Former columnist responds to critical faculty member

04/20/05 - To the Cigar,This is in response to Dr. John Leo's response ("Jell-O Cook Off," April 8, 2005) to my original column ("Common Sense," April 7, 2005). The article I wrote, and the one that Leo read, are completely different. Since Leo uses hostile words instead of ideas, I will first have to explain Leo's virtually incomprehensible letter.

In a nutshell, Dr. Leo believes that I am a member of an elitist group - the Christians. This group, Dr. Leo would say, assumes its own moral superiority and presumes to judge others. Because such judgments are without basis in a relativist world, this group is obviously bigoted, hateful and ignorant.

Not wanting to admit unfounded prejudices to themselves or others, this elitist group justifies its bigotry, Dr. Leo would say, by associating targeted groups - like gays - with something which is generally accepted as negative and undesirable by the public - like HIV/AIDS. Thus, to Dr. Leo, this elitist group, while feigning a love of humanity and a concern for the health and welfare of society, uses this pretension as a mask for a secret, irrational loathing of one targeted segment of society.

My actual editorial, as opposed to the one that Leo criticized, made two main points. One was the Terri Shiavo incident. The other was the general moral degradation of all of society, not any one particular group. I made wide and diverse references to people such as Clinton, Sandy Burger, the courts, slavery and Hitler. I mentioned American culture and the Higher Authority to whom America's Founders so often referred, as well as the Pope.

The main point of my editorial was in the last sentence - lives should be changed, not laws. This had mostly to do with the Terri Shiavo tragedy and the sanctity of life. She was a helpless citizen who was protected by neither state nor husband. She was neither in a coma, nor on life support. She died from a lack of food and water - as would anyone. I was saying that the right-to-die precedent - that is, the "pull-the-plug" mentality - of our culture made it easier to accept the decision to allow Terri to die. This is a culture where death is the default.

Terri's positive right to be given every chance at life became her husband's negative right to allow death to happen. The distinction between allowing her to die and actually killing her is slight. The judicial branch was at the center of the controversy, as it increasingly is these days. The courts, and everyone, overlooked the main issue - the helpless woman's right to life.

So, I said that not laws but a renewed mind-set is needed. A mind-set that defaults to life when in doubt. Thus, my point is that lives and not laws need to change.

That was my column. But, I was criticized on the basis of one part of one sentence. The original sentence was "While lobbying for AIDS prevention Americans continue to support the leading cause of AIDS - homosexuality." For the sake of brevity, the criticism can be represented as follows. I said x is the leading cause (which implies there are others) of y. I should have said that x is a contributing cause (which implies there are others) of y.

It was on this basis that I was declared to be a bigot, ignorant, shameful. It was said I should not graduate, and deserved no awards from the university. Ultimately, I had made the fatal association referred to above.

I will have to say a few words about this particular sentence that drew so much fire. The point to which it referred was the general hypocrisy of Americans who, on the one hand, fund research to stop AIDS, while on the other hand, conduct behavior which spreads it. I made the same point in relation to the behavior of Terri Shiavo's husband, which similarly indicated the hypocrisy of a nation that increasingly favors positive freedoms, entitlements and expanded notions of rights, but enforces a husband's negative freedom not to be interfered with.

Now, it turns out that studies show that heterosexuals actually contribute more to the spread of AIDS than do homosexuals. Fine. That makes my point even stronger. My point, after all, was precisely one of promiscuous behavior and moral degradation in general. The fact that AIDS is not limited to one isolated segment of society supports my argument - it also indicates the situation is worse than I thought.

It is typical of our divided culture to worry about who is more responsible. It is also typical of our relativist culture to confuse responsibility with discrimination. Some say gays, some say straights. I don't know or care. I say, if the shoe fits, wear it.

A final word of candor in this theater of the politically correct. My message is not one of bigotry, but of a moral community. It is one of total inclusion. There are, in fact, two inclusions.

First inclusion: All are guilty of something or other. Everyone. No exclusions.

Second inclusion: All can be forgiven by God. Everyone. No exclusions.

Sincerely,

Nathaniel Nelson