In his book The Rise of the Modern Paganism, Peter Gay states that

“Relativism, Eclecticism, and toleration are so intimately related that they cannot be strictly separated even in thought. Relativism is a way of looking at the world, recognizing that no single set of convictions has absolute validity; Eclecticism is the philosophical method consequent on relativism—since no system has the whole truth, and most systems have some truth, discriminating selection among systems is the only valid procedure. Toleration, finally, is the political counterpoint of this world view and this method...”

This is the view developed in the Enlightenment. There is truth, but it is scattered throughout different ideas, systems, and world views. This knowledge is to be pursued through criticism and debate in an open forum. In our contemporary, post-modern world, relativism dictates that the various world views are either equally true or that there is no absolute truth (and I would argue that these two positions are equivalent). Contemporary tolerance is not based around a search for truth but a denial of its existence or at least the possibility of finding it.

The United States government exists to serve its citizens. At a macro level, the government’s purpose is to ensure that the citizens of today and those of the future enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There are inherent trade-offs in carrying out that charter. Sometimes the government must limit the pursuit of happiness of a current generation in order to ensure it at some level for future generations (raising taxes to pay down the national debt, for instance).

These trade-offs exist in the war on terror (or war on tara as President Bush calls it). What is concerning is the apparent oblivion of the administration to this fact. The preservation of life has become the seemingly singular focus at the expense of liberty and happiness. In some cases, it appears that decisions that have significant negative impacts on liberty are being made for small or negligible increases in security against terrorism.

A funny example is the case of a geologist who was prevented from taking a specimen onto a plane because it was a dual-use item. It is actually only funny until one considers that the extensions of this could apply to practically anything that is carried onto a plane.

A recent item in the news was the appeal by the Bush administration of the ruling against the domestic wiretapping program. The National Security Agency has been spying on international phone calls involving parties within this country without obtaining a warrant. I have been unable to find a copy of the appeal online so all I have is this quote from it in a Reuters article: the judge's ruling “dismantles a tool that already has helped detect and disrupt al Qaeda plots”.

This quote illustrates my point nicely. Any argument for an action that deprives citizens of their freedom should discuss the significance of this effect against the benefits to the security of the nation. I have not seen this kind of careful thinking and analysis coming from the government. Instead, we are suppose to trust the administration's statements about the effectiveness of domestic spying program when it has not proven itself to be trustworthy. We are prevented from observing any rational discourse occurring concerning the trade-off between rights and safety. There are plenty of ways to disrupt al Qaeda plots. They must be debated though as to their effects on liberty before implementing them. The objective function to be optimized contains more than just a single independent variable. (Oops, how did that get in here?)

Peter Gay touches on the topic of marriage in his intellectual history of the Enlightenment. He mentions that the grounds for marriage were beginning to transition in the 18th century from interests in family connections and property to love. But as this was the age of reason, it was expected to be “an intellective, natural, sensible, and rational love.” This can be seen in the passage of the Marriage Act of 1753 in England. Couples could no longer exchange private vows, but instead had to be married in a church after completing a process that caused at least a short delay before the ceremony. This was meant to encourage “a sedate and fixed love and not a sudden flash of passion which dazzles the understanding.”

One of the forms of marriage this act was meant to stop was called Fleet Marriage. The church had always encouraged its involvement in the formation of marriages just as many people had tried to avoid this. Marriage in Fleet Prison, a debtor's prison in London, was a popular option because it was cheap and avoided the notice of parents, the church, or the authorities. It had turned that part of London into a Las Vegas-like haven for quickie marriages. This did not fit the ideal of a rational marriage.