In her Oct. 15 column, Ayrel Clark made the following comments concerning homosexuality which disturbs me greatly: “But I know just because something is right for me does not make it right for everyone else. What people do with their own bodies and hearts is up to them. Live and let live.”

Miss Clark, do you understand the devastating implications of your above statements? What you have written goes far, far deeper than the issue of homosexuality. You have undermined truth itself.

Miss Clark seems to cling to the popular belief that truth and morality are merely socio-culturally relative byproducts of evolution, and “what is true for you may not be true for me.” Although this worldview is appealing to the senses, it is simply unlivable.

To say that truth is relative to persons and cultures is to say that the Holocaust was not objectively, morally wrong. Since Hitler did not believe that slaughtering millions of innocent Jews was morally wrong, none who embrace relative truth have the right to judge Hitler’s actions as morally wrong.

To say that truth is relative is to say that raping infants is not objectively, morally wrong. Sure, all would agree that infant rape is disgusting, socially unacceptable and hideous, but if one does not believe that truth is absolute, then that person cannot logically say that infant rape is objectively, morally, wrong for all persons in all cultures at all times!

It would behoove all to forsake their own inventions of truth and search for the truth that transcends all people, cultures and eras — the truth of God’s Word.

Kent Schmidgall

Junior

Management Information Systems and Finance