Mike Perry recently wrote:
> "However, we need to remember that there are those
> who deny the existence of cultural, moral or religious
> absolutes. For such people, criticism of another's 
> group's beliefs or practices is seen as an covert
> attack on that group. Someone is being 'intolerant'
> by claiming that their culture, morals or religion
> is better than those of someone else. Thus Bonhoeffer's
> criticisms of Jewish theology is not taken in the
> context of a debate about truth (which doesn't exist)
> but as an attack on Jews themselves."

If I understand Bonhoeffer correctly, he would equate "absolutes"
be they cultural, religious or moral, with "God".  According to
Bonhoeffer, God enters into the person as "I", i.e. God is constituent
of the individual's subjective experience. Consequently, to deny
"absolutes" is to deny God. To my understanding, the existence
of "absolutes" in subjective experience is beyond doubt.

I find it, however, extraordinarily difficult, in fact I find it
impossible, to extrapolate what is "absolute" for me subjectively,
as objective imperatives to my fellow human beings. I infer from
their words and deeds that what is "absolute" in their experiences
differs from what is "absolute" in mine. To be sure, over the years,
I have attempted to share my experience of "absolutes" with  members
of my family, with my patients, and with such friends as I have.
The experience of "absolutes", I have found, can be communicated
by dogma only with great difficulty, if at all. It is in art, in
literature and in music, that what is "absolute" is most likely
to find meaningful expression; and of course, above all, in life
itself, in what we are and in what we do. Thus we admire and we
love Bonhoeffer not for his dogma but for his life.

I am embarrassed by the notion that "absolutes" should
be susceptible to objective specifications, to be legislated by
authority, be it ecclesiastical or secular.  Whoever purports to
dictate to his fellow man what is right or wrong, what is true
or false, what is beautiful or ugly, interferes with, and  
threatens to destroy the relationship to God. Kant tried to
circumvent these difficulties of legislating morality by devising
"categorical imperatives" which though absolute in their formality, 
leave to the individual the freedom of implementing them.
Kant required that we should act so that other human beings would
be the ends, never the means, of our actions, and so that each of
our actions should be susceptible to becoming universal law.
I have not found his injunctions particularly helpful.

The failure to respect the other's relationship to his God by
purporting to compel him to worship ones own, has led to untold
human misery, to religious wars and strife, to the destruction
of individuals and of societies. As the Food and Drug Administration
requires warning labels on medications of their potentially serious
side effects, so should those of us who feel compelled to promulgate
"absolutes", label them with the warning: "These 'absolutes' may lead
to spiritual and societal catastrophe".

                                       Ernst Meyer