THE VARIOUS WAYS THAT GOOD DEEDS ARE PUNISHED
The cynical saying that "No good deed goes unpunished" is not
a verbatim quote from Scripture, but quite a few Biblical characters--
even besides Our Lord Himself--did find themselves being punished
precisely for doing good. Elijah, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, Peter
and Paul come readily to mind. But it should hardly be necessary to
explain why they were abused and persecuted: evil, unrepentant men,
who were dedicated to wickedness because they enjoyed the selfish
pleasures wickedness brought them, were trying to silence truth, as
in the case of the corrupt Herod Antipas not wanting to be rebuked
by John the Baptist.
But more examination may be required to understand why doers
of good may be "punished" by persons who are NOT acting out of
a conscious and obstinate persistence in recognizable evil. Friends,
family members, fellow believers, and recipients of acts of mercy
all may "punish" a Christian who acts in good conscience--and they
may even think they are doing it for their target's good. So, allow
me to list, in no particular order, the occasions for "punishment."
1} A Christian--indeed, anyone acting upon even flesh-based
kindness--will often come up against astonishing ingratitude from
persons toward whom he or she has displayed generosity. This is
usually because those recipients, whether as individuals or as a
politically-correct victim-group, have learned to have an inflated
sense of entitlement. They feel that they already had a _right_ to
be given whatever help or benefit the generous person gave them,
so they owe that person no thanks or appreciation. They may even
have the attitude "You should have gotten here sooner and given
me more than this; what's wrong with you?"
2} If we do a good deed that someone else _ought_ to have
done and didn't do, even if we are unaware that this other person
was any part of the situation or had any power or duty to act, the
person who failed to act may feel that we are purposely trying to
shame and embarrass him or her. Now, it is true that we should
try to avoid intruding on someone else's territory carelessly; if
the need was not urgent, we should consider the possibility that
the "assigned" person might indeed have attended to it one hour
later if we had kept our noses out of the business. Unfortunate
misunderstandings in matters like this, even where neither party
started out with anything but good intentions, can devastate
friendships. But on the other hand, sometimes the need we see
IS urgent and can't wait for the expected person to intervene;
in that case, it becomes our duty to do the good deed at once,
and it's just too bad if someone else's feathers get ruffled.
3} Someone who is not evil, but who has a different opinion
about exactly _what_ good people should be doing, may perceive
your good deed as going in the wrong direction. For instance, a
perfectly genuine Christian, who simply has never sufficiently
thought through the consequences of making people passively
dependent on government, may look upon an opponent of big
welfare-state government as "having no compassion" and
"siding with the rich against the poor." The fact that liberal
Christians mean well does not make it hurt any less when they
impose caricatures of "right-wing neofascists" on those of us
who sound the alarm about central-government tyranny. Of
course, the liberals would be quick to retort indignantly that
_they_ are hurt by being stereotyped as associated with hard
Marxism; but although this of course also happens, the plain
fact is that present-day media outlets carry FAR MORE slurs
against conservatives than the reverse. (Just try to find _one_
recent action movie in which any large industrial corporation
is depicted as a _good_ thing!)
4} I recall a saying from C.S. Lewis: "Sometimes your only
reward for doing a good deed is to be called on to do a harder
and better one." If you do a good deed which is very costly to
you, and which you simply do not have the power to repeat at
frequent intervals, onlookers and associates may nonetheless
assume that the deed actually came easily for you--and so it's
perfectly all right for them to start demanding that you DO
keep repeating the action daily.
5} Some fellow believers will concoct reasons to claim that
your good deed was "unspiritual." The self-appointed piety
police will accuse you of "exalting yourself" or "trying to earn
salvation by works"--even if nothing of the sort ever crossed
your mind. If you run into difficulties, as doers of good usually
do, your critics will pounce like the false friends of Job, saying
that this is the Lord "showing" you that you're out of His will.
6} AAAAAAAAAAAND of course....the same God-hating
secular establishment which will call you a hypocrite if you
_aren't_ visibly doing good deeds....will call you self-righteous
if you _are_ doing them.
Nonetheless, I urge you in the words of Paul to the Galatian
church: "Let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season
we will reap if we do not lose heart." If we wait to be active in
God's service until we feel sure that we will be appreciated and
will not be unjustly criticized, we might never get started.
====================================
After this recent article was distributed by e-mail, one Christian lady who had seen it suggested another "punishment": people might tell you that the good deed you just did should have been done for someone else rather than the person you did it for.
Friday, November 30, 2007
And Now, Back To Preserving Things Written SINCE My Old Blogs Froze Up
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WAVES AND SEAS
6 AUGUST 2007:
If I were a passenger in the foremost car of a bullet train that was traveling south at 100 miles per hour, and if I rose from my seat and began walking toward the rear of the train, would I really be moving north? No, I would be moving south at 100 miles per hour minus my walking speed. For simplicity, I leave out the movement of the Earth in space, and the rotation of our galaxy on its axis. There can be forces in life that carry an individual or a society in quite a different direction than superficial movements may seem to indicate.
I gained a greater appreciation for this truth during my Navy career, when as a submarine sailor I learned the nautical distinction between “waves” and “seas.” Ocean waves, properly speaking, are merely ripples on the surface caused by the wind, in which a momentary _shape_ moves across the water; but “seas” refers to
the water _itself_ really moving, under the influence of tides and currents. Thus, a wind out of the northeast would produce waves that made it look as if the ocean’s water were moving toward the southwest, but the real motion of the current could be in exactly the opposite direction. That’s why the traditional good-luck wish of the Navy is “Fair winds _and_ following seas!”—referring to two independent variables.
Speaking of social trends as being toward “right” or “left” is a simplification, like omitting the Earth’s movement in space from the bullet-train illustration; but as in that illustration, a simplification can sometimes correctly focus our attention on those things that actually affect our lives. Thus it is not wrong to
say that, during my entire lifetime, there have been periods of _wave_ motion in society toward the right, but the _seas_ have always kept moving left.
Forty years ago, anyone who advocated giving homosexual cohabitation the full dignity and honor of marriage would have been universally recognized, by those approving of him as well as by those denouncing him, as being on the left. Now, however, in all trendy circles, dogmatic support of homosexual “marriage” _combined_ with unquestioning approval of totally unrestricted abortion is only _barely_ enough to prevent you from being branded as an ultra-reactionary RIGHT-wing extremist.
Forty years ago, the hippie movement, powerful though it was with the help of other pro-Communist forces, was still on the fringes of American society. By now, the graduates of hippiedom have become the establishment, and have many Americans convinced beyond question that everything hippies ever wanted, including the abandonment of Southeast Asia to tyranny, was always so noble that no one but a depraved idiot could argue against it.
A politician like Rudy Giuliani, who favors both abortion and homosexuality AND is himself an unrepentant adulterer, could never have hoped to pass as a moral conservative when I was a teenager; but now he can. I recently heard conservative
radio host Michael Medved speaking on the air with a Giulani supporter, and Mr. Medved allowed his guest to get away with the weaselling evasion of calling Giuliani’s intentional adultery merely a “mistake”—the very sort of evasion Bill Clinton would use to make premeditated immorality sound like a mere accident. Medved permitted this, not because he himself or the conservative movement as a whole have begun approving of adultery, but because these days there scarcely even _are_ any more politicians of adequate prominence who have not gone even farther left on the scale than Giulani has. Much of politics has gone from good guys against bad guys to bad guys against worse guys. {How I wish Duncan Hunter had been given a fair chance!}
I have pondered how the difference between fleeting waves and persistent seas applies to President George W. Bush, a man who continues to be vilified by the hard left for showing ANY remaining vestige of conservative policies—and yet who is himself an advocate of causes which properly belong to the left, such as pressuring Israel to make suicidal concessions to absolutely unappeasable enemies in the name of “peace.” In at least one area of policy, I think that Mr. Bush in the very act of doing a left-wing thing may be trying to be _relatively_ conservative. I have in mind his endless pandering to illegal aliens, and to the Mexican government which he _knows_ is urging them forward in their parasitism upon the United States.
Mr. Bush has lived around globalists all his life. It is my opinion that he believes that the tide of world events is moving unstoppably toward the merging of nations and the loss of our sovereignty. If Mr. Bush is promoting a North American Union, it may be that he is not preferring this _over_ a free United States, but rather that he is preferring it over a single, complete one-world monopoly dictatorship. It may be that he hopes to make waves contrary to the seas, allowing _only_ a regional union as a power center that could resist the still-worse totalitarian planetary regime that the United Nations wants to impose on all of us everywhere.
