"Harry Potter" author J.K. Rowling waited for a moment when
the last volume in the series had been released, and the Potter
franchise was drawing closer to losing momentum. Then she
stirred the pot with a remark that she imagined the beloved
old wizard-professor, Dumbledore, to be a homosexual. It was
crafty timing. Earlier, and she might have turned off some of
the Christians who had been buying her books "because they
depict good against evil." As it was, she already had plenty of
Christian money in her bank account. Now it was time (1) to
get the privileged gay elite rallying around, perpetuating Harry
Potter's fame, and (2) to spray on a little Eau de Controversy,
so that she would remain a topic of conversation and fans would
remember to be looking forward to other books from her.
A columnist for one of our Colorado newspapers was quick to
publish an editorial, amounting essentially to the predictable
insistence that anyone having any objection to homosexuality
was a knuckle-dragging, retarded goon. This was concurrent
with her paper doing an opinion poll. Poll respondents were
asked whether or not they agreed that Ms. Rowling's remark
was a potential cause of trouble for gays as well as being a too-
early initiation to sexual subjects for child fans of the fantasy
series. Note that the concern for children was tightly bound up
with the always-hyped boogeyman of "homophobia;" the poll
made no allowance for any possibility that the well-being of
children and the preferences of homosexuals could ever be
mutually exclusive.
I wrote a letter to the columnist, knowing that she would not
answer it; but I can make further use of it here.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dear Ms. Bornstein,
Having read your column of 27 October, I ask you to consider
the following.
If I, as a heterosexual man, meet a heterosexual woman, any
of several things could happen: (1) we are both indifferent to
each other sexually, (2) we are both attracted to each other,
(3) I am attracted to her but she is indifferent, or (4) she is
attracted to me but I am indifferent.
If two homosexual men meet, all of the above alternatives are
possible, but an _additional_ possibility exists which cannot
happen among heterosexual persons: the two men become
rivals for the attentions of a _third_ homosexual man. Any
two gays might, in the course of an acquaintance, be each
other's lovers AND each other's rivals for someone else. This
means that there are more different, conflicting ways one gay
person can feel toward another than there are or can be among
straight people.
Your column showed that you want to believe that anyone who
has any objection to homosexuality _must_ be irrational and
hysterical. But the meaningful difference I have demonstrated
between heterosexual relations and homosexual relations is not
hysteria, it is a matter of seeing what obviously and inevitably
follows from same-sex attraction. A person could see a problem
in that greater potential for instability, without thereby being
irrational--or "biased."
Speaking of bias, it's interesting the way your newspaper has
worded its reader poll about J.K. Rowling calling Dumbledore
gay. The way they are worded, the two choices amount to
(1) "Homosexuality is normal, so let's tell the world," and
(2) "Homosexuality is normal, but we should let children
wait a little longer to be let in on it." No option is even given
for anyone to say that homosexuality is not normal in the
first place. You folks are clearly familiar with the principle
that whoever gets to define the terms can claim to have
won the debate.
But reality will keep leaking through your kind of subtle
censorship. That includes the reality that same-sex attraction
is NOT fixed and unchangeable. I need look no farther than
a female neighbor I had, who was a committed lesbian--but
then changed over, fell in love with a man, and married him.
Meanwhile, I am left to wonder if you are also going to be
arguing that brother-sister incest is normal, when that
"alternative" starts making more noise for itself, which it
will if current trends continue.
Sincerely,
Joseph Ravitts
Aurora, CO
Monday, December 3, 2007
How a whole month proved crazy
HERE WE GO GATHERING
NUTCASES IN MAY, 2007
I lately heard audio of the fanatical atheist Christopher Hitchens
claiming that the late Jerry Falwell was a crook, "sniggering over
what he got away with." He was saying this because he _wanted_ it
to be true, in total disregard of the fact that people as far removed
from Falwell's positions as Jesse Jackson have borne witness that
Dr. Falwell's personal character was actually upright and exemplary.
A rank-and-file supporter of Hitchens called the Michael Medved
program with a dazzling bit of originality: comparing Dr. Falwell to
Benito Mussolini instead of the usual Hitler. This radio caller's
profound argument was that Dr. Falwell expressing his views in
_words_ was exactly the same as Mussolini ordering executions
and helping to enslave Europe and North Africa. Why, of course
it's the same; we've all heard how many people get shot to death
by 45-caliber words and rocket-propelled editorials!
Hitchens flung his mud more broadly, calling all evangelists
"pickpockets" because they accept _voluntary_ donations. But
naturally, the hard left has no objection to a central government
TAKING our money by FORCE.
The month of May 2007 has been a fertile spring not only for
Christian-bashing, but also for bashing the Western civilization
that grew from Christianity. On a public-radio program--ironically
originating from American University--a leftwing historian was
interviewed about his book, which claims that the United States
trying to enforce its vital interests AT ALL is the same thing as
the Roman Empire conquering, possessing and enslaving other
nations. In the same vein, I listened to a "special broadcast" of
"The Prairie Home Companion," in which Randy Newman, another
devout mocker of all faith, sang a politically-correct ballad of highly
selective moral indignation titled "Great Nations Of Europe Coming
Through," finding and magnifying every possible fault of European
colonization of the Western Hemisphere. He gave not the slightest
acknowledgement of all the slavery, human sacrifice, and even
cannibalism that were practiced against Native Americans BY
OTHER NATIVE AMERICANS before Columbus ever sailed,
nor the fact that Hernan Cortez was SUPPORTED BY INDIANS
because the regime he brought COULD NOT be any worse than
what the Aztecs were inflicting on Mexico.
Speaking of Mexico and issues relating thereto:
Geraldo Rivera offered a splendid example of cognitive deficit,
and also of the fact that the FoxNews Channel is NOT guilty of
hiring only conservative talent, or indeed even only truthful talent.
