Assimilation or Acculturation?

One thing that I think we need to do is to make people aware that there is a huge difference between the two. In fact, these are opposite, and opposing concepts.

John Savage has put up an excellent post this morning which is the primary inspiration for this post...

In reading John's post, two things were brought to mind, as I said in my comments to the entry:

1. Linda Chavez's statements in the recent FrontPage symposium on immigration and assimilation. And,

2. One of Lawrence Auster's recent entries over at VFR where in his concluding sentence to the initial entry, Auster reveals what a friend of his said to him while discussing the matter of the Muslim immigrants in our country. From memory, Auster's friend said that the Muslims were/are acculturating Americans to their customs in preparation for their ultimate takeover of America.

And here is where the rubber meets the road with regard to the difference between assimilation and acculturation. Assimilation means that the immigrants reject the culture of their homeland and adopt the culture of their new home. Acculturation means the very opposite; the host country and culture adapts itself to the cultural characteristics of the migrants. This is what multiculturalism does. It can't not destroy Western and American culture.

What Chavez and her ilk are talking about when they say that immigrants assimilate naturally, is not assimilation at all. It is, to the contrary, acculturation of Western and American culture to alien cultures. What Chavez fails to recognize (for whatever reason) is that American culture has already been turned on its head due to multiculturalism's demand that we acculturate, rather than that the aliens assimilate.

End of initial post.

Read More

Auster Astounds!

OK, I have to post Auster's appeal to liberals because it is so good. I wrestled with the idea of posting this quote in the context of a longer post, but ultimately I decided against it as I seemed to be, at every turn, only watering down or diluting his message. It stands on its own merits. I needn't add anything.

Auster writes:

"Listen, liberals! If you want our society to maintain its liberalism, albeit in a modified, no longer dominant form, then you need to support the renewal of our historic nationhood, culture and religion that traditionalists such as myself advocate. Only such a renewed culture can fortify and defend the West against the Islamic religion which would destroy all liberalism."

I will only say this (and please read the entire entry posted at VFR), I wonder whether Auster's suggestion is acceptable to liberals even as merely a consideration?I'm not so sure. Liberals seem to be so committed to liberalism that the slightest hint of a less dominating influence is anathema to them, and absolutely non-negotiable. In other words, liberals had rather sacrifice our entire culture, nationhood and religion, than to yield one foot of ground they have already conquered, wouldn't they?

-DW

Read More

Creedal Patriotism; Legitimate or not?

(Note: Do not neglect to read John Savage's first comments to this post. John's comments further reveal that the 4W position betrays their actual desire to formulate a new American creed more conducive to their own brand of patriotism...)

John Savage has suggested that I post the following comments I made earlier this morning to his fine entry “Toward an Understanding of Patriotism According to WWWW,” here at Webster's.

I should explain that John got my attention on this when he cited the header description line at the AFB as an example of the kind of ideological patriotism that 4W had taken their stand against.

As I explain in the comments below, my view is that if creedal patriotism can be shown to be an illegitimate form of patriotism, then it should be rejected. And if it truly is an illegitimate form of patriotism worthy of rejection, then its antagonists should be able to lay down reasonable arguments for its illegitimacy while fully adhering to the dictates of their own reasons...

John poses this interesting question in reply to an earlier comment of mine:

“Back to what Terry said. I'm wondering if it implies that creedal patriotism is not uniquely American, but there's always some unifying creed that binds a nation. That creed may be relatively unstated, but it commands love for certain symbols, heroes, etc. The fact that we have a shared ancestry needs to have some meaning attached to it, I suppose. Otherwise kinship had better be very close if we're going to care about it, and act upon it. Is that right, Terry?”

Here is my answer:

“Well, I tend to think that way, yes. Indeed, it seems to me that family unity and so forth is part of the creed, not separate from it. We can analyze them separately, but I don't see how they can be completely separated as distinctive kinds of patriotism and loyalty capable (or not) of themselves to satisfy the elements comprising 'legitimate' patriotism.

