Postmodernism is the spirit of the age, right? In my usual sphere of friends, the word is pejorative, but I've actually heard some folks use the word with very positive, and even hopeful tones. There are people out there, in the great wide world, who actually praise the idea of applying postmodernism to all areas of life and politic. My first reaction to hearing that kind of thing is, honestly, and literally, to get a little bit nauseous because of the deep nervousness that it incites in me. I find the idea itself to be somewhat terrifying. Really, really, if someone were interested in simply scaring me, all they would have to do is give honest praise to the applications of liberal, pluralized postmodernism outside of the arts.

... but does it have any real merits? Maybe it does.....

Now, I intend to do my level best to put myself into the other's shoes, and I intentionally do this without interviewing anyone (minus the conversations I've already had) or even reading any material on the subject, written by proponents of liberal, postmodern, moral plurality. The reason I'm doing it that way is so that I can present a picture of the common person, who has not spent much time studying the enemy's own writings, but I'll do it with as much sympathy as I can muster. The case study is driven in part by my laziness, my curiosity, and my never-ending desire to write long blogs about nothing... but I hope it will prove valuable to those proponents of postmodernism who are less lazy than I, so that they can more effectively present their arguments to conservative pipe-hitting Bible-thumpers like me, using language that conveys at least an understanding of the conservative psyche. (Not a very compelling justification, perhaps, but the idea is that, since I realize how biased I am, hopefully I can breach my own shell in a unique way).

OK... Sympathy! ... I can do this!! ..... Hmmm.... agnosticism.... atheism..... higher progressive taxes.... free universities.... giving free contraceptives to minors at school *clears throat*..... "hate-speech" legislation..... abortions provided to minors without notifying parents *face contorts*..... gay marriage (ewwwwwwww)... gender *gulp* identity....... womens *straining* right.. to.. choooooose to murder their babies....

Whew! That was difficult! I'm beginning to question whether or not this is a worthwhile exercise.

I'm gonna take a break for a few minutes and come back to this.

......

Alright, here's what I'm thinking:
I have been trained since childhood, and indeed I endeavor to train myself, and I hope that the Holy Spirit trains me, so that whenever I have (what I will call) a "moral inclination" one way or another about something, I check that inclination against the Holy Scriptures in the Bible to determine what is ultimately good or evil. As a result of this, my knee-jerk response to any issue related to morality is to associate a person's views with their religion.

This is a valid approach in the case of a person who claims to be religious. Any person who truly believes in a higher power, and an eternal afterlife which will be better or worse for the person depending on the things that happen in this life, will do everything they can to conform their thoughts and behaviors to those which will produce a better outcome in the eternal hereafter. (Now, true Christianity is unique in that it is not the actions or efforts of the believer which determines his eternal fate, but it is his belief and faith alone, and even that is a gift given to him by God).

However, attempts at applying this kind of presuppositionalism to an atheist, agnostic, or other pluralist, meet with outright, sometimes hostile, rejection by the subject person.

I have, in the past, spoken with some atheists who attempt to propose various criteria for measuring morality (such as "the most happiness for the most people", etc). But on pressing the atheist about any given "theory of morality" they might present, when said theory fails they simply fall-back onto another theory, which must in-turn be debunked. If the atheist is creative enough, it can be a virtually endless train of theories, and each time the atheist will say "this is THE criteria" as if they are presenting a tenant which they have kept since the beginning of the discussion.

In the end, though, it comes down to this: the postmodern atheist does whatever feels right to himself. Whatever is good or bad is what feels right to that person. The obvious question that any good Christian asks here is "Well, what if a person feels like it's ok to _______ (insert terrible crime)? Is that ok?"

A postmodernist who is trying to be consistent will say, "Well, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but they will have to face the natural consequences of that action, such as the retaliation of the governing authorities."

This, on the surface, provides for a functioning society, where the majority naturally produces a government. The function of said government is ideally to protect the self-prescribed rights of the majority. Now, more practically, what happens is that the "naturally-established" government imposes the ideals of the majority onto the whole. This is acceptable to the postmodernist, though, as long as the majority is postmodern -- and postmodernists believe that eventually postmodernism will be the normative view.

A few issues with this come up in my mind. First of all, the most obvious issue with such a government (in my mind) is that the only "bad" action is the action which gets caught. This, though, is not necessarily objectionable to the postmodern person. Suffering happens, and the postmodernist only wants to minimize it by hoping the majority rule will eventually minimize suffering.

Here's the next (and, I think, fatal) issue, though. Postmodernism is inherently opposed to any religion which claims to have exclusive truth, or a clear-cut code of ethics. Well... just as an example... could someone out there name for me any atheist humanitarian group that opposed slavery in the U.S.? It was Christian organizations that pushed for the end of slavery? Do the phrases "God-given rights" and "all men are created equal" ring a bell? Postmodernism would never have freed the slaves -- never. That's just one example, and it's perhaps the easiest for me to give and defend.

Now, I already hear the chorus of God-haters chiming in, "but Christianity is pro-slavery!". I've got a lot to say about that; but I think it suffices to drop just a few principles that would have shut down the entire trans-atlantic slave trade:

1. The law is very clear on kidnapping, and buying people who were kidnapped, regardless of origin. The kidnapper and any subsequent buyers shall be put to death. Exodus 21:16 says, "Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death". This alone condemns almost the entire history of human slavery.

2. The law and traditions of Israel allow for foreigners to become citizens of Israel, having all rights that Israelite have. In order to do this, they must a) Fear the Lord (as Rahab did), and b) have all their men circumcised, (hence Exo 12:37-38,48, the mixed multitude, and the regulations on foreigners partaking in sacred rituals). Also, Exo 12:49, Lev 24:22,  Num 15:14-16,29, all say that the same law which applies to the Jews applies also to the foreigners among them. This means that any foreigner who becomes a slave "for life" in Israel can achieve freedom on the year of jubilee by simply acknowledging the only living God.

An external ancient source in support of the idea that foreigners can become israelites: Josephus's account of the Wars of the Jews records instances of deserters from foreign armies being accepted into the Israelite community on the grounds that they circumcised themselves and desired to honor the one true God.

3. Finally, there were no laws in the OT restricting two men from fighting one another. However, there are laws handling the outcomes of the fights. In the case where two men are fighting and one is the master of the other, we have laws specifically to protect the slave. First, if the slave is injured permanently then he is set free; second, if the slave is killed, the law reiterates the death penalty for the owner. (Exodus 21:20-27)

So, to conclude: the Bible defines a kind of slavery which is incompatible with early American slavery. That's why the Christian community fought to shut it down.

So, back to postmodernism: history is replete with examples of groups of people who did appalling things with the support of the majority. A postmodern society has no way to keep a itself from doing the things which atheists even today will say, for no reason other than their own feelings, are unthinkably evil. And if a postmodernist says, "well, look at the history of humanity, nations don't usually survive when they do those bad things" Then I have to respond, "yeah, because in nearly every case their wickedness was shut down by a movement backed by religion (actually, often it was Christianity)." Postmodernism has no tools to back up its claim that an atheist society will eventually become utopian, and a careful look at history reveals the opposite.

This post is getting kindof long, so without getting into all the other religions at once....... only Christianity has the morals, the consistency, the justice, and the grace, to provide for a truly equitable system. I'll revisit my theories about debunking every religion at once in a future post.

"What's weaving?"