John Wayne was one great American who by way of his Hollywood movie career portrayed to America, what it really means to be a man. Not only was he tough on screen, he was unabashedly and refreshingly honest, always to say truthfully what is on his mind. None of this political correctness nonsense for him! If ever a Gloria Steinem or Germaine Greer-type woman got uppity with him, he had no second thoughts to turn them across his knee and give their fannies the true-grit paddling they so richly deserved! Yet, he was actually very generous in his attitude towards women and their rights. Shortly before he died, The Duke said, "Women can do anything they want to....as long as they have supper ready for us men when we come home from work."
Fair enough: throughout the history of America, men have done a very great deal, from which women have benefitted. So there is some justice to be had in a little gracious compensatory gratitude back to men from the distaff side.
For all his portrayal of male machismo on the Hollywood movie screen, however, John Wayne never actually served in the U.S. military armed forces, despite being of appropriate age to do so in World War II and in the Korean conflict. (He was born in May 1907.) He never led any real-life charges up San Juan Hill, nor did he ever ride into the proverbial very jaws of hell and return again, unscathed. A college football injury was responsible for his marked absence from military service to his country.
John Wayne may have had great basic physical strength, but as an alleged inveterate smoker off-screen, he never had any enduring stamina to display in any of his movies, i.e. he never ran or swam continuously for any great distance. He also never participated in the Olympic Games. These facts create something of a credibility gap between his on-screen invincibility, and his real-life athletic capability. But at least, when we Americans turned off the TV after watching a John Wayne movie, we felt damn good to be an American! Stars and stripes forever, and no bowing to foreign heads of state to apologize to them for America's past doings abroad!
Yet, John Wayne was never gratuitously pugnacious or petulant. He was always well-reserved, saving the full force of his wrath exclusively for those who deliberately provoked it. He obliged both good and evil with the utmost of equity becoming a patriotic American.
This blogger confesses that John Wayne was every bit the man yours truly never was and should be. He has it in mind that when he dies and goes to heaven, his first question to God will be, "Lord, why did you not make a John Wayne out of me?" God's answer may well be, "But Larry, John Wayne knew not a lick about music! Look at all the musical talent with which I blessed you!" "I am mighty grateful to you for that, Lord", I would reply in kind. But all my musical talent won me more scornful and jealous enemies than admirers in my lifetime, even among alleged friends and family relatives. John Wayne was far better-off in the popularity department with an America which admires crude brutality over refined cultural erudition.
Thanks to the stereotype of such effeminate music composers as Mozart, Schubert and Mendelssohn, this musician blogger never dated girls in high school and college, feeling assured no woman in her right mind would be caught dead in the company of a sissy-wimp cellist. Yet, the reality is that even The Duke himself experienced divorce several times in his life. Maybe wives exposed to the private lives of the rich-and-famous know something about wowie-kazowie men the rest of the general public does not know about them.
No, there is never any rose without thorns, even if that rose is named John Wayne. Still, it is well beyond dispute that on the Hollywood screen, The Duke was and still is a hero--a great American hero--to tens of millions of Americans. In an American Rust Age of anti-hero, The Duke still remains rhetorically an eternal torch in the hearts of those who remember him, of all those traditional values which built America into the world's greatest and uniquely-exceptional nation.
-LKM
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Behaviour Unbecoming
In both the civilian government and the military, there exists in the law code a broad and disturbingly-vague category of punishable wrong-doing, simply called "behaviour unbecoming", i.e. behaviour inconsistent with and contrary to a perfect role-model example of someone in government service at public tax-payer expense, whether in civilian service or in the military. This legal category is itself unbecoming to the rest of the body of law because it is so very imprecise and thus subject to partisan political or otherwise whimsical and capricious interpretation by any would-be tyrant using that power of government office for personal hubris and self-aggrandizement. In order to insure equal justice under law, law itself must be narrowly and accurately defined.