In keeping with his pet cause of removing absolutely all restriction
or control over immigration to the United States, Rivera set up a
tearjerker interview with a Haitian man who was (cue violins to
play) going to be deported from this country. The Haitian openly
_admitted_ to Rivera that he had spent eleven years in prison for
narcotics dealing; but Rivera made himself not hear this, and with
a straight face described the jailbird as "doing nothing but good"
for all his years in America!
Also in this month of May, not for the first or second time, George
Bush has embarrassed the conservatives who voted for him--
by being as willfully blind as Geraldo Rivera to the truth about
the illegal-invasion crisis. Mr. Bush, for one thing, showed support
for allowing untrained Mexican drivers, in Mexican semitrailer
trucks that have _not_ passed meaningful safety inspections, to
have unrestricted access to U.S. highways. And if there's anyone
remaining in the Western Hemisphere who thought that John
McCain was a conservative, his lockstep dance with Teddy
Kennedy on amnesty legislation surely will have dispelled
this delusion.
Meanwhile, Democrat ambulance-chaser John Edwards gave a
speech about compassion for the poor...and was paid more than
fifty thousand dollars for giving that one speech!
There has been so much politically-correct lunacy this May,
that I just can't remember all the examples as I sit here typing.
But perhaps the most irritating single piece of nonsense was in
the border-violation connection again. It appeared in a newspaper
photo of a march protesting against enforcement of America's
national sovereignty. A big banner was being displayed which
read: "NO HUMAN BEING IS ILLEGAL."
Okay, let's examine that. As on so many other occasions, the
emotional flailing conceals a line of reasoning that's full of holes.
Given the immigration context, in which American patriots are
objecting to foreigners wanting to consume our nation's benefits
without giving any loyalty to our society, that banner is telling us
that our objecting TO AN ILLEGAL ACTION is one and the
same thing as declaring that the person doing the illegal action
is in some abstract way _entirely_ illegal as a person by nature.
(A political version of Total Depravity doctrine?) Any opposition
to what the poor little border-jumpers do (including if the border-
jumpers are members of the homicidal Mara Salvatrucha gang)
is the same as invalidating their personhood, which is bigotry.
Once again, therefore, the liberal way of thinking decides that
the only crime is to oppose crime.
But if calling criminals criminals is a crime, _every_ illegal
deed has to get a free pass. If I had been a psychotic murderer
on the scene of that protest march, and if I had begun throwing
firebombs into the middle of the dense (in more than one sense)
crowd, BY THEIR OWN LOGIC, they would have had NO right
to raise any objection to my action--because calling my _action_
illegal would, by their own logic, be calling my very _personhood_
illegal, and we know that no human being is illegal.
I guess there's a certain comfort in the marchers' reasoning. Or
should I say, a certain comfort food? The blank-check approach
to morality certainly is convenient for Mexican border-jumpers
who, enroute into El Norte, kill and eat the cattle of border-state
ranchers, then move on, leaving piles of garbage and feces at
their picnic sites.
But through that sewage smell there wafts a hopeful breath of
sociopolitical fresh air. In Hazelton, Pennsylvania, something
happened that I don't think has _ever_ happened before in the
United States: _both_ Democrats and Republicans nominated
ONE AND THE SAME PERSON as their candidate for mayor!
That man was the incumbent Republican mayor of Hazelton, who
has been courageously resisting the takeover of his town by the
growing influx of illegal aliens who refuse to assimilate to United
States culture. Democrats in Hazelton had gotten just as fed up
as their Republican neighbors, and so they WROTE IN their
mayor as _their_ candidate also!
Take note, all you red-state rednecks who've been told that
you are being racists if you don't like American hospitals going
bankrupt from giving free medical care to swarms of parasitical
border-jumpers: it IS possible to resist. If they keep calling you
white supremacists, let me know, and I'll gladly tell them about
my efforts to assist a _Chinese_ legal-immigrant couple (who
are so uncool as to want to be _loyal_ United States citizens).
We could even revise an old hippie-era slogan to say something
like, "SUPPOSE THEY GAVE A RECONQUISTA AND
NOBODY CAME?"
--- JOSEPH RICHARD RAVITTS
NUTCASES IN MAY, 2007
I lately heard audio of the fanatical atheist Christopher Hitchens
claiming that the late Jerry Falwell was a crook, "sniggering over
what he got away with." He was saying this because he _wanted_ it
to be true, in total disregard of the fact that people as far removed
from Falwell's positions as Jesse Jackson have borne witness that
Dr. Falwell's personal character was actually upright and exemplary.
A rank-and-file supporter of Hitchens called the Michael Medved
program with a dazzling bit of originality: comparing Dr. Falwell to
Benito Mussolini instead of the usual Hitler. This radio caller's
profound argument was that Dr. Falwell expressing his views in
_words_ was exactly the same as Mussolini ordering executions
and helping to enslave Europe and North Africa. Why, of course
it's the same; we've all heard how many people get shot to death
by 45-caliber words and rocket-propelled editorials!
Hitchens flung his mud more broadly, calling all evangelists
"pickpockets" because they accept _voluntary_ donations. But
naturally, the hard left has no objection to a central government
TAKING our money by FORCE.
