The first comment posted on yesterday's blog is most worthy of further thought. Wendy Johnson writes:
I don’t mind the U.S. using tax dollars for international charity--I think we as a nation must set an example and take a Christian stance on the world stage. It is something that every civilized (my definition: that which lives under God) nation should do. We will be judged not only individually, but cities and nations will be judged as well.
It is true, according to scripture, that nations are judged as entities.
"He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people." Isaiah 2:4
"He ruleth by His power forever: His eyes behold the nations." Psalm 66:7
"When the Son of man shall come in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then shall He sit upon the throne of His glory: and before Him shall be gathered all nations: and He shall separate them one from another." Matthew 25:31,32.
Most interestingly, the Hebrew God is the only one Who addresses all nations, all peoples, directly. The other gods of the world pertain only to the ethnicity which extols them. Marduk was for the Babylonians. Ra was for the Egyptians. Kali is for the Hindus. Nirvana is for the Buddhists. Only Jehovah claims authority, as Creator, over all humanity. This is a historical oddity, indeed, that no other god, no other myth-making religious body, would even think in such a dimension. In the world, the gods are more like sports logos of different teams. They compete. Your god against my god, sort of thing.
An aerial view of Marakkanam, a village destroyed by tsunamis, near Pondicherry, in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu, Thursday, Dec. 30, 2004. At least 114,000 people are reported dead around southern Asia and as far away as Somalia on Africa's eastern coast, most killed by massive tsunamis that smashed coastlines after a magnitude 9.0 earthquake off Indonesia's coast on Sunday. (AP Photo/M.Lakshman)
But now 114,000 people have perished in South Asia. Where were the gods? Was the hand of the Almighty involved? Ms. Johnson says a nation has a responsibility to behave rightly. God blesses such behavior. So then do we conclude that South Asia wasn't behaving rightly? Providence did not protect it from disaster? (Incidentally, the book of Job makes it pretty clear that Satan, not God, brings catastrophy--for the sheer joy of it.) I don't know how to conclude otherwise. I too believe that right values result in a better life. Yet, right values may also lead to crucifixion. Life is mysterious in this...
The faithfully anti-American agency, the New York Times, is quick to blame the US for the suffering in South Asia. The 'wealthiest' newspaper in the country is quick to call Americans "stingy." That's the only important thought in mind of the of that agency. Of course, the NYT is the first to defend the rights of all people to mindlessly reproduce, to eat anything, to do anything--with no regard for hygiene or consequence. That's called tolerance. That's righteousness for the liberal. Let people destroy themselves. And better, let them destroy us, in so doing.
Well, the fact is, the Hebrew scriptures predict more and more disaster as the world approaches its end. Irrational, or even offensive as that strikes many people, we nevertheless observe more and more natural catastrophy occur every year. And, yes, these thoughts have been thought before, but that doesn't necessarily make them invalid.
Peter says, "The day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with a fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up."
"Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?"
"Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness." 2 Peter 3:10-13.
These are the prepared thoughts. These are available to think. Are they relevant? Do they apply? How many disasters, on how great a scale, have to happen before it is not an embarrassment to think these thoughts, to believe these words?
Ms. Johnson is right, about the matter of nations, and their being judged as entities. That is scriptural. And whole nations can suffer the ill effects of the wrong decisions of their leaders. Fortunately, we have the hope that there will be "nations of them which are saved" (Revelation 21:24) abiding in the newly created world, and those nations will bring their honor to the New Jerusalem. (Rev. 21:26).
Indeed, this is a grand time to read the book of Revelation. Its simple statements about the present world, the coming disasters, and its message of hope for the New World, without sin, without suffering, without death, this is the message of the hour, or so it would seem.
We do the best we can, while we're alive here and now. We want our nation, America, to do the best it can in the world. God is known to stay judgment, in mercy, in response to the right doing and prayers of the righteous. Such mercy does not last forever, but, it is our window of opportunity. We'd best take full advantage of it.
Of course we all feel horrible about what happened in South Asia. We're secretly terrified, I'm sure. We want to help the suffering people. We express ourselves in various ways, but, the bottom line is, we're all shocked and scared. Though scoffers abound, the self-righteous blamers abound, their noise is all a distraction, and a nasty one at that. The fact is, the world is becoming more and more vulnerable. We all sense it. Some people will seek to market this fear, to capitalize on it, even to politicize it. But all this chicanery does not erase the obvious. These are perilous times. And it will only get worse, according to scripture, before the end.
At this point in America's social history, the jargon of welfare is so well-established that it is impossible to talk about the world in any other language. Human beings show up needy: who's responsibility is it to tend to them?
Southern Asia, the area hit by the recent earthquake and tsunami (tidal wave), with a death toll climbing towards 100,000 already, is in the most densely populated, most poverty-stricken area in the world. Christian missions call it the 10/40 Window. It lies between the 10th and 40th latitude. 77% of the poorest of the poor live in this area.
The area seems to be a gold mine for world entrepreneurs, since there are great natural resources there, the greatest of which is the cheapest labour in the world--or, slavery, of all kinds. Of course, Christian missions see it as their responsibility, to educate and elevate the quality of life for the people.
But, world welfare? Sending tax dollars to foreign countries, whose governments are irresponsible, and whose policies encourage wreckless living? In other words, is there to be no accountability for those who create these circumstances ripe for catastrophy?
