| In a recent article about the people
behind the World Wrestling Federation, they were asked about those who
say that the WWF is wrong or immoral. Their response: people who don't
like it should just change the channel.
That's a common thread with a lot of the issues
where the more traditional values are being replaced with new ones. If
you think abortion's wrong, don't have one. If you think drugs are wrong,
don't take them. If you think movies, TV, or music are wrong, don't watch
them or listen to them. It's all reduced to a matter of likes and dislikes
instead of rights and wrongs.
Suppose, however, I was to tell you that I
believed in owning slaves and said that, if you thought slavery was wrong
then you shouldn't own any slaves. Would that argument hold water? Of course
not, and it shouldn't. There is a moral question here that requires us
to stand either on the side of human dignity or in opposition to it. To
stand by and do nothing would be to say that slavery wasn't really wrong
but merely a personal choice, and that kind of stand would encourage the
evil to go unchecked.
Do you think my example is too extreme? That
comparing slavery to professional wrestling is an unfair comparison? Okay,
then consider the long running radio and TV show, "Amos N Andy". Should
the civil rights community simply kept quiet and changed the channel? No.
They were right to point out the problems caused by fostering racial stereotypes,
and their concerns played a part in the decision to end the series.
What the "If you think it's wrong, then don't
do it" argument really accomplishes is taking the eyes off the question
of whether or not something is right or wrong and to argue instead that
there is no right or wrong, at least none that can be applied to all of
us.
But obviously, there are rights and wrongs.
Slavery was wrong, as was its cousin, apartheid. Our entire criminal code,
and a fair amount of the civil code, is a codified definition of what our
society believes is right and wrong, and with it comes the force of law
to impose this definition on all of us, whether we like it or not.
We need to stop arguing about who likes what
or who wants to do what, and instead, we should be debating what things
are right and what things are wrong. Those of us who believe in such concepts
are sufficiently confident of our positions and our arguments that we are
prepared to debate them and to attempt to persuade other to agree. My question
to the people of the WWF and their like-minded companions is simply this:
what is it about this debate that you are afraid of? |
