The [U.S.] Navy has rejected the application of one Jason Heap, a doctor of theological history, he having obtained such a degree at Oxford University in Great Britain. (…)
Mr. Heap sued, first in 2014 and again this year, to require the Navy to appoint him to the chaplaincy corps, and, to his point, to recognize him as a “secular humanist,” presumably on his dogtag, thereby recognizing secular humanism, or atheism, as a legitimate “faith.” (…)
The Navy was about ready to make the appointment after the Chaplain Appointment and Retention Eligibility Advisory Group recommended it to the chief of naval operations, who has final say over who gets to be a chaplain and who doesn’t. After 67 members of Congress, 22 senators and 45 congressmen from both parties urged the Navy not to make the appointment, the Navy agreed.
“Without a belief in the transcendent, and with avowed opposition to religion itself,” the lawmakers wrote, “an individual cannot fulfill the mission and duties of a chaplain.”
Ooh look! Congress does something logical for a change! That right there is one of God’s miracles. But I predict that it won’t be long before the definition of military chaplain receives a postmodern facelift, also known as the Coconut Treatment.
Question: What do you call a chaplain who doesn’t believe in God?
Answer: A psychologist.
Question: Why would Dr. Heap want to be appointed as a Navy chaplain?
Answer: In order to infiltrate the program. It isn’t as if this hasn’t happened before.
(Thanks to Stacey E. Washington)
Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here. She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.
Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar for his new not-GoDaddy host!
I’m reading many pieces written by those who explain things much better than I can. So, I’m just going to pass one of these essays along. This one, Why I No Longer Identify as a Feminist, demonstrates the Coconut Treatment in action.
People are often confused about what postmodernism is and what it has to do with feminism. Very simplistically, it was an academic shift pioneered by Jean-Francois Lyotard and Jean Baudrillard which denied that reliable knowledge could ever be attained and claimed that meaning and reality themselves had broken down. It rejected large, overarching explanations (meta-narratives) which included religion but also science, and replaced them with subjective, relative accounts (mini-narratives) of the experiences of an individual or sub-cultural group. These ideas gained great currency in the humanities and social sciences and so became both an artistic movement and a social “theory.” They rejected the values of universal liberalism, the methods of science and the use of reason and critical thinking as the way to determine truth and form ethics. Individuals could now have not only their own moral truths but their own epistemological ones. The expression “It’s true for me” encapsulates the ethos of postmodernism. To claim to know anything to be objectively true (no matter how well-evidenced) is to assert a meta-narrative and to “disrespect” the contrary views of others which is oppressive (even if those views are clearly nonsense.) The word “scientism” was created for the view that evidence and testing are the best way to establish truths.
At its height, postmodernism as an artistic movement produced non-chronological, plotless literature and presented urinals as art. In social theory, postmodernists “deconstructed” everything considered true and presented all as meaningless. However, having done this, there was nowhere else to go and nothing more to say. In the realm of social justice, nothing can be accomplished unless we accept that certain people in a certain place experience certain disadvantages. For this, a system of reality needs to exist, and so new theories of gender and race and sexuality began to emerge comprised of mini-narratives. These categories were held to be culturally constructed and constructed hierarchically to the detriment of women, people of color and LGBTs. Identity was paramount.
Read the whole thing and realize that this treatment–this hollowing out of objective truth–is a long game and can be likened to building a tower, one constructed of lies. We are all the pawns.
17 And there was a man of mount Ephraim, whose name was Micah.
2 And he said unto his mother, The eleven hundred shekels of silver that were taken from thee, about which thou cursedst, and spakest of also in mine ears, behold, the silver is with me; I took it. And his mother said, Blessed be thou of the Lord, my son.
3 And when he had restored the eleven hundred shekels of silver to his mother, his mother said, I had wholly dedicated the silver unto the Lord from my hand for my son, to make a graven image and a molten image: now therefore I will restore it unto thee.
4 Yet he restored the money unto his mother; and his mother took two hundred shekels of silver, and gave them to the founder, who made thereof a graven image and a molten image: and they were in the house of Micah.
5 And the man Micah had an house of gods, and made an ephod, and teraphim, and consecrated one of his sons, who became his priest.
6 In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
–President Barack H. Obama
Conservatism as an objective political concept has no meaning anymore. Many who call themselves conservatives and vote Republican do so for one reason: the prospect of “winning.”
This woman doesn’t understand or subscribe to conservative concepts, nor does she want to do either and I believe that there are many more like her. And, in spite of distortions and falsehoods in the piece, her op-ed is a very useful read. It’s from 2014 and was a harbinger of things to come. There are even some hardcore truths in it.
I am a registered Republican. And I’m black.
I’m for civil and equal rights. A raise in minimum wage, I’m for a woman’s right to choose an abortion. My switch from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party was not about ideology but about power.
I looked at the Democratic Party as largely taking my vote for granted because close to 90% of blacks vote Democratic, according to the exit polls from the last five presidential elections. While the black community has delivered for the Democratic party, it has done little to deliver for the black community, which finds itself mired at the bottom rung of just about every statistical category from unemployment rates to incarceration rates.
My party affiliation change came with much thought. It happened during the 2010 mid-term election cycle when the Republican Party was catapulted to success on the coattails of a fractional element calling itself first Teabaggers [False] (until someone told them what that actually meant) [False]. The Tea Party Movement changed not only the face of the Republican Party offering up more than 130 candidates for Congress–50% elected to the Senate and 31% to The House. The Tea Party also pushed the Republican Party to the fringes on social issues, in particular [No evidence for this].
All emphasis mine.
That the woman is black and holds “black issues” at the forefront of her political calculations is of secondary importance to my point, which is: that those of us who base our political decisions on a concrete set of ideological and moral standards are in the minority.
Many of my Facebook friends who shared this piece pointed to it as evidence of the futility of conservative outreach in the “black community.” Partially, they are correct, but it’s a much broader problem than a racial one. It’s evidence of the futility of conservative outreach to any group which doesn’t recognize the effects of post-modern education on the thinking of the vast majority its members.
Where nothing is true, anything is true and the definition of a thing is whatever you want it to be. And, above all, the only thing that matters is power. That’s postmodernism.