If this is indeed the President's opinion and hope, I say that we should be at once more optimistic and more pessimistic than he is. Let us fight global totalitarianism as if it were still possible to keep the United States intact, AND prepare our souls for the worst as if the planetwide commune were certain to be in place next week. And as long as we have any strength and freedom left for the fight, we need to try to understand what are the trends occurring around us--as I have tried to do a little bit in this article. Even if we can't change the trend of the seas, the waves we make might nudge some people a little closer to a saving knowledge of Jesus--Whose authority is what the one-world system _really_ wishes to destroy.
Ut fidem praestem in difficultate!
6 AUGUST 2007:
If I were a passenger in the foremost car of a bullet train that was traveling south at 100 miles per hour, and if I rose from my seat and began walking toward the rear of the train, would I really be moving north? No, I would be moving south at 100 miles per hour minus my walking speed. For simplicity, I leave out the movement of the Earth in space, and the rotation of our galaxy on its axis. There can be forces in life that carry an individual or a society in quite a different direction than superficial movements may seem to indicate.
I gained a greater appreciation for this truth during my Navy career, when as a submarine sailor I learned the nautical distinction between “waves” and “seas.” Ocean waves, properly speaking, are merely ripples on the surface caused by the wind, in which a momentary _shape_ moves across the water; but “seas” refers to
the water _itself_ really moving, under the influence of tides and currents. Thus, a wind out of the northeast would produce waves that made it look as if the ocean’s water were moving toward the southwest, but the real motion of the current could be in exactly the opposite direction. That’s why the traditional good-luck wish of the Navy is “Fair winds _and_ following seas!”—referring to two independent variables.
Speaking of social trends as being toward “right” or “left” is a simplification, like omitting the Earth’s movement in space from the bullet-train illustration; but as in that illustration, a simplification can sometimes correctly focus our attention on those things that actually affect our lives. Thus it is not wrong to
say that, during my entire lifetime, there have been periods of _wave_ motion in society toward the right, but the _seas_ have always kept moving left.
Forty years ago, anyone who advocated giving homosexual cohabitation the full dignity and honor of marriage would have been universally recognized, by those approving of him as well as by those denouncing him, as being on the left. Now, however, in all trendy circles, dogmatic support of homosexual “marriage” _combined_ with unquestioning approval of totally unrestricted abortion is only _barely_ enough to prevent you from being branded as an ultra-reactionary RIGHT-wing extremist.
Forty years ago, the hippie movement, powerful though it was with the help of other pro-Communist forces, was still on the fringes of American society. By now, the graduates of hippiedom have become the establishment, and have many Americans convinced beyond question that everything hippies ever wanted, including the abandonment of Southeast Asia to tyranny, was always so noble that no one but a depraved idiot could argue against it.
A politician like Rudy Giuliani, who favors both abortion and homosexuality AND is himself an unrepentant adulterer, could never have hoped to pass as a moral conservative when I was a teenager; but now he can. I recently heard conservative
radio host Michael Medved speaking on the air with a Giulani supporter, and Mr. Medved allowed his guest to get away with the weaselling evasion of calling Giuliani’s intentional adultery merely a “mistake”—the very sort of evasion Bill Clinton would use to make premeditated immorality sound like a mere accident. Medved permitted this, not because he himself or the conservative movement as a whole have begun approving of adultery, but because these days there scarcely even _are_ any more politicians of adequate prominence who have not gone even farther left on the scale than Giulani has. Much of politics has gone from good guys against bad guys to bad guys against worse guys. {How I wish Duncan Hunter had been given a fair chance!}
I have pondered how the difference between fleeting waves and persistent seas applies to President George W. Bush, a man who continues to be vilified by the hard left for showing ANY remaining vestige of conservative policies—and yet who is himself an advocate of causes which properly belong to the left, such as pressuring Israel to make suicidal concessions to absolutely unappeasable enemies in the name of “peace.” In at least one area of policy, I think that Mr. Bush in the very act of doing a left-wing thing may be trying to be _relatively_ conservative. I have in mind his endless pandering to illegal aliens, and to the Mexican government which he _knows_ is urging them forward in their parasitism upon the United States.
Mr. Bush has lived around globalists all his life. It is my opinion that he believes that the tide of world events is moving unstoppably toward the merging of nations and the loss of our sovereignty. If Mr. Bush is promoting a North American Union, it may be that he is not preferring this _over_ a free United States, but rather that he is preferring it over a single, complete one-world monopoly dictatorship. It may be that he hopes to make waves contrary to the seas, allowing _only_ a regional union as a power center that could resist the still-worse totalitarian planetary regime that the United Nations wants to impose on all of us everywhere.
If this is indeed the President's opinion and hope, I say that we should be at once more optimistic and more pessimistic than he is. Let us fight global totalitarianism as if it were still possible to keep the United States intact, AND prepare our souls for the worst as if the planetwide commune were certain to be in place next week. And as long as we have any strength and freedom left for the fight, we need to try to understand what are the trends occurring around us--as I have tried to do a little bit in this article. Even if we can't change the trend of the seas, the waves we make might nudge some people a little closer to a saving knowledge of Jesus--Whose authority is what the one-world system _really_ wishes to destroy.
Ut fidem praestem in difficultate!
"Anti-Nonsense Alerts" Also Held What I Saved From The Old Homepage
This example had been one of the longest-kept articles on the "Empowered For Freedom" site, an essay which had gone through several revisions after its debut somewhere around maybe mid-1997.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*** THE GREAT EITHER-OR
Suppose that a helicopter is carrying you into a country completely unknown to you. While still high in the air, you see below you a gigantic pile of ruins: a great stone structure newly demolished, the dust of its collapse only now settling. Tiny human figures are swarming over the rubble, but you are too far away to see their faces or get any impression of their emotions.
The pilot of your helicopter tells you, "That place was a horrible prison, a dungeon of tyranny and injustice. Those people you see are the prisoners, now liberated from an undeserved confinement. The destruction of their prison was the best thing that could have happened to them; now they're free!" But the copilot immediately contradicts him: "Nonsense! That structure was a fortress, which protected those people from their enemies; it also contained the only modern hospital in a five- hundred-mile radius. Having that refuge didn't mean that those people were prisoners---and losing it is a frightful disaster for them!"
Your pilot and copilot cannot both be equally right. The only way to know which of their explanations, if either, is more accurate, is to land the helicopter and investigate more closely. The "Empowered For Freedom" site is here to help you investigate.
If that unknown country is the U.S.A., the demolished structure is that general consensus on Biblical doctrine and morality which sustained our country from its founding until sometime this century. We say "sometime," because the spiritual structure of the U.S.A. was not shattered at a single stroke; rather, it was eroded and undermined. Many citizens nowadays will tell you that this Judeo-Christian consensus was a prison, unnaturally restraining people, and that Americans are better off without it. But we, and many others of both sexes and all races, maintain that it was our fortress, indeed the very foundation of American law and liberty; and that unless it is rebuilt, our individual freedoms are doomed to be lost. Both views cannot be equally true. Either a cruel dungeon, or a saving shelter; it's in your best interests to determine which it was.
Before anyone objects that this choice is too simplistic, let me show one of the complications myself: what I call a "three-sided dualism." The Biblical worldview has always had two major classes of competition: the belief in false gods, and the belief in no gods. Insofar as these two rivals of the truth are also rivals to each other, each will have its own take on the wrecking of the fortress--actually confusing the other falsehood with the Biblical view! Thusly:
A worshipper of false gods--for instance, your standard-model California New Age occultist--may regard Christianity and scientific materialism as allies to each other--strange news to the Christian and the materialist!---because the Christian and the materialist both use organized logic, and both reject the idea of casting magic spells. The occultist, therefore, will believe that he/she beholds the wreckage of atheistic science right alongside the rubble of Christianity in the demolished edifice, and consider it good riddance to both. Meanwhile, the atheist-materialist believes that the Christian and the occultist are more allied to each other than either is to science--because, of course, the Christian and the occultist both believe in supernatural powers at which the materialist scoffs. The materialist, therefore, sees the ruined fortress as the tomb of two supernatural approaches that are both long outdated and worthless.
It is, however, the Christian who actually stands farther removed from the atheist and the pagan than either of those is from the other...because no two false beliefs can be so profoundly separate from each other as all falsehoods are separate from truth. Any Christian adequately educated in history understands that materialism and counterfeit supernaturalism both helped break up the foundations of America's traditional worldview. So, when Christians try to rebuild a morally upright society, although we need not be so hostile to non-Christian involvement as Nehemiah was to the non-Jews who pretended to offer help in rebuilding Jerusalem (intending to sabotage the work), we must deal with non-Christians having a distorted understanding of what it was that collapsed, and what needs to be rebuilt.