The month of May 2007 has been a fertile spring not only for
Christian-bashing, but also for bashing the Western civilization
that grew from Christianity. On a public-radio program--ironically
originating from American University--a leftwing historian was
interviewed about his book, which claims that the United States
trying to enforce its vital interests AT ALL is the same thing as
the Roman Empire conquering, possessing and enslaving other
nations. In the same vein, I listened to a "special broadcast" of
"The Prairie Home Companion," in which Randy Newman, another
devout mocker of all faith, sang a politically-correct ballad of highly
selective moral indignation titled "Great Nations Of Europe Coming
Through," finding and magnifying every possible fault of European
colonization of the Western Hemisphere. He gave not the slightest
acknowledgement of all the slavery, human sacrifice, and even
cannibalism that were practiced against Native Americans BY
OTHER NATIVE AMERICANS before Columbus ever sailed,
nor the fact that Hernan Cortez was SUPPORTED BY INDIANS
because the regime he brought COULD NOT be any worse than
what the Aztecs were inflicting on Mexico.
Speaking of Mexico and issues relating thereto:
Geraldo Rivera offered a splendid example of cognitive deficit,
and also of the fact that the FoxNews Channel is NOT guilty of
hiring only conservative talent, or indeed even only truthful talent.
In keeping with his pet cause of removing absolutely all restriction
or control over immigration to the United States, Rivera set up a
tearjerker interview with a Haitian man who was (cue violins to
play) going to be deported from this country. The Haitian openly
_admitted_ to Rivera that he had spent eleven years in prison for
narcotics dealing; but Rivera made himself not hear this, and with
a straight face described the jailbird as "doing nothing but good"
for all his years in America!
Also in this month of May, not for the first or second time, George
Bush has embarrassed the conservatives who voted for him--
by being as willfully blind as Geraldo Rivera to the truth about
the illegal-invasion crisis. Mr. Bush, for one thing, showed support
for allowing untrained Mexican drivers, in Mexican semitrailer
trucks that have _not_ passed meaningful safety inspections, to
have unrestricted access to U.S. highways. And if there's anyone
remaining in the Western Hemisphere who thought that John
McCain was a conservative, his lockstep dance with Teddy
Kennedy on amnesty legislation surely will have dispelled
this delusion.
Meanwhile, Democrat ambulance-chaser John Edwards gave a
speech about compassion for the poor...and was paid more than
fifty thousand dollars for giving that one speech!
There has been so much politically-correct lunacy this May,
that I just can't remember all the examples as I sit here typing.
But perhaps the most irritating single piece of nonsense was in
the border-violation connection again. It appeared in a newspaper
photo of a march protesting against enforcement of America's
national sovereignty. A big banner was being displayed which
read: "NO HUMAN BEING IS ILLEGAL."
Okay, let's examine that. As on so many other occasions, the
emotional flailing conceals a line of reasoning that's full of holes.
Given the immigration context, in which American patriots are
objecting to foreigners wanting to consume our nation's benefits
without giving any loyalty to our society, that banner is telling us
that our objecting TO AN ILLEGAL ACTION is one and the
same thing as declaring that the person doing the illegal action
is in some abstract way _entirely_ illegal as a person by nature.
(A political version of Total Depravity doctrine?) Any opposition
to what the poor little border-jumpers do (including if the border-
jumpers are members of the homicidal Mara Salvatrucha gang)
is the same as invalidating their personhood, which is bigotry.
Once again, therefore, the liberal way of thinking decides that
the only crime is to oppose crime.
But if calling criminals criminals is a crime, _every_ illegal
deed has to get a free pass. If I had been a psychotic murderer
on the scene of that protest march, and if I had begun throwing
firebombs into the middle of the dense (in more than one sense)
crowd, BY THEIR OWN LOGIC, they would have had NO right
to raise any objection to my action--because calling my _action_
illegal would, by their own logic, be calling my very _personhood_
illegal, and we know that no human being is illegal.
I guess there's a certain comfort in the marchers' reasoning. Or
should I say, a certain comfort food? The blank-check approach
to morality certainly is convenient for Mexican border-jumpers
who, enroute into El Norte, kill and eat the cattle of border-state
ranchers, then move on, leaving piles of garbage and feces at
their picnic sites.
But through that sewage smell there wafts a hopeful breath of
sociopolitical fresh air. In Hazelton, Pennsylvania, something
happened that I don't think has _ever_ happened before in the
United States: _both_ Democrats and Republicans nominated
ONE AND THE SAME PERSON as their candidate for mayor!
That man was the incumbent Republican mayor of Hazelton, who
has been courageously resisting the takeover of his town by the
growing influx of illegal aliens who refuse to assimilate to United
States culture. Democrats in Hazelton had gotten just as fed up
as their Republican neighbors, and so they WROTE IN their
mayor as _their_ candidate also!
Take note, all you red-state rednecks who've been told that
you are being racists if you don't like American hospitals going
bankrupt from giving free medical care to swarms of parasitical
border-jumpers: it IS possible to resist. If they keep calling you
white supremacists, let me know, and I'll gladly tell them about
my efforts to assist a _Chinese_ legal-immigrant couple (who
are so uncool as to want to be _loyal_ United States citizens).
We could even revise an old hippie-era slogan to say something
like, "SUPPOSE THEY GAVE A RECONQUISTA AND
NOBODY CAME?"
--- JOSEPH RICHARD RAVITTS
A 30-Second Commercial from "Empowered for Freedom"
Start with a heartbeat sound effect; then--
Do you take the advice of all the movies to follow your own
feelings, only to end up hurting _other_ people's feelings? Do
you demand that others apologize to you, but refuse ever to
apologize to them? Do you listen to your own heart, only to
find yourself in conflict with others who are busy listening to
_their_ hearts?
You could be a case of Deceiving Heart Syndrome!
Jeremiah 17:9 says: "The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately corrupt; who can understand it?"
Every criminal follows his own heart; every psychopath
follows his own heart. Following your feelings is only as
good as the amount of truth your feelings will accept; and
our feelings have a deeply-rooted problem with truth.
Proverbs 14:12 warns: "There is a way that seems right
to a man, but its end is the way to death."