The problem here is over-population. Who or what causes that? I say it is irresponsible sexual behavior. Mindless reproduction. I know, in 1981, Fidel Casto said to the United Nations that underdevelopment causes over-population. But this is specious. This is Communist. This is blaming others. Why, if the Western industrial nations would share the wealth, and help these poor nations develop, the people would have something to do besides make babies. They could make cars or clothes. So, blame the over-population, not on careless reproduction, but on the success of the West. Nevermind morals and sociological values which made the West what it is. Just point out the difference, and blame the failure of the poor on the success of the rich. That's Leftism. That's liberalism. That's Communism.
Davey Crockett (1786-1836) came to the conclusion that it was not the government's place to use tax dollars for charity. Charity was for people to do. Charity was never to be an act of Congress. Now this was speaking of very worthy needs right here in America. What would he think of this world order of American "charity?"
The United Nations, proven thief and enemy of the world, is the leading exponent of Communist 'solutions' to the world, and the first to call for aid, as well as the first to abuse it. The UN should be dismantled immediately.
However, it is certainly appropriate for individual religious organizations to respond to massive, emergency needs. The church is international. Missions can give to whatever they want. This is their freedom.
But the United States government is not free to use tax dollars for humanitarian needs outside the United States. This does not make sense. There are too many people withint the United States who are in dire need. There are 43.6 million Americans (15.2%) without health insurance. There are 35.8 million Americans living below the poverty line, and suffer from all that's involved there. The first responsibility of the United States government is to it's own citizens, if there is an issue of who has a right to what. But even so, the US government was never designed to be a charitable organization. This is the church's role instead.
It just rubs many people the wrong way that America, the richest nation, is expected to foot everyone's bills, as if America is the latent cause behind everyone else's problems. This is error on all sides, really.
Consider AIDS. Half the population of the world lives in Asia. The AIDS epidemic there has even exceeded that in Africa. AIDS is all about sexual behavior. It is most obvious, to the honest, that countries who's cultures do not practice the most basic morality, are those most infected with AIDS. There are countries in Africa, like Lesotho, which are on the brink of extinction. Missionaries can testify that it is caused by wreckless sexual aggression. The media, of course, will never condemn or advocate prevention. The liberal media desires only to luxuriate in compassion and charity. Liberals would rather indulge themselves in self-righteous lamentations than advocate prevention of any kind.
So, the same is true for the Tsunami Crisis in southern Asia now. It's all a race to see who can be the most "charitable." No talk of prevention, of building codes, of moral conduct, of true family planning (and we're talking about abstinence, not abortion). We do ourselves a misdeed when we don't focus on the cause of the problem, and merely lament its results. We do a worse deed to those people whose behavior and values keep them in vulnerable conditions, when we do not address those concerns.
The body count is now near 45,000 in some eleven nations of southern Asia. It was a slaughter beyond anything in the natural order in recent memory. What are we to think? The world responds by trying to help the suffering survivors, but, what are the thoughts in response? What is helpful or useful to the soul at such a time?
There is the scientific aspect. We can talk about earthquakes and tidal waves. These are definitely the immediate cause of the disaster. But is that the same as talking about what caused so many deaths? And we can do nothing about the cunvulsions of nature. We can only try to see them coming, and move out of the way.
So, what of the sociological aspects, of so many people concentrated in such a vulnerable area, so predictably subject to catastrophy? Sounds like California, eh? The price of natural beauty and wonderful weather--violent natural catastrophies. What about Asia's mass poverty, inadequate shelter, sloppy living circumstances, lack of preparedness and defence? Are not these part of the cause of death also? It is a deeply unsettling thing. Is there any safe place? We have epidemic disease to look forward to, as the result of all this. All flu comes from Asia, and a lot more will be coming soon.
What of their governments? How is it that this heavy a concentration of people lives so carelessly, with no adequate warning system, no attitude of vigilence? Do their governments write them off as abject scurf, unworthy of expenditure because the people don't sufficiently value themselves? Then they all turn to the world for help, as if more prosperous nations have a responsibility to clean up the mess. Something is deeply amiss in such a circumstance. It challenges the value of human life. Masses weren't valued, and masses were removed. This is outrageous, innocent or no.
An aerial view of a flattened village after tidal waves hit following an earthquake near the provincial capital of Banda Aceh, Aceh province, Indonesia, Tuesday, Dec. 28, 2004. Emergency workers reaching Aceh province at the northern tip of Indonesia's Sumatra island find that 10,000 people were killed in a single town close to the epicenter of Sunday's earthquake. (AP Photo/Dita Alangkara)
And what of religion? The quake happened Sunday, December 25, the day after Christmas. What is on the minds of the Christian world? Prophecies of world distaster? Apocalyptic visions of the violent overthrow of earth?
Language is important at a time like this. Metaphor is sometimes helpful. The world can be overwhelmed, and even world leaders often resort to metaphor to manage their responses. Metaphor is the use of speech in which one literal kind of object or idea is used to depict another, analogously. Metaphor is just as much a part of human consciousness as any other. It is in our language. Our relation to reality which involves metaphor is therefore just as real or vital as any other aspect of the way we relate to reality. Metaphoric language, in this sense, is just as valid as scientific language.