To any non-Christian supernaturalist who reads this, I would say: if you've come this far without quitting the site in a huff, you probably are not someone who consciously desires to sabotage truth. Still, you need to be getting spiritual guidance from the right source--the Word of God--if your good intentions are ever to produce genuinely good results. And to the scientific materialist who's made it to this paragraph, I would say: if you even hope to achieve _material_ good in this life, you'd better work on your intellectual honesty. By this I mean that the materialist dismisses every form of faith held by the recognizably religious--yet the materialist himself/herself also operates on faith: faith in whatever scientific theory is in fashion at the moment.
For my part, I did not become a Christian without first considering the merits both of materialism and of occultism. As you continue through our website, I hope that by God's grace Mary and I will be able to show you that the Christian agenda for society is viable and beneficial--because Christianity itself is true and reasonable, not a thing of empty fantasy. So land your helicopter, and get down to digging for the evidence of what I say. In reality, those whose hearts are in Heaven are those who also do the best job of getting down to earth.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*** THE GREAT EITHER-OR
Suppose that a helicopter is carrying you into a country completely unknown to you. While still high in the air, you see below you a gigantic pile of ruins: a great stone structure newly demolished, the dust of its collapse only now settling. Tiny human figures are swarming over the rubble, but you are too far away to see their faces or get any impression of their emotions.
The pilot of your helicopter tells you, "That place was a horrible prison, a dungeon of tyranny and injustice. Those people you see are the prisoners, now liberated from an undeserved confinement. The destruction of their prison was the best thing that could have happened to them; now they're free!" But the copilot immediately contradicts him: "Nonsense! That structure was a fortress, which protected those people from their enemies; it also contained the only modern hospital in a five- hundred-mile radius. Having that refuge didn't mean that those people were prisoners---and losing it is a frightful disaster for them!"
Your pilot and copilot cannot both be equally right. The only way to know which of their explanations, if either, is more accurate, is to land the helicopter and investigate more closely. The "Empowered For Freedom" site is here to help you investigate.
If that unknown country is the U.S.A., the demolished structure is that general consensus on Biblical doctrine and morality which sustained our country from its founding until sometime this century. We say "sometime," because the spiritual structure of the U.S.A. was not shattered at a single stroke; rather, it was eroded and undermined. Many citizens nowadays will tell you that this Judeo-Christian consensus was a prison, unnaturally restraining people, and that Americans are better off without it. But we, and many others of both sexes and all races, maintain that it was our fortress, indeed the very foundation of American law and liberty; and that unless it is rebuilt, our individual freedoms are doomed to be lost. Both views cannot be equally true. Either a cruel dungeon, or a saving shelter; it's in your best interests to determine which it was.
Before anyone objects that this choice is too simplistic, let me show one of the complications myself: what I call a "three-sided dualism." The Biblical worldview has always had two major classes of competition: the belief in false gods, and the belief in no gods. Insofar as these two rivals of the truth are also rivals to each other, each will have its own take on the wrecking of the fortress--actually confusing the other falsehood with the Biblical view! Thusly:
A worshipper of false gods--for instance, your standard-model California New Age occultist--may regard Christianity and scientific materialism as allies to each other--strange news to the Christian and the materialist!---because the Christian and the materialist both use organized logic, and both reject the idea of casting magic spells. The occultist, therefore, will believe that he/she beholds the wreckage of atheistic science right alongside the rubble of Christianity in the demolished edifice, and consider it good riddance to both. Meanwhile, the atheist-materialist believes that the Christian and the occultist are more allied to each other than either is to science--because, of course, the Christian and the occultist both believe in supernatural powers at which the materialist scoffs. The materialist, therefore, sees the ruined fortress as the tomb of two supernatural approaches that are both long outdated and worthless.
It is, however, the Christian who actually stands farther removed from the atheist and the pagan than either of those is from the other...because no two false beliefs can be so profoundly separate from each other as all falsehoods are separate from truth. Any Christian adequately educated in history understands that materialism and counterfeit supernaturalism both helped break up the foundations of America's traditional worldview. So, when Christians try to rebuild a morally upright society, although we need not be so hostile to non-Christian involvement as Nehemiah was to the non-Jews who pretended to offer help in rebuilding Jerusalem (intending to sabotage the work), we must deal with non-Christians having a distorted understanding of what it was that collapsed, and what needs to be rebuilt.
To any non-Christian supernaturalist who reads this, I would say: if you've come this far without quitting the site in a huff, you probably are not someone who consciously desires to sabotage truth. Still, you need to be getting spiritual guidance from the right source--the Word of God--if your good intentions are ever to produce genuinely good results. And to the scientific materialist who's made it to this paragraph, I would say: if you even hope to achieve _material_ good in this life, you'd better work on your intellectual honesty. By this I mean that the materialist dismisses every form of faith held by the recognizably religious--yet the materialist himself/herself also operates on faith: faith in whatever scientific theory is in fashion at the moment.
For my part, I did not become a Christian without first considering the merits both of materialism and of occultism. As you continue through our website, I hope that by God's grace Mary and I will be able to show you that the Christian agenda for society is viable and beneficial--because Christianity itself is true and reasonable, not a thing of empty fantasy. So land your helicopter, and get down to digging for the evidence of what I say. In reality, those whose hearts are in Heaven are those who also do the best job of getting down to earth.
Okay, This Is Going Pretty Well, Knock On Wood
By the way, I accidentally omitted the title of that Islam-related article. It was called "Disarmng The False-Guilt Bomb." And now to share what was the very _next_ "Empowered For Freedom" column that I displayed on "Anti-Nonsense Alerts." This one had first been written, as I recall, in autumn of 2005.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::
PREEE-SENTING THE _VERY_ FIRST
STRONG AND AGGRESSIVE WOMAN
_EVER_ SEEN !!
Forty or more years ago, the British TV series "The Avengers"
helped audiences get used to the idea of women who could fight
physically with men and win. The audiences did get used to it;
after all, they had already seen Wonder Woman comics for years,
and those who followed samurai movies had seen deadly swordswomen
on the screen. By the time "The Bionic Woman" and "Charlie's Angels"
were created, popular culture had almost forgotten that there was
ever a time when warrior women were not regarded as commonplace.
Audiences got used to it just fine. But scriptwriters could not get used to the fact that audiences had gotten used to it. They could not bear to acknowledge that the novelty had already passed. So they kept on trumpeting THE VERY FIRST powerful woman...over and over and over and over. The patriarchal straw man had to keep getting knocked down again and again, with each time the "first" time.
Sigourney Weaver in the "Alien" movies was a bold, innovative, unique, daring new
character: a woman who could fight her own battles! Buffy the Vampire Slayer was a bold, innovative, unique, daring new character: a woman who could fight her own battles! Xena the Warrior Princess was a bold, innovative, unique, daring new
character: a woman who could fight her own battles! Demi Moore in "G.I. Jane" was a bold, innovative, unique, daring new character: a woman who could fight her own battles! Claudia Christian's character on "Babylon 5" was a bold, innovative, unique, daring new character: a woman who could fight her own battles! The "Matrix" heroine Trinity was a bold, innovative, unique, daring new character: a woman who
could fight her own battles! Halle Berry as Catwoman was a bold, innovative, unique, daring new character: a woman who could fight her own battles! Milla Jovovich's character in the "Resident Evil" films was a bold, innovative, unique, daring new character: a woman who could fight her own battles! Aeryn Sun of the "Farscape" series was a bold, innovative, unique, daring new character: a woman who could fight her own battles! Guinevere in the recent "King Arthur" movie was a bold, innovative, unique, daring new character: a woman who could fight her own battles! The rewritten-as-female Starbuck on the new "Battlestar Galactica" is a bold, innovative, unique, daring new character: a woman who can fight her own battles!
Well, since women in Western civilization are so obviously being kept in barefoot-and-pregnant subjugation, what we clearly need is a bold, innovative, unique, daring new TV series which, FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, will depict a woman as being strong and independent, able to think and act for herself. That series, now to be seen on ABC-TV, is "Commander in Chief," starring Geena Davis of "Thelma and Louise" fame as President Hillary Clinton --excuse me, I mean as a fictional female U.S. President.
>> The male-chauvinist straw-man characters on this program plainly have never watched "The Avengers," "Buffy," "Xena," "Babylon 5," or the "Matrix" trilogy, since they just can't believe that a woman could be capable of leadership. I expect, however, that the real message of the show, aimed at us flesh-and-blood men, will be: "If you don't approve of a woman leader practicing far-left-wing politics, that is one and the same thing as you opposing ANY and all women in leadership!"
There's a message fit to fertilize the cornfields of Iowa.
