Volume 3, Issue 34
There seems to be this perception that there cannot be such a thing as principled truth because it limits one’s ability to be a free spirit in a new precept of pursuit of happiness. This narcissistic philosophy advances the proposition that all truth is evolving, and individuals must evolve with it. Followers of this belief system have now progressed to the point that they are convinced there are no eternal truths, and also that anyone who advocates principled truths must be attacked.
There are two key points to this exchange. First, all that was required to defend truth was for someone to take a stand and express it in common language. Principled truth will defend itself. The second point is that the other members of the panel felt a need to attack the coach and the free exercise of his religious faith. Why? We can only speculate. But it may be that, in setting themselves above the truth, they were afraid of the angst of facing their own reality that they are not superior to eternal truths.
This ideology of evolving positions has just lately plagued Hillary Rodham Clinton. Bernie Sanders has pointed out that she has flip-flopped several times in the past few years on basic fundamental issues, such as the war in Iraq, free trade, the Keystone Pipeline, and gay marriage. These issues are lines of demarcation politically. To be for these issues or against them, and then completely switch your position, is not dealing with shades of gray. It is changing your opinion of who you are based on your core values. Bernie properly states that he has always been consistent in reference to these issues. In past years, he has taken tremendous political heat for his stances. Hillary says that she has evolved, that intelligent people can change their mind, and that she has always fought for the underclass. Secretary Clinton’s critics would claim that she takes positions that are politically expedient. The question now becomes – if she is elected President, how else might changes in her positions evolve?
When President Ronald Reagan was faced with criticism for his suggestion that one tool teens could use to prevent unwanted pregnancies was to abstain from sex, the Washington Post opined that surely we’re not going back to that quaint old notion of fidelity. In other words, the truth of abstaining from sex before marriage and remaining loyal in marriage were not eternal truths, but old-fashioned ideas. Surely, according to the press, we had evolved as a society to a greater morality, a culture wherein only individuals and their desires matter. President Reagan stood his ground. In preparation for his next public speech, he simply demanded an explanation from his cabinet why, as a nation, we should not at least support abstinence as an option. His simple question stopped the debate. The truth defended itself. Of course it should be a choice. Of course as adults we should offer it as an option for adolescents. By taking a stand, the President defended the truth. And the Washington Post has never made mention of it again.
Truth is the basis of sustained humanity. Without truth, there is no morality. Without morality, there is no commitment to each other. Without commitment, there is no continuity between the generations. Without continuity, there is a decline in culture. In a declining culture, there is no hope. Without hope, there is nothing left but despair. Eternal principles are the cement that binds the cultural building blocks of the future.
As citizens, it is our moral imperative to first determine what we believe, and then to commit to the truths of that belief. It is not acceptable to give our leaders a pass on principles based on a philosophy that all truths are evolving, resulting in an ever changing belief system.
Truth is based on eternal principles. It is worth defending.
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
What do you believe?