Dr. Boys’ is my senior by several years and has insight into many areas which are well worth sharing. I trust you will read the entire article.
‘Our culture is now under attack and must be defended. While there were many failures of Western Civilization, there is much more that honors us than horrifies us. Western Civilization is a product of hundreds of years of trial and error, resulting in advanced and free nations.
The developing culture started going downhill when Cain killed his brother with a rock. From that day, man would struggle with divine revelation and his conscience when making choices—good and bad. That is man’s story down through the millennia, as his choices become the culture, morphing into a civilization.
Western Civilization gave us individual freedom, democracy, personal responsibility, advanced agriculture, the Reformation, the Renaissance, the Industrial Revolution, ease of travel, organ transplants, space exploration, etc., and yes, vulgar rap music, the woke culture, sleazy entertainment, and the drug culture.
Civilization is always a mixed bag with progression and retrogression. With passing centuries, the hope is that the good will be appreciated, accepted, and applauded while the bad will be recognized, repudiated, and finally rejected.
For sure, all cultures are not the same and are always changing.
Did the first Europeans in the early days of America think they were superior (more advanced) than native Americans who sometimes graciously greeted them and sometimes fiercely fought them? Of course, the white Europeans thought they were superior because they were superior! The Indians in North America had no written language, had no knowledge of the wheel, scalped their enemies, kept other Indians as slaves, eating them during bad times, and basically lived in a Stone Age.
Only a fool, a liar, or one looking to win the trophy for being the most politically correct wacko on the planet would say otherwise. Of course, as far as God is concerned, each person has worth and is part of His plan on an equal basis with everyone else. But of course, the Whites were far superior to the Indians, and the Indians often emulated the worst of the Whites they met.
Other Indians were impressed with some of the white culture and learned from them. Of course, the white people also learned some basic survival techniques from the Indians, proving that many circumstances impact a culture. Both the Indian and white cultures changed—some for the good, some for the bad.
Cultures have slowly changed over hundreds of years to civilizations. Men, even kings, realized that sleeping around was irresponsible, even vile; women realized that sex was not acceptable for acquiring or advancing their profession—it was, in fact, slutty to do so.
Obviously, modern entertainers’ culture has not caught up with our civilization.
Over time it was unacceptable, even shameful, to have babies out of wedlock. It was normal when I was a teen for a pregnant, unmarried girl to be sent to “visit a relative” for a few months. I didn’t know one personally. Today, unmarried pregnancy is often planned and discussed without shame, and the most admired personalities are often, too often, the most slutty.
Young men finally realized that everyone should contribute to society and should, therefore, work even if family status did not require it. In the late Middle Ages, knives, forks, and spoons were invented, and civilized people stopped using their fingers. Changes came slowly.
Over the centuries, all cultures changed, primarily for the better, but many societies are still undisciplined, unprincipled, and uncontrolled. And some of the better cultures have streams of uncouth, unkind, and unlawful behavior. Even in our day, probably half the citizens are fornicators or adulterers; however, in a moment of honesty, I think most of them would agree what they are doing is wrong, but most have no plans to change. That has always been true.
I’m still embarrassed when I see the legislative bodies in South Africa brawl while the Speaker yells, “This honorable body will come to order. This honorable body will come to order.” And the mêlée continues, and one honorable member throws a punch at another honorable member. The same thing happened in the South Korean legislature in 2015.
Such actions are disgraceful, and those who defend such behavior are part of the culture clash.
It was also disgraceful last year when politicians in Taiwan threw punches, pig guts, and water balloons during a legislative session. It was the third brawl in that parliament in two weeks.
U.S. culture would never permit that; however, we will permit adulterers, sodomites, thieves, drunks, and consummate liars in our Congress and the Oval Office.
And too often in our classrooms and pulpits.
I was embarrassed when South Sudan’s ambassador to the U.S., Gordon Buay, in an eight-man video conference, urinated during a live zoom discussion panel! The seven other African leaders found it impossible not to laugh as the world watched him using the potty. At least he did not use a typical hole in the ground, so I suppose one could say that some progress has been made.
I’m embarrassed when rappers use filthy language to perform their gutter rap “music” and am shocked that they are considered distinguished and courted by the public and are considered musicians. No, not in the same class as Nat King Cole and Perry Como.