Admirers of Ronald Reagan are typically also admirers of his ally Margaret Thatcher. The United States Armed Forces are full of men who have largely conservative political views, yet have no trouble at all obeying orders from female officers. Millions of conservative American men would happily vote for Condoleezza Rice as our next President, and are delighted to receive the socio-political insights of Michelle Malkin, Janet Parshall, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Star Parker and other smart women. Last time I checked, none of those women were being kept in slavish submission by conservative men.
So let Geena Davis have her TV fantasy of being THE VERY FIRST woman allowed to attain a position of leadership. But all of us who pay attention to actual facts know how far removed her sulking straw men are from conservative-male reality. If
this new series proves a hit, it will prove that many Americans prefer self-deception over easily available truth. But then, we already knew that; just look at
the way members of both parties are desperately deceiving themselves that Palestinian thugs don't mean what they say about continuing to attack Israel
regardless of how many concessions are offered. Or look at the way members of both
parties have ignored the totally predictable damage being done by millions of illegal immigrants feeding at the trough of America's welfare system without giving
America any loyalty in return.
Given the speed with which ignored realities can return to bite us, I think that the great American self-deception program, of which ABC's feminist dead-horse-beating exercise is only a small part, will not be able to stay on the air much longer. And
if America falls under totalitarianism, Nielsen ratings will be the very least of Geena Davis' worries.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::
PREEE-SENTING THE _VERY_ FIRST
STRONG AND AGGRESSIVE WOMAN
_EVER_ SEEN !!
Forty or more years ago, the British TV series "The Avengers"
helped audiences get used to the idea of women who could fight
physically with men and win. The audiences did get used to it;
after all, they had already seen Wonder Woman comics for years,
and those who followed samurai movies had seen deadly swordswomen
on the screen. By the time "The Bionic Woman" and "Charlie's Angels"
were created, popular culture had almost forgotten that there was
ever a time when warrior women were not regarded as commonplace.
Audiences got used to it just fine. But scriptwriters could not get used to the fact that audiences had gotten used to it. They could not bear to acknowledge that the novelty had already passed. So they kept on trumpeting THE VERY FIRST powerful woman...over and over and over and over. The patriarchal straw man had to keep getting knocked down again and again, with each time the "first" time.
Sigourney Weaver in the "Alien" movies was a bold, innovative, unique, daring new
character: a woman who could fight her own battles! Buffy the Vampire Slayer was a bold, innovative, unique, daring new character: a woman who could fight her own battles! Xena the Warrior Princess was a bold, innovative, unique, daring new
character: a woman who could fight her own battles! Demi Moore in "G.I. Jane" was a bold, innovative, unique, daring new character: a woman who could fight her own battles! Claudia Christian's character on "Babylon 5" was a bold, innovative, unique, daring new character: a woman who could fight her own battles! The "Matrix" heroine Trinity was a bold, innovative, unique, daring new character: a woman who
could fight her own battles! Halle Berry as Catwoman was a bold, innovative, unique, daring new character: a woman who could fight her own battles! Milla Jovovich's character in the "Resident Evil" films was a bold, innovative, unique, daring new character: a woman who could fight her own battles! Aeryn Sun of the "Farscape" series was a bold, innovative, unique, daring new character: a woman who could fight her own battles! Guinevere in the recent "King Arthur" movie was a bold, innovative, unique, daring new character: a woman who could fight her own battles! The rewritten-as-female Starbuck on the new "Battlestar Galactica" is a bold, innovative, unique, daring new character: a woman who can fight her own battles!
Well, since women in Western civilization are so obviously being kept in barefoot-and-pregnant subjugation, what we clearly need is a bold, innovative, unique, daring new TV series which, FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, will depict a woman as being strong and independent, able to think and act for herself. That series, now to be seen on ABC-TV, is "Commander in Chief," starring Geena Davis of "Thelma and Louise" fame as President Hillary Clinton --excuse me, I mean as a fictional female U.S. President.
>> The male-chauvinist straw-man characters on this program plainly have never watched "The Avengers," "Buffy," "Xena," "Babylon 5," or the "Matrix" trilogy, since they just can't believe that a woman could be capable of leadership. I expect, however, that the real message of the show, aimed at us flesh-and-blood men, will be: "If you don't approve of a woman leader practicing far-left-wing politics, that is one and the same thing as you opposing ANY and all women in leadership!"
There's a message fit to fertilize the cornfields of Iowa.
Admirers of Ronald Reagan are typically also admirers of his ally Margaret Thatcher. The United States Armed Forces are full of men who have largely conservative political views, yet have no trouble at all obeying orders from female officers. Millions of conservative American men would happily vote for Condoleezza Rice as our next President, and are delighted to receive the socio-political insights of Michelle Malkin, Janet Parshall, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Star Parker and other smart women. Last time I checked, none of those women were being kept in slavish submission by conservative men.
So let Geena Davis have her TV fantasy of being THE VERY FIRST woman allowed to attain a position of leadership. But all of us who pay attention to actual facts know how far removed her sulking straw men are from conservative-male reality. If
this new series proves a hit, it will prove that many Americans prefer self-deception over easily available truth. But then, we already knew that; just look at
the way members of both parties are desperately deceiving themselves that Palestinian thugs don't mean what they say about continuing to attack Israel
regardless of how many concessions are offered. Or look at the way members of both
parties have ignored the totally predictable damage being done by millions of illegal immigrants feeding at the trough of America's welfare system without giving
America any loyalty in return.
Given the speed with which ignored realities can return to bite us, I think that the great American self-deception program, of which ABC's feminist dead-horse-beating exercise is only a small part, will not be able to stay on the air much longer. And
if America falls under totalitarianism, Nielsen ratings will be the very least of Geena Davis' worries.
Another Prior-Blog Salvage
My second blog, "Anti-Nonsense Alerts," was begun in early January of 2006, because I saw that hardly anyone was taking me up on the gentle-dialogue invitation anyway. The second blog was an extension of a writing ministry that my departed Mary had actually initiated, which we called (and I still call) "Empowered For Freedom." An actual website by that name, which Mary and I had operated since 1997, sank into oblivion with the collapse of the fly-by-night web server Global Aloha.
My first post on the second blog (after explaining there why I was starting another blog) was this article which had originated in e-mail format, after our old website had begun faltering...
___________________________
Some years ago, a group of Wicca practicioners raised a great
stink against the film "The Wizard of Oz." They were outraged
that a witch was depicted as evil--even though another, equally
prominent witch was depicted as good. It wasn't good enough
for them for a film to say that some witches were good; ALL
witches must be above criticism. If a movie showed some
Christian clergymen as bad but others as good, any Christian
who complained about this would be dismissed as a thin-
skinned whiner; but for witches, whose very worldview entails
wanting to bend reality to their personal will, it's only
natural to demand favoritism and call it fairness.
Hold that thought...and turn your thoughts much farther
back in the history of cinema, to the silent era.
Douglas Fairbanks Senior, first of the great swashbucklers,
made a movie called "The Thief of Baghdad," one of the first
great fantasy adventures on film. It was set in a Muslim
civilization, and it portrayed Muslim civilization in a favorable
light. It was not the only American silent movie to do so. (How
did Rudolf Valentino become a sex symbol, if not by starring
in "The Sheik"?)
In 1935, Cecil B. DeMille released "The Crusades," which
(not without factual justification) depicted Saladin as a more
civilized and reasonable man than Richard the Lion-Hearted.
This was in an era when racism still was a very serious
problem in America, yet even racism did nothing to prevent
Muslim culture from being given a fairly friendly portrayal.
Not many years later, Asian actor Sabu starred in
Michael Korda's remake of "The Thief of Baghdad," and in
the new screenplay a very explicitly Islamic spirituality was
clearly shown as the supreme height of merit achieved by
Sabu's character. At least two more adaptations of the story
were to follow in subsequent years; and interspersed with
them would be seven or more films about the Arabian Nights
heroes Ali Baba and Sinbad--all putting Muslim culture in
a positive light.
One of Charlton Heston's earliest leading roles was in
"El Cid." This epic had a Muslim villain, but took pains to
indicate to the audience that this villain was NOT part of
the Islamic mainstream. The Christian hero is made at one
point to suggest that his converting to Islam is conceivable,
but none of the Muslim good guys _ever_ hints at becoming
a Christian. (Making Christianity "exactly equal" to other
faiths always leads to considering it LESS equal--not because
any flaws are discovered in Christianity, but because fallen
human nature has a bias against the gospel.)
Live theater in the English-speaking world has also been
generous to Muslims. Sigmund Romberg's operetta "The
Desert Song" romanticized Arabs; though the hero was really
a European, he sympathized strongly with the Arabs. The
later musical "Kismet" had an all-Muslim cast of characters,
including the historical figure Omar Khayyam. Both shows
also became films eventually.