I don't deny the importance of natural affection, familiar places and smells and all of that. As a matter of fact I affirm it, but it only goes so far. Cella and Martin seem to leave no room for a blending of these, claiming one to be an illegitimate form of patriotism and loyalties, supposedly rejecting it in favor of the other.

If it's truly illegitimate then it oughta be rejected. But if it's truly illegitimate as they claim, then why do they adhere to it? I doubt, for instance, that Cella and Martin would assert that their own blood ties with their extended families are stronger inducements to loyalty than their ideological kinship to one-another. Even if they are blood relatives, they likely don't identify as well, nor do they have as strong a bond to other blood kin whose ideological beliefs are different than their own. The proof seems to me in the pudding.

It seems to me that blood ties and kinship based on purely natural kinds of affection would tend to break down in proportion to the distance removed from the immediate family. And that's just speculation on my part because I don't think we have any real examples to look to where this kind of purely natural loyalty is adhered to in strictness.

Ideological loyalty has its limitations too. It would break down the further removed one was from the core ideas and principles. But you cannot simply reject it based on its inherent limitations anymore than you can reject the other based on the same thing.

Again they concentrate their efforts on identifying the weaknesses inherent to ideological loyalties, neglecting to deal with the limitations and weaknesses of the more primitive kinds of loyalty.

In short, it seems to me that Cella and Martin argue in favor of an ideological loyalty. Their creed seems to be no-creed. But it's still a creed, isn't it?”

John's comment that follows to the effect of this not being my final word on the subject is fair enough. It certainly wasn't intended as the final word from this end, but more of a beginning. And I certainly intend to say more. As for now this should suffice to give you a window into what I believe some of the problems are with the 4W position on ideological patriotism. In the absence of a more compelling argument for a rejection of creedal patriotism, I take my stand for it.

-DW

Read More

A Win for Traditionalism in the Great State of Kansas

Here's a story that traditionalists oughta derive some measure of encouragement from “Kansans Keep Gambling out of County.” I've been highly critical of my own State for allowing these gambling Casinos to crop up all over the place. It is my position that gambling is corrupt at its roots; that it must involve corruption in order to operate, period. I've also said numerous times in the past that its just a matter of time before our own casinos get nationwide exposure for their corrupt 'gaming' practices. And it'll happen, mark my words...

But this story is, as I said, an encouraging one for traditionalists and for counties and States still holding to traditional values on this question of gambling:

Sedgwick County voters showed gambling to the door Tuesday, voting against ballot measures for a resort casino and slot machines at Wichita Greyhound Park. The track reportedly will close within three months.
"The Gambling Goliath can be defeated, and Kansas citizens just proved it," said Chad Hills, analyst for gambling research and policy at Focus on the Family Action. "I hope other states and counties are paying attention — you can defeat gambling in your community!...

Here's a lesson we need to learn in my state. I'll grant that we may be in something of a different situation given that our casinos are owned and operated by native American tribes such as the Choctaws who probably operate the most casinos in this State. Other tribes are catching on quickly though, getting into the 'gaming' business themselves.

In the State of Oklahoma it is illegal to gamble, but the tribes get around this law by asserting their 'independent nationhood.' This is a question that we need to take up in this country on whether or not tribal entities may be considered national sovereignties within a sovereign nation. There is a conflict of interests in the policy that needs to be addressed, and personally I'm totally opposed to any form of 'dual citizenship.' Either you're a citizen of this country exclusive to all others, or you're not. No-one is forcing you to become a citizen, nor is anyone forcing you to renounce it. But this policy of dual citizenship is just plain hogwash!, and there needs to be a stop put to it.

But once again there's a great deal of encouragement we oughta take from the example laid down in the county of Sedgwick in my State's northern neighboring State of Kansas. I'm greatly encouraged that we still have people across this nation who haven't been corrupted by the enticing lure of how much money they stand to gain at the expense of their morals. Nor are some intimidated by the tactics these folks are known to engage. Indeed, Sedgwick County, Kansas, presents us with a fine example of traditionalist folks saying NO to the corruption that they know comes right along with the establishment of 'gaming' in their area. May other traditional counties in this country follow this good example! Thank you, Sedgwick County, for standing up for your tradition!