I was embarrassed when a hillbilly in West Virginia, in the presence of my wife, unbuckled his belt, unzipped his pants, and tucked in his shirt as he spewed numerous four-letter words—not in anger but as if it was the normal thing to do. That was acceptable to him and his clan in that area, but my culture was far above his, although I had lived in a log cabin 20 miles from that location.
I’m embarrassed when professing Christians act, talk, and dress in vain, vile, and vicious ways. I see athletes, politicians, and entertainers wearing a decorative cross around their necks as they dishonor the real meaning of that cross. One prominent black entertainer promised that his wife would no longer prance around in her underwear (that she designed), yet she often appears almost naked as a jaybird (as my dad would say.)
Evidently, that husband has no problem permitting his wife to degrade herself, disgrace Christianity, and deprecate his authority as the family leader. Of course, she always wore a silver cross around her neck. That family is now divorced.
Yes, some cultures are better than others are, and every society has a vast mixture of various levels of culture in the mix.
Radicals don’t want you to be comfortable with your values. They will call you self-righteous and bigoted as they do me. They will get you to question your superior values, and then they will try to convince you that your values are not superior. They demand that all values have equal value; then, they will move on to cultural domination when they have the upper hand and acceptance. They are determined to make you approve of their vile habits to give them comfort in their vileness. Radical leftists tolerate deviant behavior while they condemn Western Civilization.
So, yes, I think America’s conservative values are better than others are, although the BLM, Antifa, and the LGBTQ crowds will consider that the ultimate crime.
A lesser offense would be if I were caught wearing a dirty MAGA cap while sexually molesting autistic three-year-old girls during a Nazi torch rally.’ http://donboys.cstnews.com/our-culture-is-under-attack-and-must-be-defended
China is truly a threat to the free world. The following article is interesting in that according to the article many Chinese are considering immigrating to the West for financial reasons but one might wonder (or at least this blogger does) how many of them would actually be CCP spies?
‘While some affluent Chinese would like to emigrate to escape a perceived harsher environment for private entrepreneurs at home, they are increasingly reluctant to do so – at least in the next few years – because of concern about the coronavirus pandemic in popular destinations abroad, consultants and businesspeople say.
Many are conflicted and feel under pressure given changing rules in China and around the world: move now and risk infection, or delay and risk assets being seized by the government in what is perceived to be a campaign against private businesspeople.It is not uncommon for Chinese entrepreneurs, who have benefited most from the nation’s rapid growth in recent years, to fall foul of the authorities. The high-profile arrest of Chinese entrepreneur Sun Dawu in November and a squeeze on the country’s tech giants has sent chills through some quarters of the business sector, even though the Chinese government has repeated assured the country’s private business owners in recent months that they will be cherished and protected.
“All of a sudden, policies could change in any sector – fintech, financing, energy and entrepreneurship – and we private companies that might be forced to make adjustments,” said Ken Liu, a Zhejiang-based senior executive of a foreign trading firm. “It requires us to rethink the risks in the future for what we own and how to protect it.”
For many wealthy Chinese, the aim is to gain residency in a second country to safeguard family and financial assets, while keeping China as their primary place to live and work. But the pandemic has complicated the calculation.
Wendy Zhao and her husband own properties worth more than 20 million yuan (US$3 million) in Shenzhen, China’s hi-tech hub, and currently disagree over whether to move to New Zealand next year to start a new life.
“Our immigration application was successfully approved, but now I’m worried about the overseas pandemic and feel that only China has done a good job of controlling it,” she said.’https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3116010/chinas-rich-face-million-dollar-question-stay-and-risk-losing?utm_medium=email&utm_source=mailchimp&utm_campaign=enlz-gme_trade_war&utm_content=20210105&tpcc=enlz-us_china_trade_war&MCUID=6ece799d24&MCCampaignID=8f19de1619&MCAccountID=7b1e9e7f8075914aba9cff17f&tc=23
As Chinese business people see the CCP for what it really is those in the West do not!
Why doesn’t this surprise me? From the UK we read that;
‘Doctors will have power to section people indefinitely
The Coronavirus Bill (which is being passed into law this week at breakneck speed) will, among other things, (1) authorise a forcible detention of people on mental health grounds (‘sectioning’) on the opinion of any one doctor (rather than two, as previously required) and (2) abolish the six-month time limit on ‘sectioning’. Any one doctor will have the power to lock you up in a lunatic asylum indefinitely – all in the interests of your own and others’ safety.