The cure for Deceiving Heart Syndrome is a transplant of
truth from the heart of Jesus Christ, Who is God Incarnate.
He says in Revelation 3:20, "Behold, I stand at the door
and knock..." If your feelings do not immediately respond,
reach your hand for the doorknob anyway. Once you let
Jesus in, He'll help the feelings to get their heads on straight.
Do you take the advice of all the movies to follow your own
feelings, only to end up hurting _other_ people's feelings? Do
you demand that others apologize to you, but refuse ever to
apologize to them? Do you listen to your own heart, only to
find yourself in conflict with others who are busy listening to
_their_ hearts?
You could be a case of Deceiving Heart Syndrome!
Jeremiah 17:9 says: "The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately corrupt; who can understand it?"
Every criminal follows his own heart; every psychopath
follows his own heart. Following your feelings is only as
good as the amount of truth your feelings will accept; and
our feelings have a deeply-rooted problem with truth.
Proverbs 14:12 warns: "There is a way that seems right
to a man, but its end is the way to death."
The cure for Deceiving Heart Syndrome is a transplant of
truth from the heart of Jesus Christ, Who is God Incarnate.
He says in Revelation 3:20, "Behold, I stand at the door
and knock..." If your feelings do not immediately respond,
reach your hand for the doorknob anyway. Once you let
Jesus in, He'll help the feelings to get their heads on straight.
Something of my own testimony
This is copied from recent correspondence I had with members of a ministry in southern Wisconsin:
There are three advantages, all closely related, to NOT having been raised as a Christian and only coming to Jesus after some time in "the world." One advantage is that you know it's YOUR conversion, not an echo of your parents. Another is that you appreciate salvation: "He who is forgiven much, loves much." And thirdly, the memory of how it was to be in darkness allows you to understand better the people to whom you witness for Jesus. My parents, alive to this day, are agnostics. Having no Christian upbringing, I was left on my own for years to GUESS whether God was real or not. Christians tend to assume that Romans 1 means that _every_ individual, just by looking at rocks and trees, clearly _knows_ that God exists. But my own experience argues that there has to be more to it. I would say that Romans 1 shows that mankind AS AN OVERALL GROUP has an awareness of God and is resisting this knowledge; but it has to be possible for individuals to have grown up under so much deception that they DON'T recognize God in the rocks and the trees. I know this has to be so, because I myself ABSOLUTELY DID _NOT_ automatically know God existed when I was a boy. This was ABSOLUTELY NOT a matter of my just refusing to admit that I knew He was real; I _wanted_ God and Heaven to exist, because I was afraid of dying, but I knew that my wishing by itself could not _make_ God exist.
Only in college, as a history major, did I start to find evidence that could penetrate the ignorance which the world had imposed on me. Once converted (in 1971), I could then reach out to other young people who were also in that darkness and confusion. To this day, as I have opportunities, I enjoy answering for young people the questions I used to ask myself in bed at night.
There are three advantages, all closely related, to NOT having been raised as a Christian and only coming to Jesus after some time in "the world." One advantage is that you know it's YOUR conversion, not an echo of your parents. Another is that you appreciate salvation: "He who is forgiven much, loves much." And thirdly, the memory of how it was to be in darkness allows you to understand better the people to whom you witness for Jesus. My parents, alive to this day, are agnostics. Having no Christian upbringing, I was left on my own for years to GUESS whether God was real or not. Christians tend to assume that Romans 1 means that _every_ individual, just by looking at rocks and trees, clearly _knows_ that God exists. But my own experience argues that there has to be more to it. I would say that Romans 1 shows that mankind AS AN OVERALL GROUP has an awareness of God and is resisting this knowledge; but it has to be possible for individuals to have grown up under so much deception that they DON'T recognize God in the rocks and the trees. I know this has to be so, because I myself ABSOLUTELY DID _NOT_ automatically know God existed when I was a boy. This was ABSOLUTELY NOT a matter of my just refusing to admit that I knew He was real; I _wanted_ God and Heaven to exist, because I was afraid of dying, but I knew that my wishing by itself could not _make_ God exist.
Only in college, as a history major, did I start to find evidence that could penetrate the ignorance which the world had imposed on me. Once converted (in 1971), I could then reach out to other young people who were also in that darkness and confusion. To this day, as I have opportunities, I enjoy answering for young people the questions I used to ask myself in bed at night.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
The Trap To Capture Superboy, And Us
Written around the end of May 2007--
"He dies for lack of discipline, and because of his
great folly he is lost." -- Proverbs 5:23
"A prudent man sees danger and hides himself; but
the simple go on, and suffer for it." --Proverbs 22:3
Long ago, before they had the competition of Marvel
Comics to force them to do better, DC Comics tolerated
some awfully mediocre storywriting from their staff.
Nonetheless, one scene from those years of blah plotlines
sticks in my mind as having been clever.
It was in a Superboy comic. The young Lex Luthor, already
up to no good, constructed a cage that was made partly out
of kryptonite, with lead sleeves to prevent the kryptonite
from making itself known too soon by sight or feel. The
kryptonite would only be uncovered, and its harmful effect
unleashed, if someone stepped inside. Since no force at his
command could compel Superboy to enter the cage, Lex relied
on Superboy to fall victim to curiosity. So, having placed
the cage where the super-victim would find it only after
Lex was well away from its vicinity, Lex left a sign on
its open door, saying simply:
"TRAP TO CAPTURE SUPERBOY.
ENTER HERE, PLEASE."
And enter it Superboy did, only to find his powers drained
by a sudden surge of kryptonite radiation. I forget just how
Superboy survived that blunder and lived to become Superman;
but the lesson of the self-announced trap has stuck with me.
A study of history will impress you with the tragic fact that
many of the great calamities were breathtakingly avoidable.