-DW

Read More

Entertainment Media - A 'Carnival' Atmosphere

I hope and trust y'all will not mind my going in something of a different direction temporarily until I get myself caught up on what's been happening on the blogosphere (or my chosen corner of it - btw, it's ok to refer to a given section of a 'sphere' as a 'corner', just think of it in Biblical terms and we'll be alright) during my four or five day absence. At the moment of the writing of these words I've now been online for about two hours reading a few entries from other blogs (Vanishing American in particular) and I find myself rather struck by how quickly information is disseminated across this medium.

Much in contrast to the soap opera style 'news' and 'information' shows on today's mass media outlets where one may return after a long stint away and generally take up right where he/she left off weeks, months, or even years before, my chosen corner of the 'blogosphere' is a different baby altogether, as y'all well know. And this entry will be dedicated to speaking to that topic...

Over at VA's is posted a Monday entry on this very topic: Fluff and nonsense. VA notes in the post that though there is certainly an element of demand for what is termed 'cotton candy news,' in spite of that she also encounters, as I do, a lot of people of different walks, educational backgrounds and so forth, who generally despise this kind of 'news.' This causes her to question on some level why it is that the MSM engages itself in this kind of insignificant news coverage.

Personally I think a lot of it has to do with the education and experiences of the media people themselves. In short, it's what they know, all they know, and all they've ever known. And when there's a shortage, or a perceived shortage of 'newsworthy' stories to cover, these media outlets invariably revert back to what they know and understand best - entertainment.

Of course VA is discussing in the post a general problem across the MSM, but she does mention two specific examples - Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton - of the MSM's incessantly engaging itself in this kind of 'news coverage,' and she wonders on some level why this is. I think the 'cotton candy' euphemism is an appropriate one, and if we take thought to where it oughta lead us, it strikes up a pretty fitting analogy as well I should think.

We've often heard today's 'news' and news coverage referred to as a circus. But a carnival or a fair might be a better way of describing it in some instances. There is an atmosphere as well there should be at these carnivals of fun and entertainment. We associate certain ideas with certain things, and the carnival atmosphere is meant to be one of fun and entertainment. But why is it that news coverage seems to be increasingly more 'entertainment' oriented at the expense of the dissemination of knowledge of the useful kind?

I've said this before but I'll repeat it here. I think this is a more pervasive 'trend' than many of us realize. It seems to me to touch virtually everything; this 'entertainment' style of the sharing of information and knowledge. Those of us who complain about it are simply not interested in those kinds of 'facts,' or that kind of 'news' because we see it for what it is - irrelevant to real news and current events.

Now, I'll say here that I don't know who Lindsay Lohan is from Adam. I do know who Paris Hilton is because I've heard her name mentioned countless times. But beyond her being the heiress to the Hilton hotel dynasty (or whatever it is) and the fact that she was recently jailed for some kind of personal misdeed, I know very little of her as well, and that's the way I'd prefer to keep it so I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't try to educate me on this point. lol But my main point here is that I for one am apt to know a lot more about some relatively obscure character in American history, what they did and didn't do, and so on, than I'll ever likely know about Lindsay Lohan or Paris Hilton despite the MSM's incessant coverage of these irrelevant types.

And what I mean to say here is that I'm not nearly as comfortable in the carnival atmosphere as I used to be. That kind of 'fun and entertainment' is to me reserved for special and limited occasions. While I'm there and while I'm purposely seeking entertainment and pleasure I'm also willing to pay exorbitant prices for cotton candy and candied apples, and etc., as well as to pay twenty or thirty dollars for a fifty cent toy in a 'game of chance' where the deck is stacked heavily in favor of the carnival and against the individual player. I'm willing to do this because I seek entertainment in that instance, but that instance is very short-lived.