It is well-known, and self-evident, that forcible psychiatric detention is an area which is open to abuse in the absence of effective safeguards. In the Soviet Union, it was used simply as a tool to suppress political dissent. This may be an extreme example, but where is the guarantee that one rogue doctor or another will not, once in a while, abuse his newly found unlimited power? For very good reasons, we have had safeguards against that in our law. Now they are being urgently abolished – supposedly as an obstacle to our survival of the epidemic. How exactly are they such an obstacle?
It should be stressed that this has nothing to do with increasing doctors’ capacity to deal with coronavirus patients. A psychiatrist is not much help in treating a respiratory disease. In fact, he would be as useful as a gynaecologist. Just like gynaecologists can safely continue to supervise (and hopefully, sometimes refuse to authorise) abortions, there is no reason why psychiatrists cannot carry on doing their usual job – which includes, most importantly, protecting people from arbitrary detention on unsound psychiatric grounds. Those duties are expendable luxuries, but are vital safeguards of liberty.
Powers to issue warrants for surveillance
Another frightening power-grab in the Coronavirus Bill is the expansion of the power to appoint temporary judicial commissioners, with the powers to issue warrants for surveillance, under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The threat to civil liberty is obvious; and this has nothing to do with coronavirus.
Given those examples, one inevitably looks more sceptically at the idea that the government knows best about its other measures which ostensibly have something to do with coronavirus. Things like prolonging local councillors’ term in office for a whole year without a democratic mandate; police power to detain anyone for up to 48 hours on suspicion of a threat to public health; Ministers’ authority to ban mass gatherings; or court trials by skype. Are all those things really necessary? Or have some civil servants simply been waiting (heaven knows for how long) for a convenient moment to introduce them without provoking mass protests on the streets?
For example, skype trials in court sound sensible at the time of an epidemic, but the very first reported trial is a rather frightening one. That is a Court of Protection trial last week to decide the fate of an anonymous man in his ‘70s, whose GP wants to switch off his life support to let him die ‘in dignity’, and whose family objects. Remember all the debates and protests over the cases of Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans in this country, and Vincent Lambert in France? Under the new regime, decisions on life and death cases of this kind are being made on a skype call. No proper trial, no ‘army’ of protesters, no real media coverage. It was only reported as a technological curiosity – the first major trial taking place by skype.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance
These and other measures are meant to be introduced only on a temporary basis. There is a subset clause in the Bill, whereby these new laws will automatically lose force after two years unless Parliament votes to extend them beyond that period. Amendments are being debated to shorten that period. However, this does not answer the concern that some of the most drastic innovations in the Act are clearly not necessary to contain coronavirus at all. If in those two years, someone is wrongly ‘sectioned’ in a lunatic asylum, it is small comfort to them that this practice will cease in 2022. Further, as a general rule of constitutional history, temporary limitations on liberty tend to become permanent whenever they are convenient for the state. We still live today with all sorts of draconian laws introduced as a matter of emergency after 11 September 2001. Come 2022, the Coronavirus Bill powers may also be extended on whatever pretext. Indeed, section 90 of the Bill even permits the extension of those powers without a vote in Parliament.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Many dictatorships originate in people’s panicked enthusiasm for drastic measures to deal with a genuine crisis. Putin’s regime in Russia, for example, took hold because people trusted their democratically elected president to do whatever it takes to defeat the threat of terrorism. Eventually, when Putin responded to another terrorist attack by replacing regional elections with appointed governors, that trust was largely lost – but it was too late. It is no surprise that when we see fairly similar moves attempted in this country, our trust in the government hangs in the balance.
At least in terms of public trust, the next few days will be crucial for the government’s efforts to control the epidemic. If the government is serious about it, its legislation must be cleansed of all disingenuous attempts to take advantage. And if they are not serious about it, nobody else will be.’ https://christianconcern.com/comment/coronavirus-exploited-by-enemies-of-democracy/?utm_source=Christian+Concern&utm_campaign=a5725850b3-WN-20200228_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9e164371ca-a5725850b3-127681039
The following is thought provoking so some may find it hard to read just as they find thinking hard!