So, this tragedy is all about the earth and man. What is the relationship of man to earth? Is the earth our mother, or our enemy? Does human behavior have anything to do with the behavior of earth? Is there in fact a relationship at all?
In Biblical literature, there is an interesting depiction of some kind of relationship. The earth is not a person, nor a living thing in and of itself, but there is definitely a relationship between the earth and man.
As early as the murder of Abel, the dye is cast. To Cain the Lord said, "The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto Me from the ground. And now thou art cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood." Gen. 4:11,12. There is an alienation, early on in human history. It was the result of wrong doing. When man wrongs man, the earth is wronged, and said to react.
In Leviticus the reality of the metaphor is magnified. Speaking of the sins of the sex cults driven out of Ca'anan, the Lord says to Israel, "Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: And the land is defiled: therefore, I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants." 18:24,25. Israel is commanded not to immitate the heathen, not to sin, "That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you." v.28.
Somehow, man sinning against man causes giant sociological change. The earth itself reacts against man. That is the metaphor. In a sense, this is beyond metaphor. It is not accurately called athropomorphic, either. It is a unique depiction of a relationship between man and earth. That relationship is manifest, or, it comes to light, according to how man treats his fellowman.
It might seem terribly unfair or unkind to reference such thought at such a time as now, when so many thousands of people have been lost, and so many suffering. But, the conscience of man demands such reflection. We don't want this kind of thing to happen, and we naturally want to know how to avoid it. The world has grown too small a place. Everything and anything affects all of us, fairly quickly. This isn't about culpability, but about preparedness and responsibility. And if we are allowed to look deeply into the cultures of southern Asia, we will find it is about carelessness, about low value placed on human life. It is about mistaken ideas in religion, life, death, and social relations, in all probability.
Goverment leaders care little for their people there, because they know the people are careless. The government leaders are like business tycoons, simply indulging themeselves in their oppportunities. The state of the people means little to them. Western traders and entrepreneurs are willing to use and abuse the people as well. The people are generally so poor that a sweatshop job of 14 hours a day, at a nickle an hour, is a most welcome opportunity. I've been told personally by people from the region. Prostitution and sex slavery are foundational to the society. There is something about careless, mindless reproduction, human reproduction, that contributes to the perpetuity of hopelessness. Carelessness leads directly to abuse.
Sure, we can say, society corrects itself. But I take a more superstitious view, if you please. God corrects society. When the earth acts up, it's more than coincidence. When masses of people disappear by an act of nature, I'll take the metaphorical refuge "under the shadow of the Almighty." Ps. 91:1. I don't know where else to go.
Nearly two thousand years of accumulated Western culture weighs in when the Collective Conscious of our society hears the expression, "Merry Christmas." The significance of the season is a truly overwhelming phenomenon, and no doubt unique in world history.
To think, it's all about a story. Indeed, 'the greatest story ever told.' It's a simple story, yet, "the hopes and fears of all the years" are met in the telling. Such unfathomable complexity is involved, such transcendence engendered, one wonders how to manage it all. Eternity, innocence, poverty, danger, along with sin, guilt, forgiveness, love, this is all nigh impossible to comprehend. We find ourselves merely swept along with the current of our Collective Conscious as a civilization. One can scarcely resist.
One can find artistic expression of the very finest order during such a season. At such an intersection of emotion, intellect, culture, and religion, the French often triumph in their artistic comprehension. Look at Luc Olivier Merson (1847-1920). His painting, Le repos en Egypte (1879) is a stunning portrayal of theology.
Rest on the Flight into Egypt (1879), Luc Olivier Merson
Lonely at first appearance. Just a young couple with an infant. They are fleeing from the execution of their baby, ordered by a national authority. They are fugitive. Innocence on the run. No crime committed, only the most natural event of humanity, the birth of a child. They are alone, and unprotected. There is no escort. There is no honor. Only hate, and fear form their entourage. And darkness. Their child is condemned to death in their own country. They flee to a foreign country, to hide.
And, look more closely.
Mary, the young teen-aged mother, in the arms of an Egyptian god! In her arms, the Son of the Most High, the Eternal One, the only true God. What a moment of thought. In the expediency of the moment, Providence provides a resting place. The Everlasting Arms finds rest in the concrete connivance of man. Divinity reposes in a sculpure!
It is a most remarkable insight, that would demonstrate the sublime and incomprehensible supremacy of the Holy One, by leaning Him on the arm of an idol. The Egyptian god is of mere practical use. The image is of pragmatic employment. The idol is a chair. Is this not a most artistic rebuke of vanity?
It is reminiscent of Psalms 84:3. King David contemplates the grandeur of the Temple of the Lord. He longs to dwell there. He notes that even the sparrows and swallows have a home there. They nest in the architectural fixtures of the building. Even nature has a home in the house of God. Surely a man, made in the image of God, can hope for a place there.
It becomes a juxtaposition of ideology with pragmatism. The idea, represented in a physical entity, is then redefined by another idea. The first idea is refined by the superimposition of the second.
And the same is true for man himself. Whatever he is, however he is to be defined or understood, we are most pleased to know that his Creator 'superimposed' Himself to more clearly identify His own. We are most gratified, yea, redeemed! that He should find this earthly architecture, our mere body, a place in which to rest the Ineffable, that "glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me," as saith the Battle Hymn of the Republic. That mysterious sea across which He was born is in our own being. That beauty of the lilies is the field of our own souls, and that holiness for which He died to create for us is our treasure.
