Your faithful correspondent has been, once again and for another year, hearing about "The War On Christmas." And to tell the truth, he's getting pretty darn tired of it. Not because there is not a "war on Christmas", but because every year for the past thirty years there has been a bit of screaming and robe tearing about a "war on Christmas." with the thought that if Christians protest enough about it there will be a "Christmas peace" in which a Christian can wish a Merry Christmas to a Sikh at the local 7-11 and not get the hairy eyeball. A "Christmas peace", if there will ever come one, will be like the Christmas truces during the war in Vietnam; an tacit agreement will be made and then one side will break the truce because that side realizes that a state of comfort on the other side makes a soft target and is thus easy to attack. A sleeping man is easier to attack than an armed man on watch.
But what is more troublesome to this writer is the implication put forth by the "War on Christmas" worriers is that Christianity is the default state of the nations in the West. For sure, it could be that most people in Europe and the Americas were believing Christians, or cultural Christians. Believing Christians means those who actually believe the tenants and teachings of the New Testament, and who attend church and read the Bible. A cultural Christian is a person who holds to Christian morality without really believing in Christianity. The village atheist was an oddball. The person who claimed he or she was a Buddhist or Hindu was considered a person who was pretty much akin to a spiritualist; a person who had fallen victim to exoticism. The person who identified as a Muslim was considered as a bit of a savage who had neither the discipline to be an Orthodox Jew or the sense of gratefulness to be a Christian.
Times have changed a lot since those days. For whatever reason the atheistic and the Islamic has come into the ascendancy, with atheism leading the way. And the reason for the rise of the latter in the West is the result of the call for tolerance by the former. Atheists, for some reason, despise Christianity more than they do other religions. The reason maybe simply a matter of contempt for the familiar; one tends to dislike one's shifty cousin more than the one dislikes the unknown man who robbed a bank.
Via college professors who were, and are, always looking for the "different" to make their academic chops the secular became the plus non ultra, The result was that the secular, or more specifically, the humanist secular point of view was taught in colleges and universities. And who comes out of colleges and universities? Journalists and teachers. The very people who pass on information to the youth and the public. Let's face it, most college students are unrooted philosophically and religiously. They've just come out of puberty, and if they haven't had a good grounding, and a very good grounding in either believing Christianity or moral Christianity they'll find themselves at sea and sometimes grab onto a world outlook that is diametrically opposed to with what they were raised.
The whole point of this awfully too long post is that we, in the West, including the U.S., no longer live in a Christian world. Much of the U.S. clings to Christmas as a generic holiday; almost like New Year's Day in Asia. Just a day to get time off work and exchange gifts. It's more Santa Claus than Christ. It's become a secular holiday, and the grumpy atheists really don't mind the secular aspects. They hate the specifically Christian aspects. They don't file lawsuits against a city putting illuminated snowflakes or stars on lamp poles during the Christmas season, But a manger on the grounds of the city hall demands a lawsuit or threatening letter.
But that's the way it is and that is the way it will be unless there is a religious revival. And we should get used to it. And we'll have to get used to it because there is worse to come. Our job as Christians is to believe and live our Faith and express our Faith in public. But we cannot expect the public accept our Faith or respect our Faith. The history of human nature tells us so. We are pariahs of the good and of the Faith, and the sooner we realize it the better for us.
Sunday, December 23, 2018
Sunday, August 05, 2018
Well, Women Are All
Your faithful correspondent is very reluctant to get into this topic because he really doesn't like controversy outside of whether Dickens or Trollope was the better writer, or whether the Brontes were foolish in dismissing Jane Austen.
But, here's the deal. Ireland and Argentina have both been campaigning for abortion on demand. In Ireland the law has been passed and in Argentina the matter is undergoing public argument. And there are women who seem to think that having an abortion is a good thing. They almost make is a sacrament i.e., if a woman has not had an abortion she is not a real woman. And they often make the silly argument that if men became pregnant abortion would be smiled upon by society because men are in power and blah, blah, blah, when, in fact, if men became pregnant there would probably be fewer abortions because men see their kids as the fruit of their loins while a lot of women see their kids as weights holding them back. We could go on with the argument forever and a day. But there is an argument.