"Lawrence of Arabia," "The Wind and the Lion," and
Brendan Fraser's more recent Mummy movies have all
made Muslims look good. Topping them all, however, was
Kevin Costner's revisionist Robin Hood film. "Robin Hood,
Prince of Thieves" not only practically made its Muslim
character the star instead of Robin Hood, but in addition
it promoted one medium falsehood and two whopping
falsehoods. Medium falsehood: suggesting that Muslims
invented the telescope. (It was a European who invented
it, after the period when Robin Hood would have lived.)
First whopping falsehood: claiming that male-female
relationships in Muslim societies, _more_ than in Christian
societies, are developed by open communication between
the sexes (when Azim says, "We talk to our women").
Second whopper: when Robin says that the land of Israel
is rightfully Muslim territory.
Add up all these productions, and can you seriously
say that Western media and entertainment have always
portrayed Muslims in a derogatory manner? Not if you
have any honesty, you can't.
But now it's time to remember those Wiccans fussing
about "The Wizard of Oz."
Radical Islam, the system that approved putting out a
murder contract on Salmon Rushdie because he wrote a
book Islamists didn't like, doesn't care how many movies
you make that show Muslim culture as good. If you let
even ONE movie be made that says _anything_ critical of
Islam, you're an Islamophobic bigot. Muslims are allowed
to arrest you in _their_ countries just for talking about the
Lordship of Jesus; but if in a Western country you say
that something's wrong with Islam, you're the intolerant
one. If you're Dutch, you may get knifed for it.
Muslim activists in America, taking advantage of the
level of freedom here which NO Muslim country grants to
Christians, have the gall to claim that our entertainment
media are full of unfairly negative images of Muslims. Of
course, they also claim that there have been many anti-
Muslim hate crimes in America since the 9-11 attacks;
but many if not most of those crimes have turned out to
be fictions, made up by Muslims who knew that Americans
are vulnerable to manipulation by false guilt.
In a time when virtually ALL terrorist threats in the
world _are_ in fact of Muslim origin, American TV and
movies have bent over backwards to pretend that it's
really the old standard white-supremacist neo-Nazis who
are behind everything. Yet when the series "24" actually
got around to having Muslim terrorists in the plotline, the
Council on American-Islamic Relations went ballistic. Didn't
we bigoted Judeo-Christian Americans know that Osama
bin-Laden is really a white South African fascist or something?
But in case too many people figure out that the typical
modern terrorist IS a Muslim and is NOT a white South
African, they have a backup plan. If movie reviews are
accurate, the backup plan can be found in the new movie
"Syriana." Okay, the terrorists are Muslims...but it's not really
their fault. It's the fault of the evil American oil corporations!
Yes, now it all makes sense. Muhammad plundered the ancient
Jewish merchant colonies of Arabia because of evil American
oil corporations. The medieval Turkish empire kidnapped the
sons of Christians to make them janissaries because of evil
American oil corporations. Arabs were taking black Africans
as slaves before slavery got underway in America, but it was
the fault of those oil corporations. American oil tycoons gave
Egypt the idea of refusing to hear testimony from Coptic
Christians against Muslims. And Chechen terrorists wantonly
murdered schoolchildren in Beslan, Russia because of evil
American oil corporations.
Maybe I shouldn't be saying this; George Clooney might make
a movie claiming with a straight face that all the sarcastic
statements above are literal truth. But even if he does make
such a movie, it still won't be enough to make the C.A.I.R.
types drop their fraudulent complaints. (In case you think
I'm too hard on Clooney--did he not make an action movie in
which the big threat was a Serbian terrorist? Come on, now,
how many Serbian terrorist attacks have you heard of? It's
the Albanian Muslims who have ties to bin-Ladin, and who in
addition are deeply into forced-prostitution trafficking.)
I myself have Muslim neighbors. Not only do I get along
just fine with them, but I personally cook food for them at
Ramadan time. They could tell me if they were suffering
from hateful harassment just for being Muslims, and they
know that I would side with them against any such injustice;
but they have no such trouble to report, because THERE IS
NOT any widespread persecution of Muslims in America.
The C.A.I.R. types know that American Muslims are not
oppressed; but it suits them to pretend that they believe there
is oppression, so that false guilt over supposed prejudice will
weaken our will to fight real terrorism. We cannot afford to
let them succeed in this cynical deception.
How about this as a cure for the induced false guilt: let
Americans read English translations of the lying propaganda
which Iranian mullahs and Palestinian thugs broadcast against
Israel--even reviving the long-discredited "Protocols of the
Elders of Zion"--and then compare this for hatefulness with
the American media's average treatment of Muslims. Next,
have people see how long it takes to watch all the pro-Muslim
films I described above. If, after doing this research, you still
think that Muslims have a valid complaint about how they are
portrayed in the West, I have a tropical beach condo in Finland
I'd like to sell you.
Yours for Jesus and America,
Joseph Richard Ravitts
My first post on the second blog (after explaining there why I was starting another blog) was this article which had originated in e-mail format, after our old website had begun faltering...
___________________________
Some years ago, a group of Wicca practicioners raised a great
stink against the film "The Wizard of Oz." They were outraged
that a witch was depicted as evil--even though another, equally
prominent witch was depicted as good. It wasn't good enough
for them for a film to say that some witches were good; ALL
witches must be above criticism. If a movie showed some
Christian clergymen as bad but others as good, any Christian
who complained about this would be dismissed as a thin-
skinned whiner; but for witches, whose very worldview entails
wanting to bend reality to their personal will, it's only
natural to demand favoritism and call it fairness.
Hold that thought...and turn your thoughts much farther
back in the history of cinema, to the silent era.
Douglas Fairbanks Senior, first of the great swashbucklers,
made a movie called "The Thief of Baghdad," one of the first
great fantasy adventures on film. It was set in a Muslim
civilization, and it portrayed Muslim civilization in a favorable
light. It was not the only American silent movie to do so. (How
did Rudolf Valentino become a sex symbol, if not by starring
in "The Sheik"?)
In 1935, Cecil B. DeMille released "The Crusades," which
(not without factual justification) depicted Saladin as a more
civilized and reasonable man than Richard the Lion-Hearted.
This was in an era when racism still was a very serious
problem in America, yet even racism did nothing to prevent
Muslim culture from being given a fairly friendly portrayal.
Not many years later, Asian actor Sabu starred in
Michael Korda's remake of "The Thief of Baghdad," and in
the new screenplay a very explicitly Islamic spirituality was
clearly shown as the supreme height of merit achieved by
Sabu's character. At least two more adaptations of the story
were to follow in subsequent years; and interspersed with
them would be seven or more films about the Arabian Nights
heroes Ali Baba and Sinbad--all putting Muslim culture in
a positive light.
One of Charlton Heston's earliest leading roles was in
"El Cid." This epic had a Muslim villain, but took pains to
indicate to the audience that this villain was NOT part of
the Islamic mainstream. The Christian hero is made at one
point to suggest that his converting to Islam is conceivable,
but none of the Muslim good guys _ever_ hints at becoming
a Christian. (Making Christianity "exactly equal" to other
faiths always leads to considering it LESS equal--not because
any flaws are discovered in Christianity, but because fallen
human nature has a bias against the gospel.)
Live theater in the English-speaking world has also been
generous to Muslims. Sigmund Romberg's operetta "The
Desert Song" romanticized Arabs; though the hero was really
a European, he sympathized strongly with the Arabs. The
later musical "Kismet" had an all-Muslim cast of characters,
including the historical figure Omar Khayyam. Both shows
also became films eventually.
"Lawrence of Arabia," "The Wind and the Lion," and
Brendan Fraser's more recent Mummy movies have all
made Muslims look good. Topping them all, however, was
Kevin Costner's revisionist Robin Hood film. "Robin Hood,
Prince of Thieves" not only practically made its Muslim
character the star instead of Robin Hood, but in addition
it promoted one medium falsehood and two whopping
falsehoods. Medium falsehood: suggesting that Muslims
invented the telescope. (It was a European who invented
it, after the period when Robin Hood would have lived.)
First whopping falsehood: claiming that male-female
relationships in Muslim societies, _more_ than in Christian
societies, are developed by open communication between
the sexes (when Azim says, "We talk to our women").
Second whopper: when Robin says that the land of Israel
is rightfully Muslim territory.
Add up all these productions, and can you seriously
say that Western media and entertainment have always
portrayed Muslims in a derogatory manner? Not if you
have any honesty, you can't.
But now it's time to remember those Wiccans fussing
about "The Wizard of Oz."