It would have been so easy to build the Titanic with complete
anti-flooding compartmentalization, instead of only the partial
barriers which in the crisis failed to contain the incoming water.
It would have been so easy for the leaders of Europe to look at
Mein Kampf and say to themselves, "By Jove, that Hitler chap
really does intend to conquer us!" It ought to be just as easy
for present-day European leaders to listen to the recordings
obtained of routine sermons in European and Middle Eastern
mosques, and say to themselves, "Those imams really DO
intend to impose Islam and Sharia law on all of us by violence
and fear!" But people keep walking into the kryptonite cage.
I've said in my recent columns that I anticipate evil taking
a different line once Islamic terrorism has exhausted itself (or
has been annihilated in the Gog-Magog event from the Book
of Ezekiel). And the preparation being made for that new line
to succeed is going on right in front of us. The kryptonite cage
we are being invited to come and be caught in is the cage of
PASSIVE DEPENDENCY ON CENTRAL AUTHORITY.
Since I began by remembering comic books from my youth,
let's look at another phenomenon of youth. For everyone who
has a driver's license: wasn't it a great liberation, didn't it make
a huge difference, when you became able to drive on your own,
no longer depending on your bicycle or your parents to drive
you to places? In the first year of owning your own car, would
you have wanted to go back to having Mommy chauffeur you?
Even for Americans who know nothing about Patrick Henry
or John Paul Jones or Francis Scott Key, this kind of personal
recollection of the value of liberty should count for something
--should make people wary and hesitant about going in the
opposite direction, toward helpless clienthood. And can it be
that Americans have completely forgotten what was the evil of
all evils that our Founding Fathers fought against?
It was the evil of a government which could take anything
away from us, and impose any burden upon us, without ever
having to answer to us.
Now, think: what would you say is going on when all of the
following trends are occurring at the same time?
-- The federal government steadily increasing its meddling
with local school boards nationwide, encouraging uniformity of
subject matter in all public schools.
-- Christians being threatened with gagging and censorship
through "hate speech" laws, though hate-speech prohibition
is NEVER applied to stop Christian-bashers in the media.
-- Embryonic stem-cell research, whose acceptance MUST
reinforce the attitude of individual human lives being expendable,
still being touted even when it has already been proven that
benefits can be gained from other stem-cell research methods
which don't kill innocent babies to get the cells.
-- Leftwing politicians keeping up the pressure to confiscate
all privately-owned firearms, even though those politicians all
KNOW that violent crime is consistently reduced when honest
citizens are allowed to carry guns for self-defense.
-- Financial institutions trying to move us toward a "cashless
economy," one in which no purchase can be made that is not put
into a database, until the very act of buying something is like
being forced to testify against yourself in court.
-- The establishment news media trying to make our brave
and honorable military servicemembers look bad when they
uphold America's interests, but helping the United Nations to
cover up its appallingly bad handling of "peacekeeping" tasks,
trying to help legitimize the U.N. as a world government with a
right even to tax all ocean shipping.
-- Voices periodically being raised to advocate more central
control over health care, as when the Clintons formerly supported
the idea of commanding all medical schools that they must follow
a quota system regarding how many students were allowed to
study each specialty.
-- The Democratic Party wanting to raise our taxes again,
while at the same time trying (in the name of "lobbying reform")
to close off the channels by which citizens can acquire information
about new legislation that affects our legal rights.
-- A vast portion of the American population blindly accepting
every new erosion of our self-determination as free citizens, in
the belief that government handouts justify everything.
All of these trends point toward making us more vulnerable
to coercive control by a rule-from-the-top-down authority,
with federal authority preferred over local authority, and global
monopoly government preferred over our federal government.
The centralizers always promise us great benefits in return for
our submission to ever-greater intrusions upon our personal
independence; but when they have all the power in their hands,
just how are we going to compel them to keep their promises?
Once inside the kryptonite cage, we won't have a lot of assets
left with which to bargain with Lex Luthor.
How much we can do against this trend essentially depends
on how close we are to THE End Times. Although, as I have
just been saying, the wrongness of excessive central control
is maddeningly self-evident, it is entirely a different question
to foresee when we will run up against that final excessive
central power which has to be allowed to prevail for a time in
God's plan. Consider this: in Revelation 13:7 we are told that
the Antichrist will be allowed to "make war on the saints and
conquer them." Christians alive at that time (or "Tribulation
Saints," depending on your eschatology) surely would have to
know that the Antichrist can't be defeated by human efforts;
yet this verse appears to predict that at one stage they will be
resisting him all the same, and will be overcome by force. It
seems to me that, knowing global dictatorship to be wrong in
principle, these end-time believers will already be resisting
it before the Antichrist assumes command of it, and God will
approve of them in principle even though His apocalyptic
plans require Him to let them be vanquished--the fact of
the saints being vanquished probably serving as one sign
that the Antichrist is now on the scene.
The fallen heroes of this last resistance will have their
satisfaction, their payback, when Jesus comes back to Earth,
NOT any longer as passive Lamb but as avenging Lion, and
the villains find out that they have no kryptonite that works
against Him. This promised moment is foreshadowed in John
Milton's "Paradise Lost," when the Puritan poet imagines
the pre-incarnate Jesus taking over the crushing of Satan's
original rebellion in Heaven. Jesus thanks and commends the
righteous angels for faithfully fighting the corrupted angels
--but, in Milton's imagining of the scene, says that it is
appropriate for Him to finish the action Himself:
"That they may have their wish, to try with Me
In battle which the stronger proves, they all,
Or I alone against them, since by strength
They measure all, of other excellence
Not emulous, nor care who them excels;
Nor other strife with them do I vouchsafe."