A lot of pro-abortion women (and it's always women and men who want a bit of leg without the responsibility of putting on a rubber) often bitch a bitch about the Catholic Church or the Old Puritans or the Evangelicals using anti-abortion laws to keep the women back from realizing their dreams of becoming breath-taking architects, full professors of Women's Studies at Yale or the next Myrna Loy. It's all stuff and nonsense intended to mask the fact that the women who "need" abortions were irresponsible when they decided to bed down with the "greatest guy in the world" while the woman was off her birth control pills or her lover refused to wear a condom. And then, once she finds out that her guy likes straight coffee and not a mocha-loca-caramel do-dad and she's pregnant and decides that he's not the guy for her she heads to the local Planned Parenthood and pretty much flushes the kid away.
But what is never mentioned is that the man, the father, of the aborted child has no legal right to prevent the abortion. If the woman decides to give birth the "father" is legally obligated to pay child support for the child until the child is eighteen. If he wants the woman to have the child and makes a promise to raise the child himself he really has no say in the matter. A father has no rights in the case of abortion despite the fact that he is half of the equation.
Women will argue that they have to carry the child for nine months. So what? It was not all that long ago when young men of many nations were regularly drafted into the military for a period of two years and they got nothing out of it besides rotten pay and being held back for two years in a trade or a college.
Why is it all about the women regarding abortion and not the potential fathers? Your friend hates to say it, but it might be all about stretch marks.
But, here's the deal. Ireland and Argentina have both been campaigning for abortion on demand. In Ireland the law has been passed and in Argentina the matter is undergoing public argument. And there are women who seem to think that having an abortion is a good thing. They almost make is a sacrament i.e., if a woman has not had an abortion she is not a real woman. And they often make the silly argument that if men became pregnant abortion would be smiled upon by society because men are in power and blah, blah, blah, when, in fact, if men became pregnant there would probably be fewer abortions because men see their kids as the fruit of their loins while a lot of women see their kids as weights holding them back. We could go on with the argument forever and a day. But there is an argument.
A lot of pro-abortion women (and it's always women and men who want a bit of leg without the responsibility of putting on a rubber) often bitch a bitch about the Catholic Church or the Old Puritans or the Evangelicals using anti-abortion laws to keep the women back from realizing their dreams of becoming breath-taking architects, full professors of Women's Studies at Yale or the next Myrna Loy. It's all stuff and nonsense intended to mask the fact that the women who "need" abortions were irresponsible when they decided to bed down with the "greatest guy in the world" while the woman was off her birth control pills or her lover refused to wear a condom. And then, once she finds out that her guy likes straight coffee and not a mocha-loca-caramel do-dad and she's pregnant and decides that he's not the guy for her she heads to the local Planned Parenthood and pretty much flushes the kid away.
But what is never mentioned is that the man, the father, of the aborted child has no legal right to prevent the abortion. If the woman decides to give birth the "father" is legally obligated to pay child support for the child until the child is eighteen. If he wants the woman to have the child and makes a promise to raise the child himself he really has no say in the matter. A father has no rights in the case of abortion despite the fact that he is half of the equation.
Women will argue that they have to carry the child for nine months. So what? It was not all that long ago when young men of many nations were regularly drafted into the military for a period of two years and they got nothing out of it besides rotten pay and being held back for two years in a trade or a college.
Why is it all about the women regarding abortion and not the potential fathers? Your friend hates to say it, but it might be all about stretch marks.
Saturday, April 14, 2018
Your faithful correspondent is no example of sartorial splendor. In other words, this writer is no Beau Brummel spending an hour or so in front of a mirror to make sure that the folds in his cravat are placed "just so." In other words, we at Bloody Nib Manor consider ourselves as rather slobby in the proper sense, but we are not so slobby was to walk out in public wearing dungarees and a t-shirt. We always wear , daily, something like khaki trousers and a buttoned up shirt of either the Hawaiian or Western style. And always a hat or cap of some sort. And not a baseball cap. Baseball caps are for baseball players or tail gunners in B-17s.
But fashions change for some reason, and we no longer wear detachable collars or shirt fronts or waistcoats. And the, well, lower classes no longer emulate us (meaning middle and upper classes), but for some reason we seem to emulate them. Everybody wants to be a thug these days It's almost a sans culottes movement without the guillotine casting it's shadow. Just public opinion. And stupid public opinion. But let us face the fact. Most of the public is unthinking. They are reactive. If one tells the great unwashed that it dresses like thugs, hooches, white trash or just plain skanky one will get slammed with labels such as racist or classist. The insults are never-ending. But that's life in modern America in which the opinion of a drunk screaming at pigeons on a telephone wire are deemed as valid as that as a man who has spent forty years studying Burke and the Bible.