The same principle applies I think to the media and the kind of news it generates nowadays. I only wish to be 'entertained' occasionally, and it's on those limited occasions that I'm willing to pay the exorbitant rates that go with that entertainment. This probably explains why I don't particularly care for cable news. Occasionally I'll turn it on when I get the hankering to be entertained. But having been thoroughly entertained over the course of a couple of hours or so, then I'm generally good for weeks or even months.

I suppose, on the other hand, that this form of media (the blogosphere) might be said to be a form of 'entertainment' itself. And that some of us just prefer this kind of entertainment to that which the MSM engages itself in providing. In this case the MSM has its audience and participants, and the blogosphere has its audience and participants, and both have their games and sideshows that draw and captivate the attention of the attendees and observers. And in this case it all depends on what interests the individual attendee; does he prefer to shoot darts at a wall full of balloons at a dollar a dart, or had he rather shoot a basketball into undersized hoops, or to toss rings onto bottle necks, or whatever?

VA devotes most of her thoughts on this to the idea that the 'educational' establishment has more or less contributed to the desire among many to be entertained in this manner and in this kind of a 'carnival' atmosphere. People are generally going from game to game, bag of cotton candy in hand, seeking to be entertained at the expense of seeking out and desiring useful knowledge. And I think that this all begins at home where parents, seeking entertainment and fun themselves above all, and working a significant number of hours (for those who actually do still count it their duty to provide for their own entertainment) to satisfy their desire to be entertained, pass this on to their children who grow up in a home atmosphere where self-indulgence is paramount to everything else. Then they attend schools and churches where this self-indulging entertainment values system is promoted and encouraged as well.

But I would make a great distinction between the two forms of 'entertainment' if in fact both may be described on some level as such. True, I'm entertained by what goes on in this corner of the blogosphere much more that what goes on throughout the MSM. But I'm not simply entertained by this, nor is it simply entertainment that I seek in frequenting it. No; what I seek overall is to absorb and to disseminate useful knowledge. And this more or less determines what blogs I find to be interesting, and what blogs I find to be less than interesting. Generally speaking, if the contents amount to little more than an extension of what the MSM is providing, then your blog isn't going to interest me much. I can be entertained that way through that source if that's what I seek. But if that's the kind of 'entertainment' your blog is intended to provide, you're going to have a hard time competing with the 'big boys.'

In any event the question still remains, why is it that the MSM engages in this kind of 'entertainment news' so frequently? And as I said before, I think part of the reason lies in the fact that this is all they know; this is the kind of 'news' that the MSM and most the folks involved have been used to providing for decades now, and it's just natural that they'd revert to it very frequently when they feel there is a shortage of 'newsworthy' stories out there to report on. It's also notable that to the MSM that which is considered 'newsworthy' would be determined by their predispositions about the value of a given piece of news. While I may question the value of reporting incessantly on the personal misdeeds of one Miss Lindsay Lohan, who is just a name to me, I think that the MSM folks may well believe that their interest in Lindsay Lohan translates to our interest in her. If they think it newsworthy to report on her life, then we must think it newsworthy as well, right? Wrong!

I could give a hoot about what Lindsay Lohan is doing these days, whoever she might be. But if you wish to discuss with me the goings on with folks who have an impact on all of our lives to some extent or the other, then I'm likely to be more attentive.

But since I have a very short day ahead of me today, as far as my work goes, I'll be back in a couple of hours to post a couple more items as well as to continue to play some more catch-up on the blogosphere. Until then, y'all be good and keep on entertaining yourselves with useful information and knowledge.

-DW

Read More

Charisma = Leadership = Where's the Beef?...

Over at VA's is posted this interesting entry from yesterday. In this excerpt from her post she astutely observes:

Now may we please put an end to the illusion that Obama can 'transcend race' and be a 'uniter' because of his mixed heritage? This was my feeling about him from the git-go; he is a divider, and despite his half-white ancestry, he has a grudge against majority America.

Simply put, I agree...