Many Americans--this blogger included--proudly believe in American exceptionalism: we say there is something about America which sets it uniquely apart from all the rest of the world's nations. We believe this American exceptionalism to be a gift from God, a gift which the Lord will rescind, should America decline its obligation to play its exemplary role of unique destiny in world history.
In recent decades, grave American governmental and societal departures from that unique obligation have heralded a new era of behaviour unbecoming to the unique greatness America alone has heretofore been priviledged to know and exercise. What are these behaviours unbecoming to America? Lest we, too, be accused of being vague and imprecise, let us declare them to the world:
1)America has condoned law-breaking by certain "politically correct" demographic segments of society, based on alleged claim of victimhood from generations past now long-dead and gone. 2)America has tolerated leaders in high government office who shamelessly talk dirty four-letter-word bathroom-wall language. This behaviour is an assault upon the solemn dignity of public trust in high government office. 3)America has invaded the privacy of its citizenry in the name of national security, by use of politically-motivated surveillance without warrant. This government behaviour opens the door to possible use of federal agencies for partisan political purpose. 4)America has engaged in excessive taxation of its citizenry, thus robbing the people of God-given right to pursue happiness on their own terms. 5)America has cowardly abandoned freedom of speech in favor of political correctness. 6)America has winked its approval of certain sexual behaviours not tolerated in this country one hundred years ago. The mass communications media shamelessly places these sexual perversities on center stage before the public, in daring defiance of traditional marriage. 7)America has zipped the proverbial rug out from under the feet of the nation's parents, to discipline their own children as they see fit. Consequently, America has recently raised generations of defiant young brats who feel America owes them a free living with no obligations on their part in return. Dr. Benjamin Spock is largely to blame for abolishing parental boards of education applicable to young seats of learning. 8)America has recently replaced beauty with ugliness in public display of both audial and visual arts, saying in the name of political correctness that ugly is just as good as beautiful, and there is no absolute and objective measure of either. 9)Inferior public school education threatens to render future generations of Americans unable to successfully compete in international global markets. 10)Numbers substitute for absolute principles in determination of right from wrong. 11)America has adopted quick-easy divorce laws allowing nullification of marriage for relatively light and transient reasons. This practice is an assault upon a God-ordained and sacred social institution. 12)After sacrificing thirty-five-thousand American lives in a war against Communism in Korea, and sixty-thousand more in a later war against Communism in Viet Nam, we slowly but surely adopt Communism for ourselves, even by our own collective hand, as we convince ourselves that individual liberties are too dangerous and the uncertain vicissitudes of a free market place are too discomforting for America's own good. The hottest beds of Communism in America are in its halls and classrooms of academia, where honest education is supplanted with political indoctrination. 13)Thanks to reckless and irresponsible government economic policies, the American dollar continually loses its purchasing power every year. This decline has international repercussions as foreign governments also lose confidence in the American dollar as the world back-up monetary currency.
To be sure, America has never witnessed a Golden Age of Victorian sinlessness and moral rectitude. Nevertheless, the certainty of moral decline in America over the last one hundred years is beyond dispute. Behaviour unbecoming to the ideals of the American character are now more endemic than ever before. That said, we need not listen to the clarion call of some who declare that America's better days are now irreversibly behind her. We have many other sources of leadership to look to for inspiration besides those in government and politics. What about our pioneers in science and technology? What about our innovators in education? What about our literary writers, music and theatrical drama composers, our architects and our automotive industry designers? What about our inventors and discoverers? It is these people who will courageously carry the day for America, popular majority opposition and cynicism notwithstanding. All that is necessary for a revival of American greatness is for every American to quit saying "Let George do it", look at himself or herself in the mirror, and say in full confidence and conviction, "I will do it."
-LKM
Many Americans--this blogger included--proudly believe in American exceptionalism: we say there is something about America which sets it uniquely apart from all the rest of the world's nations. We believe this American exceptionalism to be a gift from God, a gift which the Lord will rescind, should America decline its obligation to play its exemplary role of unique destiny in world history.