But to get back the point of this mess:
How do you know that a man (and it's always a man) of a proper type and of the conservative, and perhaps populist type, is the man that he presents himself as? The answer is simple: He ties his neck tie in either a coachman's knot or a four-in-hand knot. Those are the tie knots that men who have other things to worry about than looking good on the television. Windsor knots are for toffs and gangsters. In other words, for news readers and politicians. The normal tie for a working stiff is tied in a coachman's knot or a four in hand. That means that the guy (or gal) is just too damn busy.It doesn't mean that that person is a liberal or a conservative (leftists seem to prefer the t-shirt/hoodie look). It means that that person has other concerns than looking good for a camera. And the only people who worry about looking good for a camera are actors. And, from ancient times, we all know that actors are pretty much idiots and degenerates.
But fashions change for some reason, and we no longer wear detachable collars or shirt fronts or waistcoats. And the, well, lower classes no longer emulate us (meaning middle and upper classes), but for some reason we seem to emulate them. Everybody wants to be a thug these days It's almost a sans culottes movement without the guillotine casting it's shadow. Just public opinion. And stupid public opinion. But let us face the fact. Most of the public is unthinking. They are reactive. If one tells the great unwashed that it dresses like thugs, hooches, white trash or just plain skanky one will get slammed with labels such as racist or classist. The insults are never-ending. But that's life in modern America in which the opinion of a drunk screaming at pigeons on a telephone wire are deemed as valid as that as a man who has spent forty years studying Burke and the Bible.
But to get back the point of this mess:
How do you know that a man (and it's always a man) of a proper type and of the conservative, and perhaps populist type, is the man that he presents himself as? The answer is simple: He ties his neck tie in either a coachman's knot or a four-in-hand knot. Those are the tie knots that men who have other things to worry about than looking good on the television. Windsor knots are for toffs and gangsters. In other words, for news readers and politicians. The normal tie for a working stiff is tied in a coachman's knot or a four in hand. That means that the guy (or gal) is just too damn busy.It doesn't mean that that person is a liberal or a conservative (leftists seem to prefer the t-shirt/hoodie look). It means that that person has other concerns than looking good for a camera. And the only people who worry about looking good for a camera are actors. And, from ancient times, we all know that actors are pretty much idiots and degenerates.
Sunday, February 18, 2018
Unfortunately, Back Again
Today at church your faithful correspondent was reminded that he actually has a blog and that no new posts have been made for a very long time. In other words, this blog has been pretty moribund for a long time and perhaps too long.
This writer is the first to admit that he really has nothing insightful to say or write and does not have the talent to write common thought in an interesting and creative way. But some people do seem to enjoy the natterings of an old fool. Not many people enjoy them, but a few do. One can only suppose that they are the type of people who would enjoy watching an 1890s Ozark hillbilly trying to figure out what to do with a Smartphone. But the joke goes both ways. Clem can make music with a broomstick, a wash tub and a piece of rope while the Smartphone guy has to go to The Guitar Center and buy an electric bass guitar and amplifier to do the same thing.
But to get back to cases. For those who have enjoyed reading these exhibitions of mental deficiency this writer apologizes for the lack of current material. The only excuse is laziness and Facebook. Mostly Facebook.
To put it succinctly, Facebook is evil for bloggers. Actually, to be more to the point, Facebook is evil.
Facebook is evil for bloggers because it is a form of micro-blog that is really under the control of unseen forces and limits the free expression of bloggers. There is always the danger for an opinionated person being suspended from Facebook for a period of time for saying something that violates the Facebook terms of service. And these terms of service are mercurial depending upon the current liberal climate. One is left trying to anticipate the censors at Facebook and thereby censors oneself.
In a community, as was, self-censorship was not unusual. One had to live a a community in which there were various types and flavors of people, and to get through the day one had to prevent oneself from offending the man who delivered the milk despite the fact that it was known that he was a Mason and everyone knew (as far as your were concerned) that Masons were anti-democratic and perhaps anti-American. You wanted milk and if you ticked off the milk man you wouldn't be getting milk. And your doctor would probably use a dull needle to give you a shot.
The Internet, in a way, opened up the possibility for everyone to express his or her jerk opinions. One could be the biggest jerk in the world without worrying about not having milk for the Cheerios. After all, it was pretty unlikely that your milkman or doctor would read your blog.