I was flipping through the channels and happened to catch the first part of the Monday night Hannity and Colmes replay. That part of the show was dedicated to covering the democrat primary debate. One aspect of their coverage was on the Fox News live-feed piped in from some location here in the U.S. I'm assuming (lol) where there was a room full of 'average' folk who were to observe the debate as it transpired, and to offer their assessments of how each of the candidates fared as compared to the rest once the debate had ended. Naturally a lot of focus was put on the two most popular demo candidates, Hillary and Obama.

The interesting thing about the consensus among this rather 'diverse' group of participants, and as the Fox host kept reiterating, was that the overwhelming majority of them claimed to have come in preferring Hillary over Obama. Whereas when all was said and done in the debate, about the same number of participants, and most of the same people as far as I could tell, claimed to have changed their minds, now preferring Obama over Hillary. And their reasons for were interesting in light of some other blogging efforts done previously, particularly...

John Savage wrote about this (very observable in this gathering) preference among the American electorate for 'style over substance,' assigning to it the domineering quality of the "Triumph" of style over substance. And I think it notable that he doesn't limit the effect to liberals only. Moreover, that he identifies precisely what I observed; the exact sorts of responses to the questions posed of the host - which this 'style over substance' idea would predict - to the effect of "why did you prefer Obama over Hillary?;" "why did you change your opinion during the debate." John writes:

As an admirer of certain media critics, foremost among them Neil Postman, I’ve frequently criticized the way that style reigns over substance in the media. Like Postman, I think the triumph of style over substance (henceforth SOS) is a very bad thing, but it’s also not something we can expect to change. At best, we can hope that the news media (which currently has a stake in the avoidance of real issues) will stop reinforcing SOS by focusing on the style displayed at presidential debates at the expense of the issues. But to a large extent, SOS is an unavoidable direct consequence of television as a medium, of which Marshall McLuhan said, "The medium is the message." The message of the TV medium is entertainment, which when applied to politics produces SOS – presenting oneself as honest, optimistic, unflappable, and responsive to constituents, among other things. In addition, most Americans want to get the impression that the candidate stands for Mom, baseball, and apple pie. Principles that are universally honored are prominently displayed, whereas unpopular principles, as well as mutually conflicting principles, are hidden...

Almost to the person, when asked to answer the question, this is the kind of answer they gave. "Obama was just more believable;" "I felt a connection with Obama;" "I think he (Obama) showed his leadership abilities because he was more believable, and I connected more with him," and such as that. While on the other hand the consensus about Hillary's believability, her 'disconnectedness' with the average person, and so on and so forth, and therefore her capacity for leadership was found to be wanting. One young caucasion male even referred to Obama as "Charismatic." I guess in his youthful exuberance he forgot how offensive that is to say about a 'black leader.'

There was also the desire expressed of one person in the audience that the two of them team-up, to which the majority of the rest of the group seemed to heartily approve of. Sean Hannity posed the question of whether the members, given such an alliance, would prefer Obama or Hillary as the top-dog? And once more the group reconfirmed their newly formed 'convictions' that they should prefer Obama to hold that distinction.

But the point I'm really driving at here is that indeed I think John is right that 'style over substance' is triumphant in today's American politics, and probably for the exact reasons he offers us in his excellent post. Not that I think either of them to have any firm attachment to any 'principled' stand that I would in any way approve of, but I came away from that segment of the show thoroughly convinced that to these people the debate between Hillary and Obama was nothing more or less than a competition between them for who could project the more favorable image; whose personality was most approvable to them. And Obama won that contest hands down. It saddens me that people tend to place so much value on their emotions, but I guess that's just the way it is.

Thanks to VA, and to John for continually providing us with some outstanding, thoughtful, and pretty darn accurate commentaries.

-DW

Read More

Old News; New News

Now and again I'm going to attempt to direct your attentions to some ongoing pursuits that for me can be said to be 'old news,' yet in your case might actually represent something you've yet to hear of for whatever reason. And I'd hope that you'd return the favor if there's something significant out there that I'm missing, which is most certainly extremely likely.

In this case something was brought to mind as I read MT's post over at the AFB yesterday, and though I probably should have mentioned it earlier and in the former post, as you're now aware I neglected to do so. But the thing in question probably warrants a post of its own anyhow.