Inspiring words, for me at least. But it still remains for us
to discern what WE are to do meanwhile. To this tricky but
urgent question I say that, since government is increasingly
trying to be worshipped as God, we are increasingly obligated
in conscience to tell government, "No, actually, no, you're not."
There will be much diversity in the ways God calls different
Christians to resist the centralizing trend. A favorite notion of
mine--first brought to my attention long ago by an elderly
Christian gentleman, whose name I seem to recall as Bennett
Griggs--is a different kind of "cashless economy" from the
ruthlessly-monitored model the international banks wish to
foist upon us. I refer to BARTER NETWORKS: that's right,
my tutoring your children in math for your fixing my car. This
does have the merit of being a nonviolent form of resistance.
You who read these words may have ideas of your own.
God knows, we don't need one monolithic central authority
micromanaging all efforts to resist the monolithic central
authority. But resist we must. We may in our lifetimes be
forcibly shoved into the cage, but God would not have us
WALK in of our own foolish accord.
Yours for Jesus and America,
Joseph R. Ravitts
"He dies for lack of discipline, and because of his
great folly he is lost." -- Proverbs 5:23
"A prudent man sees danger and hides himself; but
the simple go on, and suffer for it." --Proverbs 22:3
Long ago, before they had the competition of Marvel
Comics to force them to do better, DC Comics tolerated
some awfully mediocre storywriting from their staff.
Nonetheless, one scene from those years of blah plotlines
sticks in my mind as having been clever.
It was in a Superboy comic. The young Lex Luthor, already
up to no good, constructed a cage that was made partly out
of kryptonite, with lead sleeves to prevent the kryptonite
from making itself known too soon by sight or feel. The
kryptonite would only be uncovered, and its harmful effect
unleashed, if someone stepped inside. Since no force at his
command could compel Superboy to enter the cage, Lex relied
on Superboy to fall victim to curiosity. So, having placed
the cage where the super-victim would find it only after
Lex was well away from its vicinity, Lex left a sign on
its open door, saying simply:
"TRAP TO CAPTURE SUPERBOY.
ENTER HERE, PLEASE."
And enter it Superboy did, only to find his powers drained
by a sudden surge of kryptonite radiation. I forget just how
Superboy survived that blunder and lived to become Superman;
but the lesson of the self-announced trap has stuck with me.
A study of history will impress you with the tragic fact that
many of the great calamities were breathtakingly avoidable.
It would have been so easy to build the Titanic with complete
anti-flooding compartmentalization, instead of only the partial
barriers which in the crisis failed to contain the incoming water.
It would have been so easy for the leaders of Europe to look at
Mein Kampf and say to themselves, "By Jove, that Hitler chap
really does intend to conquer us!" It ought to be just as easy
for present-day European leaders to listen to the recordings
obtained of routine sermons in European and Middle Eastern
mosques, and say to themselves, "Those imams really DO
intend to impose Islam and Sharia law on all of us by violence
and fear!" But people keep walking into the kryptonite cage.
I've said in my recent columns that I anticipate evil taking
a different line once Islamic terrorism has exhausted itself (or
has been annihilated in the Gog-Magog event from the Book
of Ezekiel). And the preparation being made for that new line
to succeed is going on right in front of us. The kryptonite cage
we are being invited to come and be caught in is the cage of
PASSIVE DEPENDENCY ON CENTRAL AUTHORITY.
Since I began by remembering comic books from my youth,
let's look at another phenomenon of youth. For everyone who
has a driver's license: wasn't it a great liberation, didn't it make
a huge difference, when you became able to drive on your own,
no longer depending on your bicycle or your parents to drive
you to places? In the first year of owning your own car, would
you have wanted to go back to having Mommy chauffeur you?
Even for Americans who know nothing about Patrick Henry
or John Paul Jones or Francis Scott Key, this kind of personal
recollection of the value of liberty should count for something
--should make people wary and hesitant about going in the
opposite direction, toward helpless clienthood. And can it be
that Americans have completely forgotten what was the evil of
all evils that our Founding Fathers fought against?
It was the evil of a government which could take anything
away from us, and impose any burden upon us, without ever
having to answer to us.
Now, think: what would you say is going on when all of the
following trends are occurring at the same time?
-- The federal government steadily increasing its meddling
with local school boards nationwide, encouraging uniformity of
subject matter in all public schools.
-- Christians being threatened with gagging and censorship
through "hate speech" laws, though hate-speech prohibition
is NEVER applied to stop Christian-bashers in the media.
-- Embryonic stem-cell research, whose acceptance MUST
reinforce the attitude of individual human lives being expendable,
still being touted even when it has already been proven that
benefits can be gained from other stem-cell research methods
which don't kill innocent babies to get the cells.
-- Leftwing politicians keeping up the pressure to confiscate
all privately-owned firearms, even though those politicians all
KNOW that violent crime is consistently reduced when honest
citizens are allowed to carry guns for self-defense.
-- Financial institutions trying to move us toward a "cashless
economy," one in which no purchase can be made that is not put
into a database, until the very act of buying something is like
being forced to testify against yourself in court.
-- The establishment news media trying to make our brave
and honorable military servicemembers look bad when they
uphold America's interests, but helping the United Nations to
cover up its appallingly bad handling of "peacekeeping" tasks,
trying to help legitimize the U.N. as a world government with a
right even to tax all ocean shipping.
-- Voices periodically being raised to advocate more central
control over health care, as when the Clintons formerly supported
the idea of commanding all medical schools that they must follow
a quota system regarding how many students were allowed to
study each specialty.
-- The Democratic Party wanting to raise our taxes again,
while at the same time trying (in the name of "lobbying reform")
to close off the channels by which citizens can acquire information
about new legislation that affects our legal rights.