Radical Islam, the system that approved putting out a
murder contract on Salmon Rushdie because he wrote a
book Islamists didn't like, doesn't care how many movies
you make that show Muslim culture as good. If you let
even ONE movie be made that says _anything_ critical of
Islam, you're an Islamophobic bigot. Muslims are allowed
to arrest you in _their_ countries just for talking about the
Lordship of Jesus; but if in a Western country you say
that something's wrong with Islam, you're the intolerant
one. If you're Dutch, you may get knifed for it.
Muslim activists in America, taking advantage of the
level of freedom here which NO Muslim country grants to
Christians, have the gall to claim that our entertainment
media are full of unfairly negative images of Muslims. Of
course, they also claim that there have been many anti-
Muslim hate crimes in America since the 9-11 attacks;
but many if not most of those crimes have turned out to
be fictions, made up by Muslims who knew that Americans
are vulnerable to manipulation by false guilt.
In a time when virtually ALL terrorist threats in the
world _are_ in fact of Muslim origin, American TV and
movies have bent over backwards to pretend that it's
really the old standard white-supremacist neo-Nazis who
are behind everything. Yet when the series "24" actually
got around to having Muslim terrorists in the plotline, the
Council on American-Islamic Relations went ballistic. Didn't
we bigoted Judeo-Christian Americans know that Osama
bin-Laden is really a white South African fascist or something?
But in case too many people figure out that the typical
modern terrorist IS a Muslim and is NOT a white South
African, they have a backup plan. If movie reviews are
accurate, the backup plan can be found in the new movie
"Syriana." Okay, the terrorists are Muslims...but it's not really
their fault. It's the fault of the evil American oil corporations!
Yes, now it all makes sense. Muhammad plundered the ancient
Jewish merchant colonies of Arabia because of evil American
oil corporations. The medieval Turkish empire kidnapped the
sons of Christians to make them janissaries because of evil
American oil corporations. Arabs were taking black Africans
as slaves before slavery got underway in America, but it was
the fault of those oil corporations. American oil tycoons gave
Egypt the idea of refusing to hear testimony from Coptic
Christians against Muslims. And Chechen terrorists wantonly
murdered schoolchildren in Beslan, Russia because of evil
American oil corporations.
Maybe I shouldn't be saying this; George Clooney might make
a movie claiming with a straight face that all the sarcastic
statements above are literal truth. But even if he does make
such a movie, it still won't be enough to make the C.A.I.R.
types drop their fraudulent complaints. (In case you think
I'm too hard on Clooney--did he not make an action movie in
which the big threat was a Serbian terrorist? Come on, now,
how many Serbian terrorist attacks have you heard of? It's
the Albanian Muslims who have ties to bin-Ladin, and who in
addition are deeply into forced-prostitution trafficking.)
I myself have Muslim neighbors. Not only do I get along
just fine with them, but I personally cook food for them at
Ramadan time. They could tell me if they were suffering
from hateful harassment just for being Muslims, and they
know that I would side with them against any such injustice;
but they have no such trouble to report, because THERE IS
NOT any widespread persecution of Muslims in America.
The C.A.I.R. types know that American Muslims are not
oppressed; but it suits them to pretend that they believe there
is oppression, so that false guilt over supposed prejudice will
weaken our will to fight real terrorism. We cannot afford to
let them succeed in this cynical deception.
How about this as a cure for the induced false guilt: let
Americans read English translations of the lying propaganda
which Iranian mullahs and Palestinian thugs broadcast against
Israel--even reviving the long-discredited "Protocols of the
Elders of Zion"--and then compare this for hatefulness with
the American media's average treatment of Muslims. Next,
have people see how long it takes to watch all the pro-Muslim
films I described above. If, after doing this research, you still
think that Muslims have a valid complaint about how they are
portrayed in the West, I have a tropical beach condo in Finland
I'd like to sell you.
Yours for Jesus and America,
Joseph Richard Ravitts
What I've done so far was new blog material, but--
Now, since this blog is partly a salvage operation, I will try here to preserve what was the first post of my first blog, "Faithful In Adversity," from 22 June 2005:
__________________________________
The Widower Greets You
UT FIDEM PRAESTEM IN DIFFICULTATE!
This is my Latin motto, which translates as: "May I be faithful in adversity!"
It was my private rallying-cry as I stood by my dear wife, Mary Scudellari
Ravitts, during her truly heroic struggle against the Damned Thief--which
is my name for the rare cancer which took her away from me and (no thanks
to it) sent her sailing through The Door Into Summer. I am creating this blog
on the first anniversary of her crossing over to the other side.
We who remain down here in the mortal world find ourselves in a time when
more and more people _don't_ feel like being faithful in adversity; when more
and more people are willing, if things grow difficult, to abandon someone whom
they had promised to love...even, for their own convenience, to "help" that
person go away permanently. This being the case, I hope to encourage the
promotion of LOYALTY in human relationships. I hope that readers of this
blog will share their feelings about what is entailed in staying true, in keeping
promises, in being there for people who depend on us to be there.
This blog is intended to cut right across the categories of all sorts of political
and spiritual persuasions. In the interests of honest disclosure, I will state up
front that I am a Christian heterosexual who usually votes Republican; but I
intend to try to respect the views of everyone who may post here. I do not
want to be involved in any disputes, certainly not angry disputes, if it can
possibly be avoided. Those who know me, know that I often do find myself
in debates; but I don't really _enjoy_ arguing with people--it's just that
sometimes conscience compels me. Here, though, it is precisely in line with
conscience that I want to be as positive and inclusive as I can be. I want to
see common ground between myself and persons who may be dramatically
different from me. So please come with your insights, EVERYBODY.
I won't say that there will NEVER be any political or theological discussion
here; but I ask everyone posting (1) to try to stick mostly to the theme of
loyalty in our individual relationships, and (2) to try to see the good in all
other persons who post here, avoiding direct contradiction as far as possible.
I have other outlets for partisan position-holding. This blog is meant to be
a home for "the better angels of our natures."
Best wishes to future acquaintances,
Joseph Richard Ravitts (pronounced RAY-vitts)
Columbia, Maryland
"Though lovers be lost, love shall not,
And death shall have no dominion." -- Dylan Thomas
_________________________________________________________
(I never did get the wealth of diverse dialogue I was hoping for. Maybe this new blog will work out better for that, though I am NOT avoiding politics.)
__________________________________
The Widower Greets You
UT FIDEM PRAESTEM IN DIFFICULTATE!
This is my Latin motto, which translates as: "May I be faithful in adversity!"
It was my private rallying-cry as I stood by my dear wife, Mary Scudellari
Ravitts, during her truly heroic struggle against the Damned Thief--which
is my name for the rare cancer which took her away from me and (no thanks
to it) sent her sailing through The Door Into Summer. I am creating this blog
on the first anniversary of her crossing over to the other side.
We who remain down here in the mortal world find ourselves in a time when
more and more people _don't_ feel like being faithful in adversity; when more
and more people are willing, if things grow difficult, to abandon someone whom
they had promised to love...even, for their own convenience, to "help" that
person go away permanently. This being the case, I hope to encourage the
promotion of LOYALTY in human relationships. I hope that readers of this
blog will share their feelings about what is entailed in staying true, in keeping
promises, in being there for people who depend on us to be there.
This blog is intended to cut right across the categories of all sorts of political
and spiritual persuasions. In the interests of honest disclosure, I will state up
front that I am a Christian heterosexual who usually votes Republican; but I
intend to try to respect the views of everyone who may post here. I do not
want to be involved in any disputes, certainly not angry disputes, if it can
possibly be avoided. Those who know me, know that I often do find myself
in debates; but I don't really _enjoy_ arguing with people--it's just that
sometimes conscience compels me. Here, though, it is precisely in line with
conscience that I want to be as positive and inclusive as I can be. I want to
see common ground between myself and persons who may be dramatically
different from me. So please come with your insights, EVERYBODY.
I won't say that there will NEVER be any political or theological discussion
here; but I ask everyone posting (1) to try to stick mostly to the theme of
loyalty in our individual relationships, and (2) to try to see the good in all
other persons who post here, avoiding direct contradiction as far as possible.
I have other outlets for partisan position-holding. This blog is meant to be
a home for "the better angels of our natures."
Best wishes to future acquaintances,
Joseph Richard Ravitts (pronounced RAY-vitts)
Columbia, Maryland
"Though lovers be lost, love shall not,
And death shall have no dominion." -- Dylan Thomas
_________________________________________________________
(I never did get the wealth of diverse dialogue I was hoping for. Maybe this new blog will work out better for that, though I am NOT avoiding politics.)