If you'll go to the link provided here and in Mike's post at the AFB you may notice after having signed the petition aimed at releasing the 'Texas three,' that you'll be taken to a page containing at the bottom a link to 'return to the list of petitions.' If you'll click on that link you will indeed be taken to the page in question. For those of you who have already signed the petition to free the Texas three, just go to the yellow section at the top of the page and click on the "Current Petitions" button provided. If you'll then scroll down the page you'll eventually run across the 'patriot petition' calling for amending the Constitution to halt the practice of 'judicial activism' - The Enumerated Powers Amendment, definately not to be referred to as the 'EPA.' lol

I remember the very first announcement of this proposal way back when. At that time my friends (Mike and Edmund) and I had not yet met one-another. And certainly I had yet to discover the blogosphere. I recall that the actual wording of the amendment proposal itself went through several revisions over the span of about two months if memory serves in that respect. And the reason I recall that aspect of the proposal is that it caught my interest immediately and proceeded to gain my undivided attention over the course of time.

Eventually, though, I stopped keeping regular track of the progress of the proposal as far as numbers of signers is concerned. They were slow to come in, and after the initial surge therein I think the numbers of signers of that particular petition sort of paused more or less around the mid twenties of thousands (24,000 to 25,000 as I recall).

Nonetheless, having now re-read the amendment proposal I'm not seeing that any significant changes to it, if any at all have occured over the course of time between now and then. So it appears that the folks over at the Patriot Post finally got the kinks in the wording worked out. And there were some fairly sizeable kinks in the wording to begin, lemme tell ya. I do note, however, that there are now a significant number of additional signatures added to the measure - quite a happy revelation for me I must admit.

Essentially what attracted my attention to the proposal initially, and still does btw, is that I think this amendment proposal addresses, perhaps better than any I've yet to see, the fundamental, or the root cause of the problem, as well as proposing the most effective means for dealing with a wide range of problems which are either directly or indirectly associated with the ever increasing tendency of our judiciary (particularly the federal) to engage itself in the practice of what has been rightly termed in my opinion 'judicial activism.' And this has been accomplished with at very least tacit consent of the federal Congress, which the measure also addresses in a meaningful way.

By limiting the courts in their ability to 'legislate from the bench' (something the founders never intended!), many of the ills which infect our government may be cut out at their common core. This is my firm belief, and this is the reason that I strongly endorse this amendment proposal.

But I'd like to hear your thoughts on this subject after having read the proposal itself, as well as its foundation. So y'all post a comment and let's discuss it.

-DW

Read More

On the Eve of Evedom

Many moons ago, around the time that I finally began to wake up and to realize that I might oughta get more serious about life (that was about the time that I joined the military), I began to immerse myself in the study of what became for me a genuine love, almost an obsession - the study of American History, particularly early American History.

This being for me an absolutely independently sought out endeavor given that it was really the only way in which I knew of or had the means to pursue it, there was no real outside influence to speak of leading me to the pursuit of what I'd call now 'revisionist history.' Oh, prior to this stage of my life I had made short work of a pursuit for higher learning at a two-year college relatively near my home. And there it was that I enrolled in an 'American History' course wherein the professor - who was very good at proffessing...his view of American History - and I got off on the wrong foot from day one.

I'm going to pause and throw some props over Dad's way here because as I've noted on occasion over at the greater blog, during my upbringing he was very good at dropping little bits of wisdom here and there perfectly suited to the stage of development that my mind and my deportment had reached at a given moment. Dad, being a very capable educator in my opinion, seemed to have had an innate understanding about how best to communicate an idea to an unrefined mind and to cultivate the seeds of knowledge he had so early planted in what I hope may be said to have been 'good ground.'

Of course, what I was getting at with regard to my college profess-or is that he was rather a liberal sort of fellow, and my dad being the excellent father he was (and is) had at least prepared me enough to recognize that more or less instinctively. So from about the third day or so of attending his classes, I pretty much wasn't listening to anything he had to 'profess' except as it gave me cause and opportunity to challenge his assertions.