In recent decades, grave American governmental and societal departures from that unique obligation have heralded a new era of behaviour unbecoming to the unique greatness America alone has heretofore been priviledged to know and exercise. What are these behaviours unbecoming to America? Lest we, too, be accused of being vague and imprecise, let us declare them to the world:
1)America has condoned law-breaking by certain "politically correct" demographic segments of society, based on alleged claim of victimhood from generations past now long-dead and gone. 2)America has tolerated leaders in high government office who shamelessly talk dirty four-letter-word bathroom-wall language. This behaviour is an assault upon the solemn dignity of public trust in high government office. 3)America has invaded the privacy of its citizenry in the name of national security, by use of politically-motivated surveillance without warrant. This government behaviour opens the door to possible use of federal agencies for partisan political purpose. 4)America has engaged in excessive taxation of its citizenry, thus robbing the people of God-given right to pursue happiness on their own terms. 5)America has cowardly abandoned freedom of speech in favor of political correctness. 6)America has winked its approval of certain sexual behaviours not tolerated in this country one hundred years ago. The mass communications media shamelessly places these sexual perversities on center stage before the public, in daring defiance of traditional marriage. 7)America has zipped the proverbial rug out from under the feet of the nation's parents, to discipline their own children as they see fit. Consequently, America has recently raised generations of defiant young brats who feel America owes them a free living with no obligations on their part in return. Dr. Benjamin Spock is largely to blame for abolishing parental boards of education applicable to young seats of learning. 8)America has recently replaced beauty with ugliness in public display of both audial and visual arts, saying in the name of political correctness that ugly is just as good as beautiful, and there is no absolute and objective measure of either. 9)Inferior public school education threatens to render future generations of Americans unable to successfully compete in international global markets. 10)Numbers substitute for absolute principles in determination of right from wrong. 11)America has adopted quick-easy divorce laws allowing nullification of marriage for relatively light and transient reasons. This practice is an assault upon a God-ordained and sacred social institution. 12)After sacrificing thirty-five-thousand American lives in a war against Communism in Korea, and sixty-thousand more in a later war against Communism in Viet Nam, we slowly but surely adopt Communism for ourselves, even by our own collective hand, as we convince ourselves that individual liberties are too dangerous and the uncertain vicissitudes of a free market place are too discomforting for America's own good. The hottest beds of Communism in America are in its halls and classrooms of academia, where honest education is supplanted with political indoctrination. 13)Thanks to reckless and irresponsible government economic policies, the American dollar continually loses its purchasing power every year. This decline has international repercussions as foreign governments also lose confidence in the American dollar as the world back-up monetary currency.
To be sure, America has never witnessed a Golden Age of Victorian sinlessness and moral rectitude. Nevertheless, the certainty of moral decline in America over the last one hundred years is beyond dispute. Behaviour unbecoming to the ideals of the American character are now more endemic than ever before. That said, we need not listen to the clarion call of some who declare that America's better days are now irreversibly behind her. We have many other sources of leadership to look to for inspiration besides those in government and politics. What about our pioneers in science and technology? What about our innovators in education? What about our literary writers, music and theatrical drama composers, our architects and our automotive industry designers? What about our inventors and discoverers? It is these people who will courageously carry the day for America, popular majority opposition and cynicism notwithstanding. All that is necessary for a revival of American greatness is for every American to quit saying "Let George do it", look at himself or herself in the mirror, and say in full confidence and conviction, "I will do it."
-LKM
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Thomas Jefferson On The Political Correctness Doctrine
The pernicious doctrine of political correctness is one of Communist origin. Chinese Communist Chairman Mao Tse-T'ung wrote about it in his Little Red Book several decades ago, calling it "right thinking". In Communist countries, political dissidents have been sent to "mental hospitals", to get their political thinking "straightened out". What would Thomas Jefferson say to this doctrine of political correctness, were he to be alive today to witness it? In America today, threats to supplant free speech with political correctness, especially on pretext of protecting the feelings of certain demographic groups of people against all possible emotional injury, are becoming ever-more pervasive. In his book, You Can't Say That!, George Mason University law professor David Bernstein gives many examples of how individual civil liberties guaranteed us under the Bill of Rights are being rescinded by anti-discrimination laws.
