UNDERSTANDING THE TIMES
The Newsletter of Contend for the Faith, Inc

1 Chronicles 12:32

JULY 2005

Confusion Reigns in Decisions

They have done it again.

A majority of the robed rulers of the Supreme Court of the United States have ignored history, tradition, and the text of the Constitution in order to decide that displays of the Ten Commandments in two Kentucky courthouses are unconstitutional.

In the latest in a line of absurd rulings, in [1] McCreary County v. ACLU the justices voted 5-4 that posting the Commandments on the courthouse walls violated the First Amendment prohibition of establishing a national religion. Two counties in Kentucky had displayed the Decalogue along with other historical texts such as the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Kentucky Constitution, the Magna Carta, and the Mayflower Compact.

Note what the First Amendment actually says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .

If you are wondering how the actions of people in two Kentucky counties establishes an official religion for the United States, you are in good company. But as liberal Justice David Souter, who wrote the majority opinion, states in a footnote, the Court had earlier decided that the establishment prohibition “applies to ‘the States and their political subdivisions’ through the Fourteenth Amendment.”

But even if that debatable application is valid, the mind still boggles over how a display of a few verses of Scripture on a public wall qualifies as an establishment of a state religion. In the first place, neither Congress nor the Kentucky legislature made a law declaring an official religion. In addition, what religion was supposed to have been established, since the Commandments are part of Judaism and Christianity and are accepted by Islam as well? Were citizens coerced or forced to financially support the leadership of a newly established religion?

This case demonstrates that the majority of justices have abandoned their duty to rule according to the Constitution, replacing it with their desire to rule according to their own policy preferences. Their motto seems to be “Forget the facts, vote on feelings.” By doing so, they violate their oaths to uphold the Constitution.

Justice Souter objects to the displays for two main reasons: First, that the purpose behind them was religious (but who can discern any purpose when you look at a plaque on a wall?). Second, he says the exhibits violate a supposedly mandatory governmental neutrality between religion and nonreligion. Huh? How can anyone seriously claim that these prohibitions are found in the 16 words of the First Amendment quoted above?

In his usual erudite manner, Justice Antonin Scalia delivered a blistering dissent, exposing the illogical and imaginary arguments of Souter and the majority.

After citing abundant evidence from US history contrary to their opinion, Scalia scolded the majority: “Nothing stands behind the Court’s assertion that governmental affirmation of the society’s belief in God is unconstitutional except the Court’s own say-so, citing as support only the unsubstantiated say-so of earlier Courts going back no farther than the mid-20th century. . . . What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in consistently applied principle. That is what prevents judges from ruling now this way, now that–thumbs up or thumbs down–as their personal preferences dictate.”

Next time we will examine the companion decision in which the Court ruled 5-4 that the Ten Commandments are constitutional at the Texas capitol.
SPEAKING SCHEDULE 2005

July 17, 2005

Contending for the Faith: The Resurrection of Christ, Sunday School Class, Southern Evangelical Church, Charlotte, 11:00 amwww.SouthernEvangelicalChurch.org

July 20 2005

Understanding Freemasonry , Special Wednesday Class, Southern Evangelical Church, Charlotte, 6:30 – 8:00 pmwww.SouthernEvangelicalChurch.org

July 24, 2005

Contending for the Faith: The Uniqueness of Christianity, Part One, Sunday School Class, Southern Evangelical Church, Charlotte, 11:00 amwww.SouthernEvangelicalChurch.org

July 24, 2005

Contending for the Faith: The Uniqueness of Christianity, Part Two, Sunday School Class, Southern Evangelical Church, Charlotte, 11:00 amwww.SouthernEvangelicalChurch.org

July 31, 2005

Contending for the Faith: Summary of the Series, Sunday School Class, Southern Evangelical Church, Charlotte, 11:00 am

CONTENDING FOR THE FAITH

UNDERSTANDING POSTMODERNISM: PART THREE

Previously in this series we have defined and described what postmodernism is. This time we will contrast it with modernism and show some self-defeating aspects of postmodernism.