An Article From Early July Of This Year
I suppose I could have been more organized in this new effort to preserve my writings; but priority responsibilities in the material world force me to grab opportunities like this at miscellaneous times. One consequence is that I can more easily post my stand-alone articles here, than articles that were part of a series.
===============================
LET US NOT OMIT FORGIVENESS...
BUT DON'T ALLOW FORGIVENESS
ITSELF TO BECOME AN OMISSION
I have read or heard public statements from a number of Death Row
convicts over my 36 years as a Christian. Terribly often, they fail
to show any genuine remorse for their crimes, even when they
ADMIT to having committed the crimes. Instead, they go in for
self-serving pomposity, solemnly criticizing this country's justice
system for executing guilty murderers--which, in their egocentric
minds, they somehow manage to see as WORSE than their own
act of murdering innocent victims.
Some, certainly, come to genuine repentance and salvation. I
particularly recall the Texan murderess Karla Faye Tucker. She
bore fruit that befitted repentance: she DIDN'T pretend that the
justice system was the "real" villain--rather, she admitted freely
that her crime was HER OWN fault, and that she DID deserve
to be put to death. It is that real contrition which assures me
that Karla Faye is now dwelling joyously in Heaven among the
ransomed saints. And when the parents of her victim publicly
declared their forgiveness of her, I could see that their act of
Christlike love and mercy was not in vain.
But this is only one of countless instances of people in such
a situation going to great lengths to trumpet their forgiveness.
The forgivers appear to outnumber the repenters. Now, I could
almost recite in my sleep all the standard lines about how hate
imprisons us and forgiveness releases us, yada yada yada;
every preacher who repeats them seems to think that no one
else ever thought of preaching forgiveness before. I don't want
anyone to think that I'm AGAINST forgiveness. But what I am
against is a harmfully incomplete understanding of any issue.
Sometimes it seems to me as if my fellow Christians cannot
see ANY other significance in a murderer besides an opportunity
to go offer someone forgiveness.
Forgiveness here, forgiveness there: that's all well and good, as
each element of Godly conduct is well and good. But if all that's
ever talked about is forgiving the murderers...what becomes of
the idea of PREVENTING them from committing their murders
in the first place?
If all that counts is the "closure" that comes with forgiving
the murderers of our loved ones, what becomes of the idea of
PROTECTING our loved ones so they don't GET murdered? If
your seven-year-old daughter is being strangled in front of your
eyes, does God command you to lean over the killer's shoulder
and say to your daughter, "Don't worry, honey, as soon as he's
done killing you I'll forgive him, and that's all that counts"?
An omission can be a horrible thing. Modern Americans have been
exhaustively trained in processing grief, but too few of us grasp
the fact that many griefs could be prevented by a timely use of
justified force against those who would cause the grief.
I remember how the TV series "M*A*S*H" tried to convince us
that running away, or surrendering, is ALWAYS enough to
protect us from suffering violence--as when a couple of the
characters were out in a jeep and Communist soldiers fired
off some rifle shots at a distance but never chased them as
they fled. Focussing all our attention ONLY on forgiving our
enemies, with no thought for maybe STOPPING them now
and then, is a form of running away.
There's a reason why we have police departments, not
just forgiveness departments. The reason can be found in
Ecclesiastes 8:11--"Because sentence against an evil deed
is not executed speedily, the heart of the sons of men is fully
set to do evil"; and in Isaiah 26:10--"If favor is shown to the
wicked, he does not learn righteousness." It was in the spirit
of these Scriptures that our Founding Fathers, all of whom
were either Christians or well versed in Christian thought,
gave us the Second Amendment--which confirms our lawful
right to be equipped with firearms in addition to being equipped
with love and forgiveness. (And anyone who thinks that both
types of equipment cannot coexist must not have heard of the
Civil War incident in which a Confederate soldier went around
a battlefield giving water to wounded men of BOTH sides, and
the Union troops who saw him doing this held their fire.)
In case anyone has failed to notice, we have some vicious
enemies right now, whose ONLY reaction to an offer by us to
forgive them would be to hack off our heads. I don't think we
can afford anymore to let military personnel be the only ones
who understand this conflict. It may yet come to our own soil
in full force, and we may ALL have to fight. We can still forgive
any terrorists we capture alive--AFTER they've been rendered
powerless to kill any more victims. That same combination of
warlike prowess and mercy to the defeated made an enormous
impression on Muslim Barbary Pirates of the early 19th century,
when America was forced to kick their collective butt. A sugary
forgiveness that is not part of a more complete understanding
of moral issues will only come across as weakness, to be
laughed at by today's Barbary Pirates.
Yours for Jesus and America,
P.O.1 Joseph Ravitts, U.S.N. Ret.
===============================
LET US NOT OMIT FORGIVENESS...
BUT DON'T ALLOW FORGIVENESS
ITSELF TO BECOME AN OMISSION
I have read or heard public statements from a number of Death Row
convicts over my 36 years as a Christian. Terribly often, they fail
to show any genuine remorse for their crimes, even when they
ADMIT to having committed the crimes. Instead, they go in for
self-serving pomposity, solemnly criticizing this country's justice
system for executing guilty murderers--which, in their egocentric
minds, they somehow manage to see as WORSE than their own
act of murdering innocent victims.
Some, certainly, come to genuine repentance and salvation. I
particularly recall the Texan murderess Karla Faye Tucker. She
bore fruit that befitted repentance: she DIDN'T pretend that the
justice system was the "real" villain--rather, she admitted freely
that her crime was HER OWN fault, and that she DID deserve
to be put to death. It is that real contrition which assures me
that Karla Faye is now dwelling joyously in Heaven among the
ransomed saints. And when the parents of her victim publicly
declared their forgiveness of her, I could see that their act of
Christlike love and mercy was not in vain.
But this is only one of countless instances of people in such
a situation going to great lengths to trumpet their forgiveness.
The forgivers appear to outnumber the repenters. Now, I could
almost recite in my sleep all the standard lines about how hate
imprisons us and forgiveness releases us, yada yada yada;
every preacher who repeats them seems to think that no one
else ever thought of preaching forgiveness before. I don't want
anyone to think that I'm AGAINST forgiveness. But what I am
against is a harmfully incomplete understanding of any issue.
Sometimes it seems to me as if my fellow Christians cannot
see ANY other significance in a murderer besides an opportunity
to go offer someone forgiveness.
Forgiveness here, forgiveness there: that's all well and good, as
each element of Godly conduct is well and good. But if all that's
ever talked about is forgiving the murderers...what becomes of
the idea of PREVENTING them from committing their murders
in the first place?
If all that counts is the "closure" that comes with forgiving
the murderers of our loved ones, what becomes of the idea of
PROTECTING our loved ones so they don't GET murdered? If
your seven-year-old daughter is being strangled in front of your
eyes, does God command you to lean over the killer's shoulder
and say to your daughter, "Don't worry, honey, as soon as he's
done killing you I'll forgive him, and that's all that counts"?
An omission can be a horrible thing. Modern Americans have been
exhaustively trained in processing grief, but too few of us grasp
the fact that many griefs could be prevented by a timely use of
justified force against those who would cause the grief.
I remember how the TV series "M*A*S*H" tried to convince us
that running away, or surrendering, is ALWAYS enough to
protect us from suffering violence--as when a couple of the
characters were out in a jeep and Communist soldiers fired
off some rifle shots at a distance but never chased them as
they fled. Focussing all our attention ONLY on forgiving our
enemies, with no thought for maybe STOPPING them now
and then, is a form of running away.
There's a reason why we have police departments, not
just forgiveness departments. The reason can be found in
Ecclesiastes 8:11--"Because sentence against an evil deed
is not executed speedily, the heart of the sons of men is fully
set to do evil"; and in Isaiah 26:10--"If favor is shown to the
wicked, he does not learn righteousness." It was in the spirit
of these Scriptures that our Founding Fathers, all of whom
were either Christians or well versed in Christian thought,
gave us the Second Amendment--which confirms our lawful
right to be equipped with firearms in addition to being equipped
with love and forgiveness. (And anyone who thinks that both
types of equipment cannot coexist must not have heard of the
Civil War incident in which a Confederate soldier went around
a battlefield giving water to wounded men of BOTH sides, and
the Union troops who saw him doing this held their fire.)
In case anyone has failed to notice, we have some vicious
enemies right now, whose ONLY reaction to an offer by us to
forgive them would be to hack off our heads. I don't think we
can afford anymore to let military personnel be the only ones
who understand this conflict. It may yet come to our own soil
in full force, and we may ALL have to fight. We can still forgive
any terrorists we capture alive--AFTER they've been rendered
powerless to kill any more victims. That same combination of
warlike prowess and mercy to the defeated made an enormous
impression on Muslim Barbary Pirates of the early 19th century,
when America was forced to kick their collective butt. A sugary
forgiveness that is not part of a more complete understanding
of moral issues will only come across as weakness, to be
laughed at by today's Barbary Pirates.