Thomas Jefferson once said, "Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty." Around the inner-wall dome of the Jefferson Memorial today, we read others of his words: "I HAVE SWORN UPON THE ALTAR OF GOD, ETERNAL HOSTILITY AGAINST EVERY FORM OF TYRANNY OVER THE MINDS OF MAN."
-LKM
Thomas Jefferson once said, "Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty." Around the inner-wall dome of the Jefferson Memorial today, we read others of his words: "I HAVE SWORN UPON THE ALTAR OF GOD, ETERNAL HOSTILITY AGAINST EVERY FORM OF TYRANNY OVER THE MINDS OF MAN."
-LKM
Friday, December 3, 2010
What Is A People?
This question is very difficult to answer with complete and total accuracy. No one single socio-political factor, standing alone, can isolate and identify any exclusive and monolithic aggregate of human beings forming a race, nation or society. On the contrary, there are several factors collectively responsible for the cohesion of such a group. Some of these factors are obligatory(sine qua non), while others are discretionary.
The first obligatory factor of social cohesion is a common language. Without a common linguistic communication system, society will not inter-act for very long. A second obligatory factor is a common set of socio-political and moral values, perhaps expressed through religious institutions and activities of one kind or another.
Racial solidarity is a discretionary factor in defining sovereign nationhood: most of the world's nations go this route, but a few--including the United States of America--do not. Several races of people had a historic hand in bringing America into its existence.
Today, however, new immigrants from all over the world collectively threaten to end the identity of the American solidarity as a single people united in a common purposiveness. This is because the new immigrants abjectly refuse to assimilate to the culture of those Americans having deep ancestral roots in American soil.
Past historic examples prove that not all who are within the national political boundaries of a country are one and the same people. Kurds of Syria, Iraq and Turkey are neither Arab nor Turk. Basques living in the Pyrenees Mountains between Spain and France are neither Spanish nor French. Tibetans living within mainland China are not Chinese.
Israel is interesting: peoples from all over the world, having lived in its many divergent countries for several centuries, have immigrated in recent decades to that country on basis of claim of kinship with the people who lived there in ancient Bible times, two thousand and more years ago. Indeed, many eyebrows would be raised, to see actual familial historic records maintained continuously without hiatus for two or more millenia, to corroborate that claim. DNA blood-type comparisons, too, are dubious at best after being away from the alleged ancestral homeland for so long. Nevertheless, the existence of a Hebrew language and a religion called Judaism, both from Bible times, is indisputably well-documented and somehow continuous today.
History is full of examples where one group of people have adopted the language and culture of other peoples at a later date--a language and culture not originally their own. For example, very few black African-Americans and American aboriginals(incorrectly called "Indians") still speak fluently as native languages the languages of their ancestors from five centuries ago and earlier. QUESTION: Who and where are the Twelve Lost Tribes of the house of Israel, referred to in the Bible book of Revelations?
As best as can be expected, a people is defined as a distinct group of human beings sharing a common language and a common socio-political structure and agenda.
Finally, what about individuals who "swim up-stream" against the collective group's socio-political norms? Where is the line to be drawn between "politically incorrect" and "criminal", in terms of threat to the integrity of the society in question? There is always a conflict between prerogatives of individuals, and those of the group in the name of social unity and cohesion. So far, tolerance of differences between individuals and their group affiliation as a whole? Can collective society benefit from "wayward" individuals who march to the cadences of a different drummer? What about great individual writers, scientists, inventors, explorers, music composers and artists? These, and not government and political officials, are the people to whom the rest of the group should look as sources of inspiration by which to define group identity.