-- A vast portion of the American population blindly accepting
every new erosion of our self-determination as free citizens, in
the belief that government handouts justify everything.
All of these trends point toward making us more vulnerable
to coercive control by a rule-from-the-top-down authority,
with federal authority preferred over local authority, and global
monopoly government preferred over our federal government.
The centralizers always promise us great benefits in return for
our submission to ever-greater intrusions upon our personal
independence; but when they have all the power in their hands,
just how are we going to compel them to keep their promises?
Once inside the kryptonite cage, we won't have a lot of assets
left with which to bargain with Lex Luthor.
How much we can do against this trend essentially depends
on how close we are to THE End Times. Although, as I have
just been saying, the wrongness of excessive central control
is maddeningly self-evident, it is entirely a different question
to foresee when we will run up against that final excessive
central power which has to be allowed to prevail for a time in
God's plan. Consider this: in Revelation 13:7 we are told that
the Antichrist will be allowed to "make war on the saints and
conquer them." Christians alive at that time (or "Tribulation
Saints," depending on your eschatology) surely would have to
know that the Antichrist can't be defeated by human efforts;
yet this verse appears to predict that at one stage they will be
resisting him all the same, and will be overcome by force. It
seems to me that, knowing global dictatorship to be wrong in
principle, these end-time believers will already be resisting
it before the Antichrist assumes command of it, and God will
approve of them in principle even though His apocalyptic
plans require Him to let them be vanquished--the fact of
the saints being vanquished probably serving as one sign
that the Antichrist is now on the scene.
The fallen heroes of this last resistance will have their
satisfaction, their payback, when Jesus comes back to Earth,
NOT any longer as passive Lamb but as avenging Lion, and
the villains find out that they have no kryptonite that works
against Him. This promised moment is foreshadowed in John
Milton's "Paradise Lost," when the Puritan poet imagines
the pre-incarnate Jesus taking over the crushing of Satan's
original rebellion in Heaven. Jesus thanks and commends the
righteous angels for faithfully fighting the corrupted angels
--but, in Milton's imagining of the scene, says that it is
appropriate for Him to finish the action Himself:
"That they may have their wish, to try with Me
In battle which the stronger proves, they all,
Or I alone against them, since by strength
They measure all, of other excellence
Not emulous, nor care who them excels;
Nor other strife with them do I vouchsafe."
Inspiring words, for me at least. But it still remains for us
to discern what WE are to do meanwhile. To this tricky but
urgent question I say that, since government is increasingly
trying to be worshipped as God, we are increasingly obligated
in conscience to tell government, "No, actually, no, you're not."
There will be much diversity in the ways God calls different
Christians to resist the centralizing trend. A favorite notion of
mine--first brought to my attention long ago by an elderly
Christian gentleman, whose name I seem to recall as Bennett
Griggs--is a different kind of "cashless economy" from the
ruthlessly-monitored model the international banks wish to
foist upon us. I refer to BARTER NETWORKS: that's right,
my tutoring your children in math for your fixing my car. This
does have the merit of being a nonviolent form of resistance.
You who read these words may have ideas of your own.
God knows, we don't need one monolithic central authority
micromanaging all efforts to resist the monolithic central
authority. But resist we must. We may in our lifetimes be
forcibly shoved into the cage, but God would not have us
WALK in of our own foolish accord.
Yours for Jesus and America,
Joseph R. Ravitts
Without occultism involved, I can let the departed co-founder of "Empowered For Freedom" be heard
17 April 2007:
My first wife Mary, now residing in the presence
of Jesus Christ, was a veteran nurse. She was also
a neat-freak who nagged me about my pack-rat habits.
But those very same pack-rat habits caused me to
save a newspaper clipping from about 1998, which
I found again just this morning. The clipping is a
letter Mary wrote to one of the newspapers of Denver,
Colorado, back when I was stationed in that area.
Early in our relationship, Mary used to work part-
time for an addict-recovery program in Rockford,
Illinois. This job, and the other job she had back
then as a jail nurse, were just part of the experience
she had in dealing with narcotics-addicted persons.
Later, as needle-exchange programs became a fad,
Mary was aware that many addicts would simply share
the new, initially-clean needles immediately upon
use, thus defeating the purpose of the exchange.
The letter she wrote about this issue is reproduced
below. First, though, I should mention something
for the benefit of any reader who may think that
this letter shows Mary to have been somehow hard-
hearted. In the months when she cared for prisoners
at the Winnebago County Jail, she demonstrated such
compassion and integrity in treating those under
her care, that hardened criminals loved her as if
she were their mother. Keep this in mind as you
read. (And of course, where she says "drugs," she
means narcotics, not legitimate medicines.) ///
"DISPENSING NEEDLES AKIN TO ASSISTED SUICIDE"
How "Kevorkian" of Mayor Wellington Webb to want
to use citizens' funds to promote safe drug abuse!
Those who use drugs to practice a slow form of
suicide, are now to be aided by your tax dollars.
Money saved on syringes can now be used for a
better knife or gun to rape or rob you or your
neighbor before the next "fix"...while the supplier
can continue to live in an expensive home, and
support politically-correct causes, borne by the
manufacture and sale of drugs.
Use of drugs is a crime. But while D.A.R.E.
programs teach kids to say no to drugs, their
local government counters with infector-control
measures that promote addiction. To use my taxes
for any needle exchange violates my right to
religious freedom, by forcing me to be an
accessory to the crime of someone else's sin
of drug abuse and moral degradation.
If you want to stop addiction, use tax money to
develop broader-based methadone treatment programs
and counselling. Emphasize rehabilitation, instead
of promoting the slow-death action of addicts.
Mary C. Ravitts, RN, BSN
My first wife Mary, now residing in the presence
of Jesus Christ, was a veteran nurse. She was also
a neat-freak who nagged me about my pack-rat habits.