But writing a blog is more troublesome than doing a Facebook entry. One cannot make a blog entry of one or two sentences. But one can do it on Facebook. And Facebook is controlled by a lot of people who have no knowledge or your life or life experiences. Consider this: You're a veteran of the Vietnam War. You spent your time in country fighting the Viet Cong and the NVA. You got into the habit of referring to the enemy as "gooks." Later, as an old fellow, you join a Facebook group of Viet vets. You write a post about the Viet Cong and use the word "gooks." All of a sudden the Facebook hammer comes down on you for "hate speech" and you're suspended despite the fact that you wife is Vietnamese and your kids are Eurasian. You're not racist. But you used the "wrong" word and therefore, according to Facebook you are a hater. And know for sure that the "wrong" word will change and become more numerous as time goes on.
Secondly, Facebook is evil because it pretend to be a "town square" where people of similar likes can get together and discuss and that all the people are friends of some sort. That is, in a sense, admirable. But there is a wagon attached to the thing. Whatever one writes, whatever one posts, becomes part of Facebook. It's not yours anymore. And whatever you write or post will result your name being sold to advertisers and groups that you may want nothing to do with. You become a commodity. You are no longer a person.
But that's modern life. People are willing to have their privacy taken by things like the Amazon Echo so they'll know what time it is or what the weather is. Big Brother is here and we invited him in through Facebook and Echo and all the rest. Oh happy day!
This writer is the first to admit that he really has nothing insightful to say or write and does not have the talent to write common thought in an interesting and creative way. But some people do seem to enjoy the natterings of an old fool. Not many people enjoy them, but a few do. One can only suppose that they are the type of people who would enjoy watching an 1890s Ozark hillbilly trying to figure out what to do with a Smartphone. But the joke goes both ways. Clem can make music with a broomstick, a wash tub and a piece of rope while the Smartphone guy has to go to The Guitar Center and buy an electric bass guitar and amplifier to do the same thing.
But to get back to cases. For those who have enjoyed reading these exhibitions of mental deficiency this writer apologizes for the lack of current material. The only excuse is laziness and Facebook. Mostly Facebook.
To put it succinctly, Facebook is evil for bloggers. Actually, to be more to the point, Facebook is evil.
Facebook is evil for bloggers because it is a form of micro-blog that is really under the control of unseen forces and limits the free expression of bloggers. There is always the danger for an opinionated person being suspended from Facebook for a period of time for saying something that violates the Facebook terms of service. And these terms of service are mercurial depending upon the current liberal climate. One is left trying to anticipate the censors at Facebook and thereby censors oneself.
In a community, as was, self-censorship was not unusual. One had to live a a community in which there were various types and flavors of people, and to get through the day one had to prevent oneself from offending the man who delivered the milk despite the fact that it was known that he was a Mason and everyone knew (as far as your were concerned) that Masons were anti-democratic and perhaps anti-American. You wanted milk and if you ticked off the milk man you wouldn't be getting milk. And your doctor would probably use a dull needle to give you a shot.
The Internet, in a way, opened up the possibility for everyone to express his or her jerk opinions. One could be the biggest jerk in the world without worrying about not having milk for the Cheerios. After all, it was pretty unlikely that your milkman or doctor would read your blog.
But writing a blog is more troublesome than doing a Facebook entry. One cannot make a blog entry of one or two sentences. But one can do it on Facebook. And Facebook is controlled by a lot of people who have no knowledge or your life or life experiences. Consider this: You're a veteran of the Vietnam War. You spent your time in country fighting the Viet Cong and the NVA. You got into the habit of referring to the enemy as "gooks." Later, as an old fellow, you join a Facebook group of Viet vets. You write a post about the Viet Cong and use the word "gooks." All of a sudden the Facebook hammer comes down on you for "hate speech" and you're suspended despite the fact that you wife is Vietnamese and your kids are Eurasian. You're not racist. But you used the "wrong" word and therefore, according to Facebook you are a hater. And know for sure that the "wrong" word will change and become more numerous as time goes on.
Secondly, Facebook is evil because it pretend to be a "town square" where people of similar likes can get together and discuss and that all the people are friends of some sort. That is, in a sense, admirable. But there is a wagon attached to the thing. Whatever one writes, whatever one posts, becomes part of Facebook. It's not yours anymore. And whatever you write or post will result your name being sold to advertisers and groups that you may want nothing to do with. You become a commodity. You are no longer a person.
But that's modern life. People are willing to have their privacy taken by things like the Amazon Echo so they'll know what time it is or what the weather is. Big Brother is here and we invited him in through Facebook and Echo and all the rest. Oh happy day!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)