Before I go too far here though, I want to turn y'all on to yet another intriguing piece you should at least find interesting, if not altogether absorbing. As for me I certainly found myself becoming more and more of the latter as I read VA's take on the situation. And to wet your appetites just a bit here, I'll insert an excerpt from her excellent post; says she:

One of the liberal ideas which has taken hold in our society is that any difference or separation is 'discrimination' and a violation of the principle of equality, which principle must be absolute. This is a bad idea which has had far-reaching consequences. We have re-interpreted equality to mean absolute sameness, which is not possible, whether between races and ethnicities and nationalities or between men and women. It was not discrimination to have all-male schools or clubs, or all-female schools. And division of labor was simply a common sense way to divide up the necessary work: women excelled at certain things, and preferred certain tasks, and these were the 'women's work.' And yes, there are always exceptions who feel at odds with the traditional roles, but a few exceptions, no matter what liberals say, do not justify throwing out all the rules.

Certainly we all have our own personal experiences which tend to create in us certain predispositions on various subjects. And my case in this regard is no different than anyone else's. But I'm ever mindful of and thankful for all those little seeds of wisdom Dad was so very capable of planting in my youthful mind, because later on they would come to bear, if I may be so bold as to say it, some pretty good fruits.

One of the seeds that Dad early planted in my mind was that 'this nation was originally founded on Christian principles,' and that's about the extent to which the idea developed during my formidable years. Dad was not as concerned with giving me specific examples -and looking back on it I don't know that they would have taken anyhow- as much as he was with establishing a broader context for the idea which he seems to have rightly calculated would likely lead to an independent investigation of the matter for myself when I was more ready to absorb it.

Eventually I most certainly was led to make some independent discoveries therein which at length caused me to further investigate my faith as well. And I can claim without the slightest reservation that I never learned so much about the Christian faith in church as I did in investigating America's early history, by a long shot even. I certainly don't want you to misread what I'm saying here. I'm NOT saying stop attending church. I am saying though that American churches are more or less corrupted these days particularly in the way in which they tend to avoid making the irrefutable connection between their profession of faith and its early and significant influence on Americanism.

In VA's piece posted over at her blog, I think she identifies one way in which the church in America has indeed succumbed to the pressure of radical feminism. And that I may describe here, for lack of a better way of putting it, as attempting to make 'equals' of men and women in all things. As VA writes, and as my experience certainly confirms, women tend to be more 'emotional' than men, or to rely more on their emotional take on a given situation than are men who tend to be less emotional and more inclined to reason through a matter. Of course I'm speaking in generalizations here, and I certainly do not deny the exception to the rule on both sides of the equation. But as has been said before, it's a poor policy to govern according to the exception.

I'm purposely trying to avoid adding anything to what VA has already said because I'd really just like for you to go over and read her wonderfully 'masculine' post on the subject. But I can hardly keep from giving at least my 'two cents worth,' with regard to 'church and state' and the worldview responsible for this nation's founding...

We read early on in the Holy Scriptures that it was 'not good that man should be alone,' and that God in turn made him an help meet for him. As far as our reading of the account goes, it is not long after this that man's helper (woman) is separated from her husband wondering about in the garden of Eden all alone. And it is in this wondering vulnerability that the serpent approaches and eventually beguiles Eve in the absence of her husband. And it was all an emotional thing as the devil knew that Eve, being the weaker vessel and having likely received her instruction on God's prohibitions from her husband, was the much more approachable of the two given that Adam had received his instruction directly from God.

Essentially, Satan knew that the way to corrupt the whole of the human race was to cause Adam to sin, and the easiest way to do that was to go through his wife who was much more capable than Satan was of beguiling Adam, at least in a direct sort of way. And in light of VA's piece on the subject, doesn't it seem that there are some real parallels between the biblical story of original sin and that of the ongoing saga of our women more or less wondering about in the American garden independently of their husbands? Might we eventually, as were our original parents, be banished therefrom? Time will tell, I suppose.

This'n oughta be fun...

-DW

Read More