As Americans, we do well to reconsider our own repose. Wherein do we truly rest our confidence?
This Christmas, let no political persuasion beguile us of our Host, "in whom we trust." Let no demonic perversion of the words "equality" and "justice" seduce us out of our refuge, lest the birds of the air fare more wisely, and lest a young mother find a repose in the vanities of imagined grandeur while the rest of us slave to procure a mere image the Divine.
Indeed, a Merry, Holy Christmas, all.
Everyone by now is aware of my special regard for Jewish people. Indeed, there are those of my enemies who identify me as Jewish. While this is wholly untrue, it is nevertheless a fact that my pursuit of understanding the Jewish experience leads me to say things that few non-Jewish people would ever say.
At this Christmas season, when the Christian holiday is under attack as never before, and when it seems that certain influencial Jewish leaders (e.g., those in the ACLU, the ADL, and a host of non-Jewish white liberals) have made every possible effort to offend Christians, I would like to offer some words about the Christian faith and Christian behavior which might help Jewish people understand why Christians feel the way they do about Christ. (How and why Christians feel the way they do about Jews is another subject.)
There are a variety of reasons these days why Christians take the name of Christ, but I shall speak of the truest reasons.
1) The Gentile is fundamentally without God. The Gentile has no capacity for a personal relationship with the divine, and is desperately void of light and even inclination toward it. This is something the average Jew has never appreciated, I surmise.
Jesus Christ, the Jew, makes therefore a most visceral appeal to the Gentile, offering the very blessing of God to all the world, not just to the Jew. This invitation is virtually irresistable to the instincts and intuitions of the Gentile. For those of us on the lower end of heathenism, who are genetically programmed for an animistic, "demonic" sort of rendezvous with the paranormal, who's natural inclination is toward the "spirits," or whatever is between the spirits and the rocks, the story of Jesus Christ is overwhelming! The confrontation with His Spirit is pristine, and almost frightening, as well as experiencially superior.
2) To the Gentile who is bold enough to espouse the blood Christ, there are extraordinary effects. For that Gentile who actually repents and ceases to sin, who actually stops indulging in forbidden pleasure, refrains from violence to others and violence to himself, who sincerely abstains from vice, there is seen a most unusual devotion and love for Christ, whom he believes is alive today, in fact. What I say to the Jews is this: understand that extraordinary devotion and attention to Christ not as some utterly idolatrous focus, but simply as the joyous--though tainted with the crippled subjectivity common to man-- thanksgiving of an otherwise desperately empty soul. Yes, it may appear on the order of a pep rally, a sporting club mentality, a massive fan rage, as in a football game, but, remember, the heathen is still a heathen, even when he believes in Jesus. The Christian is not given a new pound of flesh. He is the same erring mortal he was before. Only now, he has an oppportunity to rejoice in something he never had before: he fancies a personal relationship with the Almighty God, something the Jew has from birth.
3) The Jew may or may not pursue his inherent capacities of belief, responsibility, and witness to God, but if he would understand what is really happening in the constipated, ineviscerably heathen soul when it fancies itself in the favor of God through the blood of Christ, the Jew might be more patient with the modern Christian world. The Jew should not ever appear jealous or upset or robbed of something. As Freud said, "Jews are hated not so much because they killed Jesus, but because they produced him." In other words, aside from the Christian's newfound satisfaction and psychological status as devotee of the Lord, the Christian is still human, and he will automatically react to the sacrifices he makes before the Lord. If he was a great lover of fornication, for instance, he will abstain for Christ's sake, but will unconsciously be angry at the Jews! (And by the way, Freud does not exempt Jewish people from the defense mechanism of "displaced anger.")
The Jew should never, ever do or say anything that would provoke this anger. Speaking against Christmas--that public, but generally heathen, idolatrous celebration of the Christian's most intimate regard for Christ--is not advisable under any circumstance. It is an unwise and unnecessary political manipulation, at best.
4) The Jew should rather take ownership of all this. The values of Christ, as presented in the New Testament, are straight from the heart of the Torah. Yes, there may appear here and there serious breaches with rabbinical Judaism; there may be insurmountable differences in emphasis. But, like my friend the late Jack P. Eisner, a Holocaust survivor, told me in his New York 5th Avenue apartment a few years ago, "The Jewish leaders at the time of Christ should have been more tolerant! They were too strict, too judgmental. They actually caused the new religion!" Mr. Eisner often said stunningly insightful things, but this was quite memorable to me. He understood Jesus to be a bright young Jew, with some new ideas, and it was very wrong for the leadership of that time to come down on him so hard. He saw the whole breach as something that could have and should have been avoided.
In a way, I ask the Jews to regard Christians the way I, as an American Indian, regard the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant American society. The Christian is, in a very real sense, your own son, your bastard son, if you will, who could never be what he is, could never become what he has, without you. You should have a sense of ownership, responsible ownership, and never be so petty, so selfish, as to resent his greatness. Where there is greatness, there is great error. Therefore, be forgiving, forebearing, and foresightful. If you think Christianity is against you, then out-manoeuver it, don't try to annihilate it. It's not going away.