-LKM
The first obligatory factor of social cohesion is a common language. Without a common linguistic communication system, society will not inter-act for very long. A second obligatory factor is a common set of socio-political and moral values, perhaps expressed through religious institutions and activities of one kind or another.
Racial solidarity is a discretionary factor in defining sovereign nationhood: most of the world's nations go this route, but a few--including the United States of America--do not. Several races of people had a historic hand in bringing America into its existence.
Today, however, new immigrants from all over the world collectively threaten to end the identity of the American solidarity as a single people united in a common purposiveness. This is because the new immigrants abjectly refuse to assimilate to the culture of those Americans having deep ancestral roots in American soil.
Past historic examples prove that not all who are within the national political boundaries of a country are one and the same people. Kurds of Syria, Iraq and Turkey are neither Arab nor Turk. Basques living in the Pyrenees Mountains between Spain and France are neither Spanish nor French. Tibetans living within mainland China are not Chinese.
Israel is interesting: peoples from all over the world, having lived in its many divergent countries for several centuries, have immigrated in recent decades to that country on basis of claim of kinship with the people who lived there in ancient Bible times, two thousand and more years ago. Indeed, many eyebrows would be raised, to see actual familial historic records maintained continuously without hiatus for two or more millenia, to corroborate that claim. DNA blood-type comparisons, too, are dubious at best after being away from the alleged ancestral homeland for so long. Nevertheless, the existence of a Hebrew language and a religion called Judaism, both from Bible times, is indisputably well-documented and somehow continuous today.
History is full of examples where one group of people have adopted the language and culture of other peoples at a later date--a language and culture not originally their own. For example, very few black African-Americans and American aboriginals(incorrectly called "Indians") still speak fluently as native languages the languages of their ancestors from five centuries ago and earlier. QUESTION: Who and where are the Twelve Lost Tribes of the house of Israel, referred to in the Bible book of Revelations?
As best as can be expected, a people is defined as a distinct group of human beings sharing a common language and a common socio-political structure and agenda.
Finally, what about individuals who "swim up-stream" against the collective group's socio-political norms? Where is the line to be drawn between "politically incorrect" and "criminal", in terms of threat to the integrity of the society in question? There is always a conflict between prerogatives of individuals, and those of the group in the name of social unity and cohesion. So far, tolerance of differences between individuals and their group affiliation as a whole? Can collective society benefit from "wayward" individuals who march to the cadences of a different drummer? What about great individual writers, scientists, inventors, explorers, music composers and artists? These, and not government and political officials, are the people to whom the rest of the group should look as sources of inspiration by which to define group identity.
-LKM
Monday, November 29, 2010
Christmas: Bah, Humbug?
Is Christmas, December 25, really a humbug, as Ebeneezer Scrooge said it is?
There is no mention anywhere in the Bible as to the true birth date of the Lord Jesus Christ. The date of December 25 represents a compromise between year-end Roman pagan festivities and the early Christian church. The church sought to appease Roman paganism in order to stave off intense persecution at Roman hands, by adoption of December 25 as the date of celebration of Jesus Christ's birthday.
More important is the modern role of Christianity in society. Is it just a one-day, one-time flurry of kindness and good-will in an otherwise mean-spirited and ferocious dog-eat-dog world? Or does that one special day serve as a role model for ideal interpersonal relations throughout the entire year? The true value of Christmas is decided by the extent to which we permit the spirit of Christmas Day to permeate our lives daily all year long. Do we always love our neighbors as ourselves? "I am going to raise your salary, Bob Cratchet! Put some more coal onto the fire!"
-LKM
There is no mention anywhere in the Bible as to the true birth date of the Lord Jesus Christ. The date of December 25 represents a compromise between year-end Roman pagan festivities and the early Christian church. The church sought to appease Roman paganism in order to stave off intense persecution at Roman hands, by adoption of December 25 as the date of celebration of Jesus Christ's birthday.
