Quite insightful, Sarah. It is curious that a secular society that celebrates as a right the disposal of a preborn human being, as if that preborn child had no more value than the remnants of last night’s fish and chips, would become so poetically spiritual over the desecration of an elderly tree. For the secularist, the tree’s age can h…
Quite insightful, Sarah. It is curious that a secular society that celebrates as a right the disposal of a preborn human being, as if that preborn child had no more value than the remnants of last night’s fish and chips, would become so poetically spiritual over the desecration of an elderly tree. For the secularist, the tree’s age can hardly serve as an explanation. The elderly citizen, for example, stricken with the troublesome diseases that come with old age, is today regarded by our secular society with little more value than the inconvenient fetus scheduled by its mother for an outpatient procedure. And from across Europe, we hear stories of the elderly given a medical push into eternity because they were simply too old and too much in the way. So the tree’s life and age won’t serve as the reason for the public outrage.
So why is the tree so valuable? Well, it does have a history, and we know today what that must mean. The meaning, of course, has nothing to do with anything objective. History, as the modern academy teaches, we now understand to be simply an arbitrary social construction. And if that social construction is of European origin, one emerging prior to the postmodern age, we can be sure that it drips with racism, sexism, and imperialism. So, I am confused, Sarah, by the report. The young person who cut down this tree near Hadrian’s Wall must have been making a courageous protest against imperialism, racism, and sexism. Hadrian, the Roman Emperor, was an obvious symbol of the evils this young man despises and sought to overthrow. So, what does the public’s love of this tree mean? Obviously, it must mean the public’s love of those evils, a contemporary expression of how deeply these sins still contaminate the European collective soul. The desire to bring this young man to justice is a defensive affirmation of this irrefutable and condemning truth. In fact, the Mayor’s words admit this openly. The tree is part of the culture’s collective soul, which means, as social justice warriors would agree, that sexism, racism, and imperialism are inextricably linked to Europe’s collective being. The guilt can never be expunged. Consequently, the Mayor, who has picnicked near that tree with his family, confesses his guilt as he expresses his outrage and eats his sandwiches.
Of course, this is nonsense, but I would not be surprised to read someone publish a defense like this to justify the young man’s actions. The truth is that he is by no means a Christian Boniface. He is not a missionary for the gospel; he is simply the destroyer of property belonging to the public. So, an accidental Boniface is, perhaps, a good name for him. In fact, he had no intention to destroy a tree symbolizing European guilt for all that is wrong in the world. He simply destroyed a tree to vandalize a landmark, which is simply an act of contempt. But despite his intentions, it is difficult to understand why he is being prosecuted rather than being hailed as a hero. After all, his act embraces the narrative of cultural self-hatred that the elite English sophisticates wear as a badge of honor. Nonetheless, despite supposed postmodern enlightenment, it would appear that a good many enlightened English voices still entertain religious notions, notions that they claim derive from imperialistic ignorance and for which, when it is more convenient, they affirm disdain. It is amazing how quickly that tune can change. Could it possibly be that a secular society denies on one side of its mouth what it affirms with pietistic sincerity on the other? By definition, as early Church Fathers pointed out, a society that cuts itself off from the source of all being is likely to fall into self-contradiction. That is what we see here. We would do well to question the ethical insight of a society that values a tree over a human fetus. The society that affirms as a crime the destruction of the former, but celebrates the destruction of the latter as a woman’s right, has simply lost its way morally. Should we be surprised that such a society lives in moral contradiction?
Quite insightful, Sarah. It is curious that a secular society that celebrates as a right the disposal of a preborn human being, as if that preborn child had no more value than the remnants of last night’s fish and chips, would become so poetically spiritual over the desecration of an elderly tree. For the secularist, the tree’s age can hardly serve as an explanation. The elderly citizen, for example, stricken with the troublesome diseases that come with old age, is today regarded by our secular society with little more value than the inconvenient fetus scheduled by its mother for an outpatient procedure. And from across Europe, we hear stories of the elderly given a medical push into eternity because they were simply too old and too much in the way. So the tree’s life and age won’t serve as the reason for the public outrage.
So why is the tree so valuable? Well, it does have a history, and we know today what that must mean. The meaning, of course, has nothing to do with anything objective. History, as the modern academy teaches, we now understand to be simply an arbitrary social construction. And if that social construction is of European origin, one emerging prior to the postmodern age, we can be sure that it drips with racism, sexism, and imperialism. So, I am confused, Sarah, by the report. The young person who cut down this tree near Hadrian’s Wall must have been making a courageous protest against imperialism, racism, and sexism. Hadrian, the Roman Emperor, was an obvious symbol of the evils this young man despises and sought to overthrow. So, what does the public’s love of this tree mean? Obviously, it must mean the public’s love of those evils, a contemporary expression of how deeply these sins still contaminate the European collective soul. The desire to bring this young man to justice is a defensive affirmation of this irrefutable and condemning truth. In fact, the Mayor’s words admit this openly. The tree is part of the culture’s collective soul, which means, as social justice warriors would agree, that sexism, racism, and imperialism are inextricably linked to Europe’s collective being. The guilt can never be expunged. Consequently, the Mayor, who has picnicked near that tree with his family, confesses his guilt as he expresses his outrage and eats his sandwiches.
Of course, this is nonsense, but I would not be surprised to read someone publish a defense like this to justify the young man’s actions. The truth is that he is by no means a Christian Boniface. He is not a missionary for the gospel; he is simply the destroyer of property belonging to the public. So, an accidental Boniface is, perhaps, a good name for him. In fact, he had no intention to destroy a tree symbolizing European guilt for all that is wrong in the world. He simply destroyed a tree to vandalize a landmark, which is simply an act of contempt. But despite his intentions, it is difficult to understand why he is being prosecuted rather than being hailed as a hero. After all, his act embraces the narrative of cultural self-hatred that the elite English sophisticates wear as a badge of honor. Nonetheless, despite supposed postmodern enlightenment, it would appear that a good many enlightened English voices still entertain religious notions, notions that they claim derive from imperialistic ignorance and for which, when it is more convenient, they affirm disdain. It is amazing how quickly that tune can change. Could it possibly be that a secular society denies on one side of its mouth what it affirms with pietistic sincerity on the other? By definition, as early Church Fathers pointed out, a society that cuts itself off from the source of all being is likely to fall into self-contradiction. That is what we see here. We would do well to question the ethical insight of a society that values a tree over a human fetus. The society that affirms as a crime the destruction of the former, but celebrates the destruction of the latter as a woman’s right, has simply lost its way morally. Should we be surprised that such a society lives in moral contradiction?