Gamso and Moral Relativism

Does Jeffrey Gamso believes that at any moment we could slip into sharia law since we once lynched black people? Or is he making the case that what is moral and decent is all relative, so we can't condemn the medieval killing of a young girl in Africa? Is he saying that we can't condemn this punishment because we have blood on our hands? Look, the story of our last 100 years has been one of making progress in the treatment of people who were previously marginalized in our society. (And yet, even as we were making this progress more people were being killed in wars, by far, than in any other century) I don't see any danger of a slippery slope taking us back to a less enlightened age. Or at least enlightenment as Jeffrey Gamso sees it.

The danger I see is that our elites in taking us to this better place are sewing the seeds of the breakdown of civil society and our representative republic. Take Roe v. Wade, for instance. (no, this isn't going to turn into a pro-life post) At the time Roe was decided the country was moving, in fits and starts, toward a more liberal abortion regime. The Supreme Court took abortion out of the legislature and imposed a radical right to abortion throughout the entire 9 months of gestation. (btw: If you don't think our abortion law is radical take a look at the supposed liberal continental european abortion laws) Lots of people felt disenfranchised by this pre-emptive legalization. For the most part the pro-life movement has been a model of restraint but I would argue that the murder of George Tiller - let me be clear, completely wrong and without any justification - is the logical result of such disenfranchisement. A people who feel they have no voice in the democratic process will become either apathetic and disengaged or radicalized. Either result is highly undesirable.