Skip to main content

Do words- or anything else- really mean things anymore?

One of the terminal stages in my long disillusionment with the religious organization which for some reason calls itself the "Evangelical Lutheran Church in America" was a meeting called by our bishop at which all but two of the attending pastors identified themselves as either Modernists (i.e., people who believe that truth is unknowable), or as Post-Modernists (people who believe that there is no such thing as truth). How people who believed in either of these things could at the same time consider themselves followers of the Man Who claimed to be the Truth, or for that matter adherents of any theological or philosophical system whatsoever, eluded me. It still does.

A colleague of mine has pointed out for a long time that for Nietzsche,  "truth" was nothing more or less than the will to power- and that this view of truth served as whatever justification the Nazis felt necessary to carry out their agenda. Truth, for the Post-Modernist, doesn't exist. If the word is used at all, it's used to mean "whatever advances The Agenda." It is in that guise that "truth" plays its greatest role in the ideology of the contemporary American Left, and especially in what folks in the ***A refer to as "theology."

Post-Modernism is very much the spirit of the age. The one thing nobody dares to do is to suggest that he or she is right, and that somebody else is wrong. All opinions are equally valid, just because people hold them. If there is no such thing as truth, how could it be otherwise?

Of course, there are exceptions wherever the Post-Modernist wants to make them; the concept wouldn't be Post-Modern if it had any internal consistency.  The Agenda is, for the Left, in one sense an unfailing standard for judging the Truth which doesn't exist. The illogic and outright deceit which has characterized everything from the acceptance of abortion as a means of birth control (abhorrent to the overwhelming majority of Americans, according to the polls, but political gold nonetheless under the rubric of "choice" in a society in which birth control is the reason for which, in the overwhelming majority of cases, that particular "choice" gets made) to the presentation of the overwhelming and well-documented dysfunction of  most homosexual relationships as not only qualitatively equivalent to but, as in the case of that article in The Atlantic a few months ago, even superior to heterosexual ones, the generally accepted "truth" in our political discourse has largely become precisely whatever advances the Left's agenda.

It's well-established that kids have the best chance of growing up normal and healthy in a home in which there are both male and female role-models. Yet because studies have shown that no particular deficit occurs when parents are specifically gay or lesbian, somehow that fact gets ignored in the debate (such as it is) over same-sex "marriage." The disadvantage close to 40% of the kids who are born out of wedlock these days even to relatively affluent, white women is, once again, a matter of established, quantified, and accepted reality. Yet we're somehow led to believe that there are only healthy consequences to a modern norm of sexual behavior which would have been considered outright promiscuity in any other age, and women who voluntarily choose to so handicap the children they bring into the world blissfully decline to acknowledge the selfishness of that choice.

In many ways, that sign-language interpreter who signed gibberish during the Nelson Mandela funeral is as good a symbol of the intellectual and moral incoherence of Post- Modernism- and of the age in which we live- as we're apt to come across.

Some thoughts on that theme here.


Popular posts from this blog

Jan Chamberlain's rhetoric is too strong. But the stand she has taken is right.

I do not share the religion of Jan Chamberlain. I don't even pray to the same god. But I can't help but admire the integrity of the woman who quit the Mormon Tabernacle Choir rather than sing at Donald Trump's inauguration.

Ms. Chamberlain, like me, voted for Evan McMullin in November. Like me, she holds no brief for Hillary Clinton or her agenda. But she cannot, as she put it, "throw roses at Hitler."

As I've said before, comparing Trump to Hitler strikes me as harsh. I believe that Trump is a power-hungry narcissist who exhibits disturbing signs of psychopathy, like Hitler. Like Hitler, he has stigmatized  defenseless minorities- Muslims and undocumented aliens, rather than Jews- and made them scapegoats for the nation's troubles. Like Hitler, he has ridden a wave of irrational hatred and emotion to power. Like Hitler's, his agenda foreshadows disaster for the nation he has been chosen to lead.

But he's not going to set up death camps for Musli…

Neither Evan McMullin nor his movement are going away

Evan McMullin has devoted most of his post-college life- even to the point of foregoing marriage and a family- to fighting ISIS and al Qaeda and our nation's deadliest enemies as a clandestine officer for the CIA. He has done so at the risk of his life.

He has seen authoritarianism in action close-up. One of his main jobs overseas was to locate and facilitate the elimination of jihadist warlords. Evan McMullin knows authoritarians.

And when he looks at Donald Trump, what he sees is an authoritarian like the ones he fought overseas. He knows Donald Trump. After leaving the CIA he served as policy director for the Republican majority in the United States House of Representatives. He tells about his first encounter with The Donald in that role in this opinion piece he wrote for today's New York Times.

In fact, when Mitt Romney and Tom Coburn and all the others who were recruited to run as a conservative third-party candidate against Trump and Hillary Clinton backed out,  McMulli…

Huzzah! Once again, 45 does something majorly right!

First. he appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, and now 45 has- at long last- initiated a sensible space policy, with a plan to promote a "rapid and affordable" return to the moon carried out by private enterprise by 2020.  Afterward, it will be onward to Mars and beyond.

This is a great idea for three reasons. First, private enterprise is the future of space exploration, and as far as I know we will be the first spacefaring nation to put most of its eggs in that basket. Second, it's nice to have eggs! Since the Obama administration canceled the Constellation program to develop the Ares booster and the Orion crew vehicle (though it subsequently reinstated the Orion part of the program), the United States has been twiddling its thumbs while China has taken great leaps toward the moon and other countries- including Russia, India, and Japan- have to various degrees intensified their own space programs. It would be both tragic and foolhardy for the nation which first…