More important is the modern role of Christianity in society. Is it just a one-day, one-time flurry of kindness and good-will in an otherwise mean-spirited and ferocious dog-eat-dog world? Or does that one special day serve as a role model for ideal interpersonal relations throughout the entire year? The true value of Christmas is decided by the extent to which we permit the spirit of Christmas Day to permeate our lives daily all year long. Do we always love our neighbors as ourselves? "I am going to raise your salary, Bob Cratchet! Put some more coal onto the fire!"
-LKM
Sunday, November 28, 2010
LKM Epistle To The Distaff Side
In an earlier BLOG article, I quoted John Wayne a.k.a. "The Duke", to say I totally agree with his pronouncement on the role of women in our society, that they should be free to do anything they want to----as long as they have supper ready for us men when we come home from work! Also, my BLOG article concerning the limits of freedom apply equally to both sexes as per the U.S. Constitution 14th Amendment. In no way should women be prevented from their pursuits of happiness, so long as by so-doing, they inflict no injuries upon the persons or properties of men.
This writer has on numerous occasions entertained the fascinating question in his mind: what if we male chauvinist pigs indeed turned over every ruling socio-political and financial institution in America over to the women--lock, stock and barrel--to run completely their way, while we male chauvinist pigs just rolled over in the mud of our pig styes and went back to sleep? Would the women of America--and even of the world--then be happy? Or, do women, at the end of the day, confess that they want--and even need--the good-old-boys' club to be around, to spice up their lives and make them interesting? This writer has doubts about any inevitable feminine felicity at the prospect of sexual segregation in our society, to the clear advantage of women. This is because women are just as individual and just as divided as men are, concerning their goals, tastes, preferences/prejudices, motives and tempraments. In total absence of men, there would be female power-and-prestige struggles of equal frequency and ferocity as those seen among men. Differences in age and generation would be a major contributor to such struggles, and intergenerational conflict knows no boundary of gender. That is because old people have within their memory vivid recollections of experiences, of which the younger have no-such recollection for similar chronological point-of-reference.
What about the issue of sexual freedom? Here again, freedom cannot be separated from individual responsibility. Whatsoever a woman may choose--be it monogamous or polygamous sexual relations--she cannot and should not expect the general public to relieve her of any adverse consequences visited upon her by her own choice of behaviour. She must pay for her own abortions and STD medical treatments--if any--as it is not the role of government to rescue people from the consequences of their own idiotic and fool-hardy choices. Government must protect people from the ferocities of one another, but not from the foolishness of themselves. I will get my hands off the woman's body if government, acting on her behalf, will get its hands out of my bank account.
Women size up men to assess their sexual desirability just as much as men do towards women. Monica did not choose Bill ("I did not have sex with that woman.")Clinton for nothing! In the Garden of Eden, Eve pulled Adam down into sin first! So, feminists in vain play the role of innocent victim here, whether or not they know, in this case, what "is" is!
What about women and military service for America? This question harks back to the issue of whether or not women are the "weaker sex", and so whether men should protect them from various evils and dangers. Feminists scoff in abject contempt at this idea as something rooted in romantic legends from days of yore, not in step with modern realities. It is they, who push so hard for equality between the sexes, for both opportunity and responsibility in the military. In such case, the military should make no categorical concessions for women, pertaining to combat training and readiness if, as feminists claim, there are no fundamental differences besides reproductive mechanism, between men and women. Equality means equality of obligation, as well as equality of priviledge. QUESTION: Would American politicians be so quick to commit America to war, if prospects were likely for equal number of both male and female dead military personnel returning home in flag-draped caskets? Are women's lives more valuable than those of men, such as to exempt them from this possible scenario? If so, why?--if equality between the sexes is the American ideal? Or, does the chivalrous male dragon-slayer rescuing the fair but helpless damsel in distress still occupy a higher level in American socio-political consciousness than mere children's story-book fables from Never-Neverland? Several foreign countries have full equality between the genders in their respective militaries, without second thought.