The Jew should demonstrate superior tolerance--of Christianity, not denial of it by juxtaposing every other heathenish religion in the world with it, in the false name of tolerance. Trying to bury the uniqueness of the Christian faith is a wrong move. This will lead to a political backfire which is wholly unnecessary and very dangerous. Multiculturalism does not insure the safety of the Jews. It makes Jews perceived enemies of the establishment. This would be the Freudian take. The Jews are more Christian than Christians! Any unnecessary "attack" on superficial Christian symbols or customs makes the Jews to Christianity as Christ was to the Pharisees.
Jews should just give a little more understanding towards what makes Christian social behavior what it is. There is nothing like a Jew, and every Christian really knows that deep inside. Every heathen knows that. That a group of Christianized heathens should boast themselves "children of God" should not be met with animosity, but with the longsuffering, patient love of a father.
Take it from a modern American Indian. It's a better bet to manage the Collective Unconscious of your enemy than to vie with his social establishment. Better to address his archetypes than to demolish his architecture. Granted, Jews have had to create their own reservation, but, it will never make sense to be Oedipal about it, an attack the father. That would make the Jew more heathen than the heathen.
Mustang, Oklahoma a community of the southwestern part of greater Oklahoma City, faced the archtypical holiday crisis: the school district superintendent, Karl Springer, pulled the Nativity scene from the Mustang elementary school annual 'holiday' play. (Can't even call it a Christmas play anymore.) Scenes for Kwanzaa, the fabricated African-American day, and Hanukkah, the historical Jewish holiday, were allowed to remain in the play.
Well, there must have been an overwhelming number of Negroes and Jews in the Mustang community. The Christmas scene must have been unbearably offensive to the vast majority. WRONG. First of all, only 7% of the population of Oklahoma City is in grade school. Secondly, the complete black population of the whole city of OKC is about 15%. There is no Jewish population cited, (though Jews have a long history in the state, and there two or three established synogogues in the city. But none of this is relative to the community of Mustang, anyway. It is all-American Christian white community.
Mr. Springer, a talented and caring man, is from Hollywood, California. He is a military man, an educator, and no slouch. But why on earth would he cause such a ruckus? None of the news stories say anything about him being Jewish (though I wouldn't be suprised). Several of the web pages under "Karl Springer+Superintendent" are inoperable. One works, if you click "cashed." The info on him is impressive enough, and he seems perfectly sincere.
Shelly Lewallen, with two children in the Mustang Public Schools, was in tears at the public meeting. She just couldn't believe that anyone would treat Christians this way. How could America allow such an enemy to evolve within? She apologized for calling the media in, but, she needn't have. She's a public hero. "I just wanted equal time for the Nativity scene," she said. Photo: Michael Downes, The Oklahoman.
Well, the people of Mustang are outraged, and even The Daily Oklahoman has posted editorial protest. Many stories have run on the Mustang crisis. The people are not taking this lightly.
Springer says it is entirely his reponsibility, and that he was following the advice of the school district's attorney (name not mentioned).
This reminds me of the incident at Nyack, New York, when the high school principle and school board decided to remove the Nyack Indian mascot, when there not only were no Nyack Indians in existence, but not other living Indians within a hundred mile radius (unless you want to count the plains Indian transplants living in New York City). The school leaders didn't want to "offend" anyone.
The Mustang situation is an exact parallel. There are no blacks or Jews in the Mustang school to be offended! (If there are, they are not mentioned in the news reports.) And yet their holiday scenes were featured in the play, and the Christian scene was excluded.
So what is this about? Small town politics jacked up to the national scene? Federalization of the local elementary school? Big Brother running the classroom, telling parents what their children are going to believe and think?
Springer says he wants to see a healing in the community--over the wound he himself inflincted. This is classic, alright. Classic communism, just like in Nyack, New York.
America: the whorehouse of international culture, the brothel of strange gods. Is this what it's come to, that anyone should even think to honor non-Christian holidays and exlude Christians?
I'm concerned, not for the white Christians, but for the blacks (most of whom are Christian anyway, and very, very few of whom celebrate Kwanzaa), and for the Jews. A few individual manipulators can ruin it for the rest of their communities. All peoples of all groups must rise up and control their own leaders!
This day, December 15, in 1890, Sittle Bull, the famous Oglala Sioux leader, was killed by Lakota Sioux police. It happened on Standing Rock, the once 2.7 million acre Sioux reservation in the Dakotas.
Sitting Bull, Oglala Sioux
It was all about religion, really. There was fear of the religious revival breaking out among the Indians! It was the the time of the famous Ghost Dance. The Paiute, Wovoka, was a messianic figure among the destitute and suffering Indians of the northern plains. Perhaps it was all his version of the evangelical Chrisitan sermons he had himself heard. Perhaps it was the Indian eschatology of the day. In any case, Wovoka introduced the Ghost dance with it's prophecy and songs. The white world would end, and all things would return to the Indians, as before. If Indians danced, and danced, and continued dancing, all the white people would disappear, and all the dead Indians would be resurrected, and Indian country would be restored altogether.
The Paiute, Wovoka
The movement spread like wild fire among the northern plains Indians. It hit Sioux country. In the autumn of 1890, Kicking Bear came to Sitting Bull (at Standing Rock) and told him about the Ghost Dance. Word travels fast in Indian country.
The problem was that many white people thought the Ghost Dance was a prelude to more war, to some major Indian uprising. It wasn't, of course. It was an expression of hope, hope against the indescribable misery and abject suffering of Indian people at the time. The Ghost Dance was bringing the wrath of the white authorities down on the already depressed Indians.
