So says, rightly, Elizabeth Scalia:
It has been slain by human feelings — by a soft tyranny of sentimentalism which dictates that how a person feels about anything now defines its reality.
The last nail in the coffin of Objective Truth comes to us via the story of NAACP leader Rachel Dolezal, a white woman who is “trans-raced”. As such, she demands to be counted among the truly marginalized and victimized, and if that means helping things along, well, that might be alright, too:
“One’s racial identity is not a qualifying criteria or disqualifying standard for NAACP leadership.”
Dolezal came under scrutiny earlier this week when Spokane police raised questions about her claims of receiving threatening hate mail.
Dolezal’s parents are both white and said their daughter has publicly claimed that her adopted black brother is her own son.
The NAACP head told cops she found an envelope in the chapter’s post office box containing 20 pages of notes, including pictures of lynchings and the term “war pig.”
But a police investigation revealed the envelope was never canceled or timestamped, and was placed in a box accessible only to postal workers — or someone with a key.
We are living in transient times.
The most interesting and ironic thing about the End of Objective Truth is that it has been brought about (and celebrated) largely by people who have proudly, for some decades, eschewed the idea of faith and “bronze age oogedy boogedy”, for the world of hard facts and science. Often they will tell you that they do not believe in God because they live in a world buttressed by the (Catholic-invented) Scientific Method, and full of measurable, verifiable and quantitative data.
Now, it seems, Science is to be thrown into the dumpster, along with God.
Do read the whole thing. Please. Ms. Scalia has a way with cutting through all the clutter and she does so here beautifully.
G. K. Chesterton was prescient about this:
In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.
The fences and gates maintaining good social order are being destroyed in the name of progress and reform. We are paying a price and will soon pay a steeper one for this.
God help us.