Some men recoil in deep resentment at the thought of having a wife earning much more money than they do. This BLOG writer, however, rejects the notion of money as the measure of a man--or of a woman. Capacity to love, in complete disregard of that financial consideration, is far more important. After all, pornography king Larry Flynt is undoubtedly among America's wealthiest citizens, but is still a slime-and-scum bag anyway!
Finally, the writer of this BLOG basically loves women and wants only the best for them. Still, oddly, he does not trust them beyond his fingernails, to love him in return. The feminist movement of the 1970s and the 1980s persuaded him to write off a priori without second thought all possibility of marriage to any fellow-American woman. Guilt-by-association, for how some other men horribly mistreat women, was also a powerful dissuader to his mind. Et tu, Brute? America's 50% national divorce rate likewise persuaded this writer not to marry in haste and repent at leisure! He freely acknowledges himself to be eons away from being adequately possessed of traits by which to commend himself to the female world, in context of the national divorce rate. Marriage was for 46 years his Mission: Impossible, but he did finally decide to accept it--hoping and praying to God he would not self-destruct later for having done so.
-LKM
This writer has on numerous occasions entertained the fascinating question in his mind: what if we male chauvinist pigs indeed turned over every ruling socio-political and financial institution in America over to the women--lock, stock and barrel--to run completely their way, while we male chauvinist pigs just rolled over in the mud of our pig styes and went back to sleep? Would the women of America--and even of the world--then be happy? Or, do women, at the end of the day, confess that they want--and even need--the good-old-boys' club to be around, to spice up their lives and make them interesting? This writer has doubts about any inevitable feminine felicity at the prospect of sexual segregation in our society, to the clear advantage of women. This is because women are just as individual and just as divided as men are, concerning their goals, tastes, preferences/prejudices, motives and tempraments. In total absence of men, there would be female power-and-prestige struggles of equal frequency and ferocity as those seen among men. Differences in age and generation would be a major contributor to such struggles, and intergenerational conflict knows no boundary of gender. That is because old people have within their memory vivid recollections of experiences, of which the younger have no-such recollection for similar chronological point-of-reference.
What about the issue of sexual freedom? Here again, freedom cannot be separated from individual responsibility. Whatsoever a woman may choose--be it monogamous or polygamous sexual relations--she cannot and should not expect the general public to relieve her of any adverse consequences visited upon her by her own choice of behaviour. She must pay for her own abortions and STD medical treatments--if any--as it is not the role of government to rescue people from the consequences of their own idiotic and fool-hardy choices. Government must protect people from the ferocities of one another, but not from the foolishness of themselves. I will get my hands off the woman's body if government, acting on her behalf, will get its hands out of my bank account.
Women size up men to assess their sexual desirability just as much as men do towards women. Monica did not choose Bill ("I did not have sex with that woman.")Clinton for nothing! In the Garden of Eden, Eve pulled Adam down into sin first! So, feminists in vain play the role of innocent victim here, whether or not they know, in this case, what "is" is!
What about women and military service for America? This question harks back to the issue of whether or not women are the "weaker sex", and so whether men should protect them from various evils and dangers. Feminists scoff in abject contempt at this idea as something rooted in romantic legends from days of yore, not in step with modern realities. It is they, who push so hard for equality between the sexes, for both opportunity and responsibility in the military. In such case, the military should make no categorical concessions for women, pertaining to combat training and readiness if, as feminists claim, there are no fundamental differences besides reproductive mechanism, between men and women. Equality means equality of obligation, as well as equality of priviledge. QUESTION: Would American politicians be so quick to commit America to war, if prospects were likely for equal number of both male and female dead military personnel returning home in flag-draped caskets? Are women's lives more valuable than those of men, such as to exempt them from this possible scenario? If so, why?--if equality between the sexes is the American ideal? Or, does the chivalrous male dragon-slayer rescuing the fair but helpless damsel in distress still occupy a higher level in American socio-political consciousness than mere children's story-book fables from Never-Neverland? Several foreign countries have full equality between the genders in their respective militaries, without second thought.