That's what the Lakota Indian police were told, and what they thought. They knew Sitting Bull was still a major holy man among the Sioux, and that if he joined the Ghost Dance movement, all the Sioux nations would be annihilated by the United States army. They feared such a scene, so they decided it would be better to apprehend Sitting Bull, and prevent him from being involved. Forty-three Lakota Indian police came to Sitting Bull's cabin at dawn, to arrest him, and to put him in safe custody, away from the people.
However, Sitting Bull's people gathered about the cabin, and there was a shoot out. In the fray, a Lakota policeman shot Sitting Bull in the head, and killed him.
That didn't end the Ghost Dance, though. It didn't end until the 'massacre' of Wounded Knee, when the fearful US army, in nigh hysterics at the site of the Ghost Dance, shot 150 Indians, (many women and children), and wounded 50 more. Most of the Indians were running for cover when shot, shot down with the Amy's new Hotchkiss cannons with their fragmenting shells. The Army claims to have lost 25 men, with 39 wounded.
The Hotchkiss guns of Wounded Knee
This day, December 15, 1890, certain Indians were concerned about the effects other Indians might have on all Indians. Certain Indians knew how much the white man feared Indians, and knew how deep the divide between the two cultures. Certain Indians were concerned about doing what was best for all Indians. Certain Indians understood the predicament Indian people were in, and tried to do the right thing for the security and future of Indian people.
There were unfortunate mishaps, which led to other, worse mishaps, which finally ended in crazed encounters like Wounded Knee, and Sand Creek.
After Wounded Knee
This day, December 15, 2004, I would like to avoid any more such encounters, figuratively, financially, or ideologically. No, I'm not a Lakota Indian policeman. I'm only one Comanche commentator in Oklahoma. I'm not a leader, nor do I carry a gun. (Should I?) But I don't see that things have changed much since 1890, at least not sociologically, not psychologically. The government continues to take from the Indian lands and rights, substituting the casino plague as some shiny trinket of diversion. Yet, Indians still remain a magical sort of people, with power and influence in America not yet understood, by Indians or by white people.
Indians today are attacked by White (and Negro) casino mongers. Indians are attacked by inter-racial marriage, by our own presumption and lethargy, by moral corruption, and the lack of personal self-control. I see Indian country as greatly imperiled. I don't think it is because we are unwanted. I think it is because we are priceless. Everyone wants a piece of us. There's just not enough of us to go around. This, I see, as a great danger.
Scott Peterson was sentenced to death this day, December 13, 2004, for the murder of his wife and unborn child, December 24, 2002. Jurors, those magical arbiters of fate, felt Scott did not behave normally during the trial, emotionally, so, without a weapon, witness, or even a substantiated motive, Scott was nevertheless judged by the jury as guilty and deserving of death.
Fine. White men are brave. They can take it. They are not shielded by racism or pity. They are also macho, and their culpability cannot be mitigated by genderism or feminism. Let Scott bear the full weight of his crime.
No one can account for Scott's unspeakably shocking behavior, and this is maddening, and unsettling to everyone. What other nice, perfect boy is going to do such a horrible thing? What other innocent wife and mother-to-be is going to be murdered by her perfect husband? Let's make sure this is a clean sweep here. Let's all be strong. Let's all make sure Scott is dead. Yes. The world needs more dead white men, executed for being bad. It is the reality we all need so desperately, right?
Amber Frey
But what about Amber Frey? Well, she signed a book contract with Judith Regan, which might be in the stores by February. She's not losing any time. This is her big break. The adulterous Amber will wear Hawthorne's "Scarlet Letter" like Steven Crane's "Red Badge of Courage," as most women have since Hawthorne's 1850 novel about adultery. She was a most curious 'witness' in the case against Scott, and a book announcement before the sentencing is a telling 'testimony' of her character (as well as that of the shameless attorney and the media). She was even a suspect herself, initially. The point is, though, she knew the nature of she was doing. The mother of two very small children, (and pregant with a third), is experienced in illicit affairs. She is not a person who should be regarded as wholly innocent. She might not have actually known that Scott was married when she started her sexual relations with him, but she knew he wasn't her husband.
The new Amber Frey
Perhaps she should be considered a type of accomplice. Any adulterous party is in fact an accomplice, or at least inextricably associated with the motivations of the other party. Scott lied to her, but, then didn't she lie with him, in that she was willing to participate in what she knew was morally illicit? Adultery is an offense, and the guilty parties inevitably share a kind of co-responsibility for whatever happens to the offended parties, whether spouse or family.
Perhaps there a question about adultery. Do we need to be reminded of the basics here? What is adultery? Sexual relations between unmarried people. There is something called fornication, which is defined as sexual relations between unmarried people, neither of whom are married to anyone. If one is married and the other is not, this is called adultery. The two are not married. It is then only a semantic difference between the words adultery and fornication. Adultery is considered more serious, because there is a third party involved, and perhaps even a fourth--the offended spouses. But, by the most basic definition, adultery is simply sexual relations between people who are not married, just like forunication.