But those very same pack-rat habits caused me to
save a newspaper clipping from about 1998, which
I found again just this morning. The clipping is a
letter Mary wrote to one of the newspapers of Denver,
Colorado, back when I was stationed in that area.
Early in our relationship, Mary used to work part-
time for an addict-recovery program in Rockford,
Illinois. This job, and the other job she had back
then as a jail nurse, were just part of the experience
she had in dealing with narcotics-addicted persons.
Later, as needle-exchange programs became a fad,
Mary was aware that many addicts would simply share
the new, initially-clean needles immediately upon
use, thus defeating the purpose of the exchange.
The letter she wrote about this issue is reproduced
below. First, though, I should mention something
for the benefit of any reader who may think that
this letter shows Mary to have been somehow hard-
hearted. In the months when she cared for prisoners
at the Winnebago County Jail, she demonstrated such
compassion and integrity in treating those under
her care, that hardened criminals loved her as if
she were their mother. Keep this in mind as you
read. (And of course, where she says "drugs," she
means narcotics, not legitimate medicines.) ///
"DISPENSING NEEDLES AKIN TO ASSISTED SUICIDE"
How "Kevorkian" of Mayor Wellington Webb to want
to use citizens' funds to promote safe drug abuse!
Those who use drugs to practice a slow form of
suicide, are now to be aided by your tax dollars.
Money saved on syringes can now be used for a
better knife or gun to rape or rob you or your
neighbor before the next "fix"...while the supplier
can continue to live in an expensive home, and
support politically-correct causes, borne by the
manufacture and sale of drugs.
Use of drugs is a crime. But while D.A.R.E.
programs teach kids to say no to drugs, their
local government counters with infector-control
measures that promote addiction. To use my taxes
for any needle exchange violates my right to
religious freedom, by forcing me to be an
accessory to the crime of someone else's sin
of drug abuse and moral degradation.
If you want to stop addiction, use tax money to
develop broader-based methadone treatment programs
and counselling. Emphasize rehabilitation, instead
of promoting the slow-death action of addicts.
Mary C. Ravitts, RN, BSN
Pardon my being random; this one goes back to January 2006, based on an idea I had long before that
"THE FALSE FORGIVENESS OF THE FAITHLESS"
Back in the '60's, Bob Dylan could do no wrong in the
eyes of the popular culture. He was allegedly a giant
of creativity, the conscience of the Western Hempisphere
(that was a typo when I first wrote this, but in view
of what many of Dylan's fans were smoking I decided to
retain it).
All this changed the very instant (in 1979) that he
claimed to have become a believer in Jesus Christ. Now,
suddenly, former Dylanites decided that he was arrogant
and self-righteous. In fact--much the way the Soviet
Union used to call dissident writers not only treasonous
but also untalented--they decided he was not a giant
of creativity after all. "Saturday Night Live" did a
supposedly clever sketch which depicted Dylan as having
stolen his major song ideas from Woody Guthrie--an
accusation they would never have aimed at him as long
as he was politically correct.
Like the seed dropped in shallow soil, Dylan could not
take the persecution. So he "repented" of the "offense"
of taking an interest in Jesus. In an interview with
SPY Magazine, he said that it didn't matter if Jesus
was the Son of God or not. Of course, he was smart
enough to realize that NO ONE would EVER say this
unless he was convinced that Jesus was NOT the Son
of God; thus, his saying that it didn't matter was
an absolute capitulation--a clear declaration to the
leftwing establishment that he was abandoning all that
Jesus-freak foolishness, so wouldn't they please let
him be a giant of creativity again?
It worked. The leftwing establishment, in its secular-
humanist grace, "forgave" Dylan and gave him permission
to be admired again. If a rooster crowed three times
around then, Dylan wasn't listening--probably too busy
counting his thirty pieces of silver.
That reminds me: someone once wrote a little poem
that warrants reflection--
"Strange to think how man
By man himself is priced;
For thirty silver pieces,
Judas sold himself, not Christ."
Back in the '60's, Bob Dylan could do no wrong in the
eyes of the popular culture. He was allegedly a giant
of creativity, the conscience of the Western Hempisphere
(that was a typo when I first wrote this, but in view
of what many of Dylan's fans were smoking I decided to
retain it).
All this changed the very instant (in 1979) that he
claimed to have become a believer in Jesus Christ. Now,
suddenly, former Dylanites decided that he was arrogant
and self-righteous. In fact--much the way the Soviet
Union used to call dissident writers not only treasonous
but also untalented--they decided he was not a giant
of creativity after all. "Saturday Night Live" did a
supposedly clever sketch which depicted Dylan as having
stolen his major song ideas from Woody Guthrie--an
accusation they would never have aimed at him as long
as he was politically correct.
Like the seed dropped in shallow soil, Dylan could not
take the persecution. So he "repented" of the "offense"
of taking an interest in Jesus. In an interview with
SPY Magazine, he said that it didn't matter if Jesus
was the Son of God or not. Of course, he was smart
enough to realize that NO ONE would EVER say this
unless he was convinced that Jesus was NOT the Son
of God; thus, his saying that it didn't matter was
an absolute capitulation--a clear declaration to the
leftwing establishment that he was abandoning all that
Jesus-freak foolishness, so wouldn't they please let
him be a giant of creativity again?
It worked. The leftwing establishment, in its secular-
humanist grace, "forgave" Dylan and gave him permission
to be admired again. If a rooster crowed three times
around then, Dylan wasn't listening--probably too busy
counting his thirty pieces of silver.
That reminds me: someone once wrote a little poem
that warrants reflection--
"Strange to think how man
By man himself is priced;
For thirty silver pieces,
Judas sold himself, not Christ."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)