‘The United States has become a cesspool as it relates to the covering of women. However, the nakedness of women seems also to be a symbol of Americanism today as much as apple pie, kind of like the following, “Our women take their clothes off, and we’re proud of it.” As this relates to Islam, we’re not like those nasty Moslem countries that force their women to cover themselves either with the burqa or the hijab. The hijab brings an American gag reflex and the burqa induces all out vomiting. On the other hand, flag waving and the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue now parallel one another. The patriotism of this goes back to wartime pinups of women, I guess, to motivate these men to sacrifice themselves or at least to provide distraction from their fears or anxieties.
The hijab and burqa are distinguishing garments in Islam. They reflect Moslem teaching on modesty for women. They don’t have identical rules for men, because they distinguish between men and women. Is this good? It’s not wrong for sure. You could argue from the Bible that it is right to do so.
As I think about what scripture says about female dress, the following is how I see these two articles of clothing. One, the Bible doesn’t require the hijab or the burqa. Two, the Bible doesn’t say that a woman would be superior or a better person or more moral because she wore a hijab or a burqa. Three, the Bible doesn’t forbid the hijab or the burqa. Four, there are similar principles in the Bible for the hijab or the burqa as there are in Islam. Five, the biblical principles themselves don’t require a hijab or burqa, but they do require something for women similar to the hijab or burqa.
I’m saying here that the hijab or burqa are not a good argument against Islam by Americans, either liberal or conservative. Neither of these are forbidden in the United States. Women can wear them if they want. Men can’t force women to wear them in the United States. However, in European countries, those bastions of freedom and expression, that’s what they want to outlaw. They don’t want the burqa or the burqini, the Moslem beachwear.
Permit me to digress for a moment. I don’t like the burqa as apparel. It reflects a perverted belief and culture. As a result, I attach the hijab to the burqa, because they both come from the same source. I get a feeling of repulsion, looking at them, because I know from which they come. If I can separate myself from the religious aspect, the hijab can look nice, feminine and modest. As I tamp down the religious repulsion, as an item, I see it in a good way, because of the distinguishing nature of it. The hijab looks attractive to me when I get past what I see it represent. On the other hand, the burqa looks like something Cousin It would wear in the Addams Family. It would look stylish maybe on a weeble. I’m not for a hazmat suit as regular apparel.
I don’t think that Muslim covering on women should enter the argument against Islam. Why is it used? There’s nothing wrong with it. You shouldn’t use what’s not wrong as an argument. It presents a weak argument. There is something right about it’s underlying philosophy, distinction and modesty. I believe it is used as an argument because it’s emotional. Women will feel emotional about it. Men want to look at women’s bodies, so it works for them too. If the burqa took off as a fashion, men wouldn’t see anything except in the bedroom, and they don’t want to wait for that.
The burqa argument also works in the matter of men and women’s roles. What makes America great is that our women are free and equal to men — sure, after 1920. Before that, women couldn’t vote. Read the federalist and anti-federalist papers. Women’s vote didn’t come up once in those books. It wasn’t even up for debate. Big laughter from Jefferson, Adams, and Hamilton on the woman’s vote. Are. you. kidding. me?
The cultural degradation of America follows a trajectory that matches the dress of women. The more they dress like men and the more they take their clothes off, the more that things fall apart. We’re not better off from those activities. This is the slouch or slide toward Gomorrah.
Masculine and immodest dress on women are not better for intimacy. They are not better for solid marriages. They are not better for family cohesiveness. They are not better for family solidity. They are not better for role accomplishment. They are not better for protection for women from all sorts of crimes. Women are not better off because they can dress like men and take more clothes off.
People feel more American for opposing the burqa and allowing for the shredding fad, allowing for big rips in clothing to see through. Lingerie used to be bedroom wear alone, and now it is a regular feature of outer wear. If we replaced all of the masculine, immodest dress on women with the burqa, we wouldn’t be worse off. I’m not arguing for either. If we’re going to point the finger at one, we should be able to point the finger at the other, except that the burqa in and of itself isn’t wrong. Only women wear it and it is modest. Obviously modest. The only thing more modest are those moving blankets at UHaul, but not wrong. What I’m saying is that we’re wrong, and they’re not wrong. I’m not saying they’re right, but they are at least not wrong. We are wrong, and wrong in a big way.
The burqa isn’t what destroys Moslem society. They suffer for many other reasons. We are not helping them by using lame and hypocritical arguments against their covering of women.’ http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com