Elisabet Ney Museum
Virulent Neoleftist Utopian Moral Relativism
RECEIVED Fri., Jan. 6, 2006
Dear Mr. Black,
As the writer of the letter you excerpted in your Dec. 30 “Page Two” commentary "Beyond Belief," I am outraged and disgusted by your misleading contention that my letter is a criticism of your beliefs “offered from strongly religious points of view.” Moreover, your lead-up and follow-up are equally deceptive. You have blatantly and cynically used my letter completely out of context.
To recap, I wrote a scathing response [“Postmarks,” Nov. 11] to your ignorant and morally vapid Nov. 4 article "Scooting Toward McCarthyism" [“Page Two”]. In my letter I outlined your article's odor of virulent neoleftist utopian moral relativism and hypocrisy. At no point did I mention my religion or Christianity in any manner – explicit or implicit. Additionally, you state that my letter included “implied, or even overt, threats.” What planet are you on? There is no way that a rational person could infer such a thing from my letter.
Your "Beyond Belief" article reveals that your moral hypocrisy is outdone only by your corrosive arrogance. What makes you think you even know what my religion is or if I even have a religion? Was it because I used the word "moral"? Don't you believe that non-Christians can advocate morality, too? You obviously put no value on objective truth or professional decency in your writing. In short, you have shown yourself to be a small-minded specimen who can hardly be called a civilized man. You are truly shameful!
As a moral rationalist and classical liberal, I am more than prepared to accept your heartfelt apology and commitment to never violate this crucial level of trust again. But that would take a man of character and integrity. Given your current unethical behavior I seriously doubt that you can even imagine what I am talking about. Character and integrity to you and your ilk mean little more than being popular. You are, in essence, morally immature. I am sincerely sorry for you.
As the writer of the letter you excerpted in your Dec. 30 “Page Two” commentary "Beyond Belief," I am outraged and disgusted by your misleading contention that my letter is a criticism of your beliefs “offered from strongly religious points of view.” Moreover, your lead-up and follow-up are equally deceptive. You have blatantly and cynically used my letter completely out of context.
To recap, I wrote a scathing response [“Postmarks,” Nov. 11] to your ignorant and morally vapid Nov. 4 article "Scooting Toward McCarthyism" [“Page Two”]. In my letter I outlined your article's odor of virulent neoleftist utopian moral relativism and hypocrisy. At no point did I mention my religion or Christianity in any manner – explicit or implicit. Additionally, you state that my letter included “implied, or even overt, threats.” What planet are you on? There is no way that a rational person could infer such a thing from my letter.
Your "Beyond Belief" article reveals that your moral hypocrisy is outdone only by your corrosive arrogance. What makes you think you even know what my religion is or if I even have a religion? Was it because I used the word "moral"? Don't you believe that non-Christians can advocate morality, too? You obviously put no value on objective truth or professional decency in your writing. In short, you have shown yourself to be a small-minded specimen who can hardly be called a civilized man. You are truly shameful!
As a moral rationalist and classical liberal, I am more than prepared to accept your heartfelt apology and commitment to never violate this crucial level of trust again. But that would take a man of character and integrity. Given your current unethical behavior I seriously doubt that you can even imagine what I am talking about. Character and integrity to you and your ilk mean little more than being popular. You are, in essence, morally immature. I am sincerely sorry for you.
Truly,
Vance McDonald
Vance McDonald
[Louis Black responds: I'm sorry, I've never considered the kind of blatant negative stereotyping and blanket dismissing of ideas by name-calling – both currently so prevalent from self-identified right-wing, conservative, and/or religious right thinkers – as being tools of "moral rationalist and classical liberal" thought. But hell, as a "morally immature," "truly shameful," "small-minded specimen who can hardly be called a civilized man," what do you expect? I genuinely apologize that I jumped to the erroneous conclusion that saying "moral commitment to objective truth seeking" indicated Christian religious beliefs. Since I often rant against this very kind of knee-jerk stereotyping I am quite sad that I participated in it. But saying "He and his fellow travelers must be resisted totally. Rest assured, they will be" is clearly at least an implicit if not explicit threat. I didn't say "violent" or "aggressive" or even "unreasonable" but simply that this is a statement loaded with menace. Finally, I acknowledge all that you accuse me of and probably more, though I must suggest there is no need for you to be "sincerely sorry" for me.]