And there are consequences, as real and as long lasting as jail sentences. The children pay for the foul play. In the end, society pays. Broken marriages, broken before or after the marriage, mean broken homes, and broken homes broken children. Such children usually perpetuate the same change of brokenness. Big Brother takes over. "It Takes a Village" to look after the children, so that none is left behind. The government these days taxes the people, then uses the tax money to pay you to take care of someone else's kids. It's called foster care. It's called public education. It's called day care.
And Amber Frey's going to publich a book, telling "her side of the story," "in her own voice." Like, that's going to prove something. Like, that's essential information. That's what we're all waiting to here. It's what we really need.
The white man murderer gets death. The white female "victim" gets a book. Attorneys get their bucks. America gets another shaft of immorality.
Even the rock stage isn't a safe place anymore. Heavy metal guitarist Darrel (Dimebag) Abbott was just shot to death, in cold blood, on stage, in performance, December 8. A crazed fan, Nathan Gale, shot dead Abbott and five other people before a policeman shot and killed him. All happened in the Alrosa Villa club in Columbus, Ohio.
Guitarist Dimebag Darrell Abbott, right, and singer Patrick Lachman of the band
Damageplan perform Nov. 28, 2004 at the Rock Club in Pittsburgh, PA. (AP Photo/Michael Byer)
Motive for murder doesn't matter anymore. John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Malvo shot 13 innocent bystanders at will, for no apparent reason. Ten died.
Scott Peterson killed his wife and son, and after a year of debate and analysis by professionals, no motive has been articulated. (And for this cause, there is debate about his sentence, whether he should get life or death.)
Scott Peterson
Fans often build up a wild egotistical projection on certain stars. John Hinckley shot President Reagan to impress actress Jody Foster, whom Hinckley secretly idolized, he said. Mark Chapman shot John Lennon dead, because voices told him to, he said. Some fan threw a paper cup of ice down on Ron Artest (Indiana Pacers) and escalated a fan/player brawl that turned out to be the worst in NBA history.
There is an intensity built up between the performer and the audience that is exploding more and more often. A chronic disrupter of sports events in Spain ran onto the tennis court turing the Davis cup match between Carlos Moya and Andy Roddick. Its a growing custom. The stage is no longer just for the performers, who have earned their right to be there. The stage is also for the cheaters, who barge in for the pre-arranged focus. The stage is for the audience these days.
The weak, the frustrated, the demented, the demonic, all have a place on the stage now. They can't bear the spectator's seat. They must participate. This they do by disrupting, even by murder.
The disrupters are the non-political terrorists of the world. They can't earn the attention, so they steal it. They rob the attention achieved by others. They are a natural socio-psychological mutant breeding of the modern stage in all it's forms. The athletic court or field, the theatre stage, the polical pulpit, the media screens, anywhere they see intense concentration of public attention, thither the thieves gather. In a real way, the Islamic terrorists are the same breed. They cannot bear the peace, prosperity, and achievement of others. They must distrupt and destroy. It is pure evil, this thing that they do.
Actually, such terrorism is part of human nature, and has been around since the beginning, since Cain killed his brother Abel. Motive is practically immaterial. There is no need for a complex, psychological description of the the disrupter's condition, his background, or his motivation. It's a natural reaction toward the perceived superiority of others. Rather than compete, it detroys the inspiration. Rather than make the effort to achieve, it seeks to remove the stimulus. It is a cheap shot, really, a gesture of supreme indolence and cowardice.
Raw Satanism is never more elaborate. When Jesus was delivering his premiere sermon in a Capernaum synogogue, a demoniac stood up and shouted, "Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God." (Mark 1:21-24)
What we are seeing today is more and more people with less and less self-control. Indulgence is in, self-control is passé. Terrorism is really about self-indulgence, indulgence of passion of the ultimate degree. It's greatest intensity is murder and mayhem. This is where the Islamicists are.
The disrupters of entertainment events are not far from the same. Nathan Gale's murder spree is in fact right at dead center.
Today is the anniversary of the infamous Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941. There were no headlines on the front pages of CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, or even FOX. The big story is the Afghan election, and Hamid Karzaii, the first democratically elected president in Afghan history. This is indeed a triumph, worthy of front pages the world over. America should congratulate herself, grandly. The world should rejoice in this achievement.
US Vice-President Dick Cheney and newly elected
Afghan President Hamid Karzai
However, it stings a bit, when we consign other past accomplishments to the recesses of the papers. ABC did post an AP wire on a related Pearl Harbor event, about the five living survivors who met with friends and family Monday night, at the Arizona Memorial Museum in Honolulu. In fact, MSNBC ran the same wire. But neither these outlets, nor any other major media, made any special point of Pearl. Is Pearl passé?
Living survivors of the USS Oklahoma. Paul Goodyear
on the far right, with the pink wreath.
What was America's accomplishment in 1941 that is should have second place (if any place) to present triumphs? Why the back seat? Wasn't Hawaii kind of far away from the rest of America? It wasn't the homeland, in a sense. But, my how quickly "territorial" America became over it! The whole country immediately shifted into war mode, and industry kicked in as never before. (My Oklahoma Comanche grandfather worked as a shipbuilder in San Francisco at that time, and his wife, and one of his daughters, my aunt Edna, the Navy Lieutenant. They lived in Hayward for over 25 years, before moving to Texas.)
Over a decade ago, America was led to believe Japan was going to offer an official "apology" for the Pearl attack. As it turned out, the Japanese Foreign Ministry issued a statement that Japan had intended to make a formal declaration of war, so that the attack was not really intended to be a "surprise." Well, warriors should never apologize.