Some men recoil in deep resentment at the thought of having a wife earning much more money than they do. This BLOG writer, however, rejects the notion of money as the measure of a man--or of a woman. Capacity to love, in complete disregard of that financial consideration, is far more important. After all, pornography king Larry Flynt is undoubtedly among America's wealthiest citizens, but is still a slime-and-scum bag anyway!
Finally, the writer of this BLOG basically loves women and wants only the best for them. Still, oddly, he does not trust them beyond his fingernails, to love him in return. The feminist movement of the 1970s and the 1980s persuaded him to write off a priori without second thought all possibility of marriage to any fellow-American woman. Guilt-by-association, for how some other men horribly mistreat women, was also a powerful dissuader to his mind. Et tu, Brute? America's 50% national divorce rate likewise persuaded this writer not to marry in haste and repent at leisure! He freely acknowledges himself to be eons away from being adequately possessed of traits by which to commend himself to the female world, in context of the national divorce rate. Marriage was for 46 years his Mission: Impossible, but he did finally decide to accept it--hoping and praying to God he would not self-destruct later for having done so.
-LKM
Sunday, November 21, 2010
The Utter Futility of Christian Denominationalism
"There is none righteous; no, not one.....for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.(Romans 3:10-23)" "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.(James 2:10)"
The Bible declares with these words total human incapability to win justification to God's salvation by his/her own works and devices. Sin is sin, and so it makes no difference in the sight of God, which or how many sins we commit: committing one sin is breaking the whole law of God, even as a rock thrown to impact a glass window at just one point will smash the entire window. Certain church denominations claiming to be Christian declare only their fellow co-religionists, under the protection of their denomination, can and will be saved by virtue of their church denomination affiliation. But this notion is belied by the scripture of Luke 23:42-43, recounting the act of pardoning of sin by Jesus Christ for a criminal on a cross next to Him who, in all likelihood, had never before been to a church, temple or synagogue religious worship service a day in his life.
"No man can come to me, except the Father which has sent me draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day.(John 6:44)" Words attributed in the Bible by this scripture to Jesus Christ. Justification and salvation of man, then, is entirely the prerogative of our Lord Jesus Christ. Human contribution to it is a big zero, as man has no power to oblige God to "keep His end of the bargain" in exchange for anything men may do. It is by faith alone, and not by works--including affiliation with a "correct" church denomination, to the exclusion of all others--that God confers His divine favor upon us, "lest any man should boast.(Ephesians 2:9)"
There is no way to build any perfect church out of sinful and imperfect people.
-LKM
The Bible declares with these words total human incapability to win justification to God's salvation by his/her own works and devices. Sin is sin, and so it makes no difference in the sight of God, which or how many sins we commit: committing one sin is breaking the whole law of God, even as a rock thrown to impact a glass window at just one point will smash the entire window. Certain church denominations claiming to be Christian declare only their fellow co-religionists, under the protection of their denomination, can and will be saved by virtue of their church denomination affiliation. But this notion is belied by the scripture of Luke 23:42-43, recounting the act of pardoning of sin by Jesus Christ for a criminal on a cross next to Him who, in all likelihood, had never before been to a church, temple or synagogue religious worship service a day in his life.
"No man can come to me, except the Father which has sent me draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day.(John 6:44)" Words attributed in the Bible by this scripture to Jesus Christ. Justification and salvation of man, then, is entirely the prerogative of our Lord Jesus Christ. Human contribution to it is a big zero, as man has no power to oblige God to "keep His end of the bargain" in exchange for anything men may do. It is by faith alone, and not by works--including affiliation with a "correct" church denomination, to the exclusion of all others--that God confers His divine favor upon us, "lest any man should boast.(Ephesians 2:9)"
There is no way to build any perfect church out of sinful and imperfect people.
-LKM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
