Epistemological Relativism

I guess some religious groups (to remain nameless to protect the guilty) are a bit disturbed by a recently elected congressman’s desire to be sworn in using the Koran (yeah, I know it’s the anglicized name) instead of the Christian bible. A question offered by one subgroup that frames one argument “What book will America base it’s values on, the Bible or the Koran?” An argument by Dennis Prager states that “He should not be allowed to do so — not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization”. I can understand why some people may have a negative view of the congressman’s disregard for a very old tradition, but this is not what the two quotes above are getting at. They attempt to argue that Judeo-Christian values are the only way towards reasonable ethical behavior. Without a country anchored in these values, in their view, a trend of moral degeneration follows and ultimately the demise of America. What they fail to acknowledge is that they belong to the same group that argues for a natural law or an objective moral standard that is intuitive to most people and civilizations across time. What’s more, they also argue that these moral standards are found in most religious texts. So, I guess I’m a bit confused by they’re assertions and prognostications. On one hand the Koran moral standards are so different that we cannot have an observant Muslim (if he is observant and not pulling a stunt) attempt to live by them and on the other a basic set of moral standards are common to all mankind. Which one is it?

Of course, my wife quickly observed that it would be silly for the congressman to be sworn in using a bible of a religious he does not follow. Do these religious groups simply want an outward demonstration? This sounds like everyone wants to live in the Matrix. Is it that these groups don’t want to acknowledge that most of the people that place their hand on that bible do not believe and have no intentions of following it? Is it really the end of civilization because a man wants, for once, to be honest about what he believes? Again, if it is an issue of tradition, I understand the position, but with words like “undermining civilization” and “which values” it doesn’t seem that is the case.

We also fail to realize the historical nature of the tradition itself. The congressman is being chastized for not doing what so many other have done before him including Jews, Christians, Muslims and Agnostics. But, in the beginning, isn’t this what Washington himself was saying by this act? Wasn’t he making a decision for himself? Was he *really* making a statement about Judeo-Christian ethics and foundations or was it about his personal beliefs? I think we know the answer and yet we pretend that Washington’s personal actions have some sort of prescriptive character to them. I understand the tradition, but these groups need to be clear on what precisely they are arguing.

General, Thoughts