And warriors should always be honored. All warriors. The world is proud of the Afghans. This is right, proper, and true. But let's just not forget the old warriors. Not on their special day of remembrance. The American forces at Pearl put up a gallant fight, really. Remember Dorie Miller, the cook turned machine gunner on the USS West Virginia!
Dorie Miller, Ship's Cook 3rd Class
awarded the Navy Cross
Remember Pearl.
Last night (Sunday, 12-5-04) on the Matt Drudge radio show, the subject of Senator John McCain's proposed legislation about baseball was given serious consideration. Drudge was quite critical of McCain's attitude and manipulation of the media. Drudge thinks McCain is simply campaigning for the 2008 presidential election, and off to an early start with sensationalism.
The baseball matter started with Barry Bonds alleged use of steroids. Bonds is approaching the all-time historical record for home runs, and now his performance is tainted with the suspicion of drug use. McCain is calling for legislation to test all Major League Baseball players for drug use. The institution of baseball must be protected from total degradation.
But Drudge is outraged. The government has no place intruding into the private sector in this manner. Baseball has its own regulations. Let the authorities regulate their own business. It is absolutely anti-American for the government to strong arm the public in this way.
In the process of denouncing McCain, Drudge made two major points: 1) all elected government officials should be made to submit to drug testing themselves; 2) government performance is more important that baseball.
The first point is excellent, and Drudge went into details. Every senator or house rep should have his breath tested before he goes on the floor to vote. That says it all. The people making decisions that affect the country should be drug free when voting. I'd go further, and say they should be subtance free at all times, especially members of the Supreme Court system.
But in the process of making this point--that of the social importance of elected officials, Drudge denigrated the importance of baseball, again and again. Baseball was nothing. Baseball was silly. For McCain to make a federal case out of baseball was ludicrous and aberrant. In this, Drudge overreaches himself.
Writing off baseball as too insignificant to be concerned about is something only a non-athlete would do. Only a person who was never a team sport player, who never had children who were involved in sports, would think such a thought. Granted, Drudge was making the point only in the process of denouncing the impropriety and imbalance of the McCain assertion. But to make McCain look more off track, Drudge delimited the sphere and significance of baseball.
What Drudge didn't mention was the fact that the Commie supporters of Barry Bonds and drug use have already accused McCain's position as part of "a concerted effort lead by the Bush administration" which the Commies call an "anti-Bonds PR campaign. Cubs coach Dusty Bonds calls it McCarthyism. It's a racist manoeuver, if you can believe it!
Such entanglement of issues seems unavoidable these days when every breathe drawn is a political act, complete with historical identification.
Furthermore, if Drudge wants to decry the inconsistencies of the Senators, then let's realize that they are there in Washington to make laws. Their job is to make laws, laws, and more laws, to address the changing circumstances and needs of the country, and also to control everthing and everyone. That is their job, as they see it. They are there to increase the number of laws, daily.
So, Drudge should have suggested the real point: make legislation that would limit the number of laws Congress is allowed to pass. Now that would require real self-control. That would be real cold turkey. Imagine the withdrawals.
American culture has recently seen the juxtaposition of two of the greatest, most dramatic contrasts of character quality ever exhibited within a single race. Perhaps the contrasts is exaggerated by media, and the context of the natural behavioral differences in sports and in politics, but, the contrast deserves to be noticed.
November 19, 2004, the brawl between two NBA teams (the Detroit Pistons and the Indiana Pacers) demonstrated the absolute "ghetto" mentality and behavior associated with a mass of overgrown adolescents. Of course, one can point to the NHL (National Hockey League), and cite many more and regular bouts between players. Fights between players (and fans) are more or less expected. However, there is a distinct absense of black athletes in hockey, and hockey is not the American game that basketball is. Plus, basketball players are not dressed in three-inch thick pads and helmets. It's raw fists if anything happens. A brawl between two predominantly black basketball teams, involving the audience, is a very bad thing for black people. Everyone was sorry to see it.
Condoleezza Rice and President Bush
Just a few days before, however, November 16, one of the most dignified black persons in America, Condoleeza Rice, was just nominated by President Bush for the position of Secretary of State. This is a remarkable event. No, she's not the most beautiful, like the black anchor women appearing on major media networks, like Suzanne Malveux, or Frederica Whitfield, but then again, Rice isn't a mulatto, and hasn't had any cosmetic surgery. Sheer elegance is her draw, and class, to say nothing of intelligence, character, and consistency. Contrast her control, with the lack of it in the basketball players.
So, America saw the worst and best of the American Negro, the worst of the male, the best of the female. What coincidence. What irony.
To top it off, NPR just did (December 1) a major story on AIDS in Africa, and ended it with a commentary by black female columnist Kathy Y. Wilson about American Negroes vs. African Negroes. It's a pretty caustic commentary, and despite the typical racial lamentation, Wilson makes some good points about blacks being objects of pity, and the great competition between African blacks and American blacks for attention. "Pity party" is her term. (She uses the word "Negro" frequently, as is becoming more and more common.)
So, we have the full picture. The violence, the elegance, and the race-based sociology. One thing for certain, if there was ever a standard generalization for the Negro race, there ain't no more. It looks as though that time has passed on.