Yours for Jesus and America,
P.O.1 Joseph Ravitts, U.S.N. Ret.
Since e-mail servers are also treacherous--
This new blog will give me the hope of safeguarding some of my online columns which are distributed under the name "Empowered For Freedom." Here is something I wrote quite recently...
A SNAKE IN THE LITERARY GRASS
Literary skills, like firearms, can be used for good OR evil. My local newspaper's book-review section has lately provided an example of bad use: another case of what Isaiah 5:20 warned about, people _calling_ evil good and good evil.
Bear with me, here: Imagine that I set out to write a history of, say, America's Revolutionary War. I do lots of research on the era, and it shows in my descriptions of 18th-century weapons and military discipline, of how the Continental Congress deliberated, of how civilians endured the war years, etc. All very impressive. But then, suppose I rely on this to convince my readers that my research achievements give me a right to draw conclusions which are not supported by _anything_ in my data. Suppose I say, in effect: "These collected facts about Revolutionary War conditions prove that George Washington was regularly cheating on his wife, Benjamin Franklin enjoyed torturing little kittens, and Patrick Henry was the real founder of the Nazi Party."
Kind of dishonest? Yeah, but there are America-bashers who would pretend to believe that the reasoning was valid, because they WANT to believe that the United States is bad at the very root.
The same thing has just been done (for the zillionth time) to the Biblical record of history. A woman named Lesley Hazleton, lavishly praised by the hard-leftwing Denver Post, has written a book titled "JEZEBEL: The Untold Story of the Bible's Harlot Queen." Note that it is classified as NON-fiction. To prepare for this project, Ms. Hazleton did extensive research into the archaeology of Israel and Phoenicia, the commercial and military relationships that existed among ancient countries. Well and good, but all of this does not by itself establish the personalities of historical individuals. What establishes _those_ in this book is what Ms. Hazleton _wants_ to believe.Ms. Hazleton wants to believe that the Biblical account of Jezebel trying to kill all prophets of Israel's God is only propaganda, a slander fabricated by those mean, intolerant monotheists. In her version of events, Jezebel is an enlightened pagan heroine, who meant no harm at all to the monotheists, while Elijah is the villain--you know, just like the Taliban. The Denver Post book reviewer is eager to endorse Hazleton's view that polytheism is tolerant and openminded, while belief in one Supreme Being Who actually has some requirements is one and the same thing as bigotry and hate. To do all this, Hazleton has to do something which none of her archaeological research would really have warranted: she has to presume a priori that the Biblical record _cannot_ have been divinely inspired, that it _must_ have been a forgery, and that Jezebel _couldn't_ have been capable of robbing and murdering the innocent landowner Naboth.
Part of this author's cunning is in her timing. Now that "The DaVinci Code" has enjoyed success, she can see that there is a vast readership ready to swallow _anything_ that lets them off the hook of owing obedience to the real God. Fans of Ms. Hazleton, as of Dan Brown, are demonstrating what Jesus said to unbelievers in John 5:43: "I have come in My Father's name and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive."
Neo-pagans who may see my words here are sure to tell themselves that I'm "only against Lesley Hazleton because she's a woman." This is nonsense, and they themselves will know it's nonsense even while they're saying it; but that's the very trend that Ms. Hazleton is promoting: the post-modern trend of simply inventing any "truth" which appeals to your emotions. But if Ms. Hazleton wants to see just how much more tolerant polytheism is than monotheism, let her go to certain regions of the polytheistic nation of India and tell the locals that she has come to preach the gospel of Jesus. If, after doing this, she lives to write anything else, she will perhaps write more truthfully.
__________________
JOSEPH RAVITTS
A SNAKE IN THE LITERARY GRASS
Literary skills, like firearms, can be used for good OR evil. My local newspaper's book-review section has lately provided an example of bad use: another case of what Isaiah 5:20 warned about, people _calling_ evil good and good evil.
Bear with me, here: Imagine that I set out to write a history of, say, America's Revolutionary War. I do lots of research on the era, and it shows in my descriptions of 18th-century weapons and military discipline, of how the Continental Congress deliberated, of how civilians endured the war years, etc. All very impressive. But then, suppose I rely on this to convince my readers that my research achievements give me a right to draw conclusions which are not supported by _anything_ in my data. Suppose I say, in effect: "These collected facts about Revolutionary War conditions prove that George Washington was regularly cheating on his wife, Benjamin Franklin enjoyed torturing little kittens, and Patrick Henry was the real founder of the Nazi Party."
Kind of dishonest? Yeah, but there are America-bashers who would pretend to believe that the reasoning was valid, because they WANT to believe that the United States is bad at the very root.
The same thing has just been done (for the zillionth time) to the Biblical record of history. A woman named Lesley Hazleton, lavishly praised by the hard-leftwing Denver Post, has written a book titled "JEZEBEL: The Untold Story of the Bible's Harlot Queen." Note that it is classified as NON-fiction. To prepare for this project, Ms. Hazleton did extensive research into the archaeology of Israel and Phoenicia, the commercial and military relationships that existed among ancient countries. Well and good, but all of this does not by itself establish the personalities of historical individuals. What establishes _those_ in this book is what Ms. Hazleton _wants_ to believe.Ms. Hazleton wants to believe that the Biblical account of Jezebel trying to kill all prophets of Israel's God is only propaganda, a slander fabricated by those mean, intolerant monotheists. In her version of events, Jezebel is an enlightened pagan heroine, who meant no harm at all to the monotheists, while Elijah is the villain--you know, just like the Taliban. The Denver Post book reviewer is eager to endorse Hazleton's view that polytheism is tolerant and openminded, while belief in one Supreme Being Who actually has some requirements is one and the same thing as bigotry and hate. To do all this, Hazleton has to do something which none of her archaeological research would really have warranted: she has to presume a priori that the Biblical record _cannot_ have been divinely inspired, that it _must_ have been a forgery, and that Jezebel _couldn't_ have been capable of robbing and murdering the innocent landowner Naboth.
Part of this author's cunning is in her timing. Now that "The DaVinci Code" has enjoyed success, she can see that there is a vast readership ready to swallow _anything_ that lets them off the hook of owing obedience to the real God. Fans of Ms. Hazleton, as of Dan Brown, are demonstrating what Jesus said to unbelievers in John 5:43: "I have come in My Father's name and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive."
Neo-pagans who may see my words here are sure to tell themselves that I'm "only against Lesley Hazleton because she's a woman." This is nonsense, and they themselves will know it's nonsense even while they're saying it; but that's the very trend that Ms. Hazleton is promoting: the post-modern trend of simply inventing any "truth" which appeals to your emotions. But if Ms. Hazleton wants to see just how much more tolerant polytheism is than monotheism, let her go to certain regions of the polytheistic nation of India and tell the locals that she has come to preach the gospel of Jesus. If, after doing this, she lives to write anything else, she will perhaps write more truthfully.
__________________
JOSEPH RAVITTS
If It Ain't Broke, Break It
My first effort at blogging came when I wanted to honor the memory of my first wife Mary, called home to Heaven by cancer. I later added a second blog with (eek!) political and religious topics. The Blogspot people provided me a welcome outlet for things I wanted to say.
Then Google came along, took them over, and proceeded to lock me out of my own house, as it were. I have been unable to post in my original blogs ("Faithful In Adversity" and "Anti-Nonsense Alerts") for a long time now. At last I have decided to pretend I'm a newcomer. I'msure Google doesn't know the difference, since in my experience they completely ignore any and all requests for technical support. If I can just get back into the blogosphere, that will be something. Google owes me this much. I will be trying to copy past writings here, and posting new stuff as I have time. The time question revolves around my SECOND wife, Janalee, who has various needs that cannot be ignored. Not dying this time, just has disabilities.
JOSEPH RICHARD RAVITTS (pronounced "RAY-vitts")
Then Google came along, took them over, and proceeded to lock me out of my own house, as it were. I have been unable to post in my original blogs ("Faithful In Adversity" and "Anti-Nonsense Alerts") for a long time now. At last I have decided to pretend I'm a newcomer. I'msure Google doesn't know the difference, since in my experience they completely ignore any and all requests for technical support. If I can just get back into the blogosphere, that will be something. Google owes me this much. I will be trying to copy past writings here, and posting new stuff as I have time. The time question revolves around my SECOND wife, Janalee, who has various needs that cannot be ignored. Not dying this time, just has disabilities.
JOSEPH RICHARD RAVITTS (pronounced "RAY-vitts")
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)