"Moral Equivalency" is the latest horror to slither across civilized society's path. It is a tenet of relativism, or the idea that all ideas, all actions and all outcomes can be compared and accepted on an objective basis without making value judgements. As a matter of fact, making a value judgement is perhaps the only real sin for those who subscribe to this nonsense.

A simple example of moral equivalency can be found in many of our public school disciplinary policies. It is called zero tolerance. The notion holds that if my child is attacked by another and my child defends himself in kind, then both children are equally guilty of promoting violence, are both equally responsible for the act of hitting, and should share equally in the punishment for the transgression. While it is clear to anyone who is rational that such an approach is thoroughly unjust, to the proponents of relativism the outcome is ultimately fair because we aren't judging reasons, only actions and outcomes without the excess baggage of morals. To the proponent of moral equivalency, morals are merely opinions.

This kind of thinking has its roots in the multiculturalism and "diversity is good" movements that have swept our nation. Only by creating a non-judgmental approach to groups and cultures, can we force other cultures to a level playing field with our own. The goal is to create an atmosphere where no person will be offended or be made to feel uncomfortable because of some aspect of their behavior, their appearance, or the actions associated with their culture. This is true even if or especially if those actions might be anti-western and anti-United States. Who are we to judge others based on our own grounding in an ethos? Such thinking is said to be xenophobic and discriminatory.

On September 11th, 2001, events occurred which will test the validity of this kind of thinking. The United States was attacked and innocent people were slaughtered by the thousands. We are a sovereign nation. The notion of nation states is still valid in the western tradition and one of the basic responsibilities of our government is to protect the citizens of the United States. We are a constitutional republic and our constitution, the law of our land, requires that our government, which holds power by the consent of the governed, must provide "for the common defense." So right now, the people we have selected to execute the mandate of our constitution are over in Afghanistan putting a stop to the terrorists who perpetrated the attack. Our government, using our military forces, are using force and violence to achieve the goal of eradicating the bad guys.

Those who subscribe to the notion of moral equivalency can't see any difference between what we are doing and what the terrorists did. As a matter of fact, some of these people will not even use the term terrorist in their description of the perpetrators because such a label would be prejudicial. I even heard one local radio commentator say that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter and that the founding fathers of this nation were considered terrorists until they won. Such people would have us stop considering the perpetrators of these acts as the bad guys because such a label would be judgmental. I wondered about the "freedom fighter" phrase….who exactly would be made free if the terrorists win? I seem little freedom in the world of the Taliban or in the world of the Hamas.