MODERN vs. POSTMODERN

According to postmodernists, the problem with the modernist view is not its uncritical dependence upon human reason alone (apart from God’s revelation), but its assumption that there is such a thing as objective truth. Postmodernists deny objective truth, asserting that since we cannot know the real world (a false and self-defeating claim) then we cannot claim to know truth objectively.

We have written often about self-defeating claims. These are assertions that contain information within themselves that defeat the assertions being made. For example, the person who says, “I cannot speak a word of English” has just proven his assertion false by making the statement in English.

When postmodernists claim that we cannot know truth because we cannot know reality, how do they know that? They assert that one cannot know the world as it is, but one can only know his perception of the world. Yet this is actually an assertion about the real world, namely that it cannot be known. This is like saying, “We cannot know anything about our galaxy beyond Pluto.” One would have to know there was something beyond Pluto to claim that anything beyond Pluto cannot be known. It is self-defeating.

The fact is that we can and do know the world as it is. No one could live or function for long if this were not the case. When you drive a car, step onto an elevator, or jump into a swimming pool, you do so because you inherently recognize that your perception accurately tells you where the road is, that the elevator is solid, and that there is water in the pool.

Now let’s compare modernism and postmodernism.

Modernism says there is a metanarrative, a grand story that explains our existence. Most modernists hold an evolutionary view of the universe, so their comprehensive story is that we are here by accident. Postmodernism says there is no metanarrative, only many narratives which compete with each other.

Moderns generally believe that truth exists and it is objective. Postmoderns claim there are many “truths” which are merely subjective (“you believe one thing, I believe the opposite, and we are both right because we are sincere”).

While moderns believe we can know reality, postmoderns say we can create reality. A modernist believes he must yield to the world as it is, while a postmodernist thinks he can command the world to be what he wants it to be. A modernist slogan would be “Life is hard, and then you die.” A postmodern saying is “I’ve given up on reality. Now I’m looking for a good fantasy.”

A typical secular modernist says that God is unnecessary or nonexistent. A postmodernist claims that God is whatever you want him to be.

During the Enlightenment modernist skepticism led to the questioning of church authority. During our age postmodern skepticism has led to questioning all authority, including God.

Science and reason alone bring truth according to the modernist, while the postmodernist says each individual alone creates his own truth.

Most secular scientists today are modernists who believe that truth claims are necessary to understand the world. Postmodernists charge that truth claims are power plays to oppress the world.

Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson is a modernist who has critiqued postmodern thinking. “Postmodernism is the ultimate polar antithesis of the Enlightenment. The difference between the two extremes can be expressed roughly as follows: Enlightenment thinkers believe we can know everything, and radical postmodernists believe we can know nothing.”

Modernism focuses on the intellect and reason; postmodernism emphasizes the will and emotion. Moderns generally believe morality is decided by societies (majority rules), while postmoderns believe morality is decided by the individual (relativity rules).

Revelation by God is rejected by modernism, but postmodernism will allow for revelation from God as being strictly personal to the individual. To the modern mind, a comprehensive worldview is essential but may be depressing, since our very existence is only a cosmic accident. To the postmodern mind, a comprehensive worldview is incoherent and impossible. While the modern asks “Is that all there is to life?” the postmodern declares “Have it your way.”

Modernism asserts that man does not need God for his existence; postmodernism stresses that God needs man for His existence.

Christianity is rejected by modernism because its claims are considered to be untrue and therefore nonsense. Christianity is rejected by postmodernism because it claims to be true and is therefore narrow and offensive. The assertion by Christians that Jesus is the only way to heaven is seen by moderns as being a myth and by postmoderns as being mean.

Modernists believe it is appropriate to share truth with others, while postmodernists feel it is arrogant to force “your truth” on others. The modernist says we can know everything without God, but the postmodernist declares we can know nothing period.

Next time we will demonstrate more self-defeating claims of postmodernism, and we will examine the compatibility of postmodern thought with historic Christianity.