have to do, especially if you've internalized the
idea that "what's right for you may not be right for me." Of course,
there are a myriad of things that are morally irrelevant, like the
'right' way to make a cup of coffee, or the 'wrong' way to dress for a
cocktail party. Those things are not right or wrong; they are fashions
or opinions. That's why opinions can be argued forever. When we're
talking about moral right and wrong, we're not talking about opinions,
but rather truths. It's wrong to murder and steal. It's wrong to betray
a promise. It's right to help the needy and protect the innocent. It's
right to try to prevent dangerous people from obtaining weapons with
which they are likely to harm others. These are truths in every culture
and will always remain true.

Step two. You have to decide who is right and who is wrong. Yes, this
means using that neglected faculty called "moral judgment." Remember
when President Reagan called the USSR the "Evil Empire?" Most liberals
didn't really care what names he called them. What really upset them
was that he was saying that "we are right and they are wrong." Consider
what this implies to moral relativists who could rationalize their
irresponsible behavior by saying that what they did was 'right' for
them 'at the moment.' It certainly would turn their
"if-it-feels-good-do-it" lives upside down. They don't want to make any
hard choices so they distract from their own weakness by complaining
that we're insulting someone else. They didn't care about President
Reagan insulting the Soviets any more than they cared about President
Bush insulting the Axis of Evil. They just didn't want their immoral,
irresponsible groove disturbed. And a lot of them were actually
uncomfortable with the idea that America was "better" than some other
nations.

If you still find yourself saying, "as long as they are happy, it's OK
with me" then go back to step one. Get used to thinking that "right"
and "wrong" really only apply to moral questions. Remember, we're not
talking about fashions or opinions; we're talking about truth.

After you've completed this exercise in moral inquiry, you will know
the answer to "why shouldn't Iran have nukes?" You will recognize that
Iran is now controlled by a dangerous regime. This regime has publicly
announced that they want to kill the millions who live in Israel.
That's why this regime is not right. They are wrong. Letting dangerous
people acquire weapons of mass destruction would be totally
irresponsible for those who try to do right. It is right to protect the
innocent from wrong-doers; we do it with our police force, with the
virus-blockers on our computers and with our military. It is the right
thing to do.

If you're still not convinced, consider this example. Two small
children of your acquaintance are playing with scissors. One of the
children doesn't seem to know how to handle the scissors safely or else
its mean streak is emerging, in either case, endangering the other
child and itself. You know it's right to prevent them from coming to
harm so you take the scissors away from the mean kid. It's pretty
simple. We are watching that same logic being played out on a much
larger and more complex scale in international politics. One thing that
doesn't change is that right is right and wrong is wrong.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter and Helen Evans, http://www.peterandhelenevans.com. This husband
and wife team - freelance writers and speakers - teach a
philosophical approach to conservatism, and are scheduled speakers at
Blogging Man. They are also real estate agents in the Washington, D.C.,
area.