http://www.sivaramaswami.com/?p=1562
August 1st, 2007 Editor
NEW ZEALAND: Vegans have long turned their noses up at meat, but in
New Zealand they’re now giving the thumbs down to meat eaters, the Press
newspaper said on Wednesday.
The paper’s online edition said that a new trend of “vegansexuals”
(as opposed to heterosexuals) had emerged in the country, where vegans
who eschew meat or other animal products would not even get
intimate with anyone who was a meat eater.
“It’s a whole new thing I have not come across it before,” said Annie Potts, co-director of the New Zealand Centre for Human and Animal Studies at Canterbury University. She coined the term after doing research on the lives of “cruelty-free consumers.”
Potts said that while many female respondents to a survey described being attracted to people who ate meat, they did not want to enter into a relationship with them because their bodies were made up of animal carcasses.
One vegan respondent from Christchurch said,”I would not want to be intimate with someone whose body is literally made up from the bodies of others who have died for their sustenance.”
“You have just dined, and however scrupulously the slaughterhouse is concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Image (c) Care for Cows Vrindavan
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2005
COPENHAGEN On the surface, women have never been stronger and more powerful. In the United States, the idea of a female commander in chief no longer seems so far-fetched. In some Nordic countries, almost half the members of Parliament are female. And shows like "Sex and the City" have conquered viewers worldwide with their take on equality and sex. And yet the legacy of the feminist revolution, which enabled the rise of strong women and sensitive men, is under scrutiny these days.
Studies from the United States and Scandinavia, where gender equality has progressed the furthest, show that many women find it hard to fuse their high-flying careers with raising a family, and, consequently, they back down from having a professional life - some even before they've started one. In Sweden, for years the poster country for equality between the sexes, a new feminist party gained enormous momentum last year by objecting to the increase in violence against women and the gap between women's and men's salaries. This autumn, however, the feminist initiative fell into disarray after the movement embarked on a radical direction, rendering negative feelings that some have dubbed an antifeminist backlash.
A similar backlash has now hit neighboring Denmark, too. Denmark is one of the most gender-equal countries in the world, where paternal leave is becoming increasingly popular and 75 percent of women have jobs. Yet in a new book, 12 prominent and influential women - artists, intellectuals and politicians - from the golden age of feminism in the '60s and '70s wonder whether gender-equality has gone too far. The women interviewed in "What Life Has Taught Me," by Ninka-Bernadette Mauritson warn against "totalitarian feminism," which they think might wreck harmony between the sexes: Men need to be men and women, women, they now say. Some of the women regret their earlier militant insistence that men should be soft and sensitive and want back the prefeminist "real man."
A good life is a life with a man who is unabashedly a man, according to this group of feminists born around 1945.
Their generation spent their 20s burning bras, dumping high heels and crashing buses while paying only 80 percent of the fare - since women were paid less then. Now they say they want men with broad-shouldered attitudes, men who can admire them and whom they can look up to - even from the high heels that are back in vogue. Take the singer Trille Nielsen, for example. She achieved superstar status in the '70s by singing "Hey Sister" with a hoarse voice. Today she says: "I've reached the point where I'm no longer afraid of or irritated with men who are proud of their masculinity."
A Danish former first lady and member of Parliament, Lone Dybkjaer, dispatches her husband, the former socialist Prime Minister Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, to their empty, chilly summer cottage with a toolbox. There he can be a handy he-man with only birds and rustic floors to distract him. "He has a whole world of construction projects and tools," the former first lady says with an amused smile. Earlier feminists defined freedom as dividing up all housework, which served to engage men in child care and housework and pushed women toward becoming tough professionals. But Dybkjaer concludes that "there is a freedom in having these spaces on our own. I have read men saying that they feel driven into a corner; they feel they don't have any room at home. It's not like that at our house. Poul takes up quite some space." She thinks the wise woman lets her man play macho - and that only then can she be a real woman.
Anne Braad, a well-known cleric in Copenhagen, thinks that she feminized her husband into obscurity and may have made him a caricature of himself. "He was womanly, approaching the motherly. There he was, shaking up the pillows in the living room, looking after the children and calling me when he wasn't at home to make sure I had put Band-Aids on the kids." Roles were completely switched in Braad's marriage. "And that was a huge mistake," she says today.
Braad blames her divorce on this exchange of roles. She now suspects that she threw her husband right into the arms of a much younger woman, where his battered manhood could be restored.
Other earlier feminists interviewed in the book also assert that gender equality can be stifling. "It is good to have a man you can look up too," the actress and writer Anne Marie Helger says. And Etta Cameron, a singer, claims: "All men that we meet teach us something. If you're wise, you accept that knowledge."
A famous feminist slogan from the '70s said, "The private is political." It still is, some of the feminists declare. Braad sees the equality debate today as about women wanting even more power: "Men are hardly allowed to present their points of view or raise their voices without feminists crying out."
Having listened to one woman after the other deplore differences lost in the name of freedom - it's freeing to reach Lillian Knudsen, former head of the women's union in Denmark. She has herself greatly improved women's working conditions and pays more attention to what is gained than what is lost. Equal pay and equal power in public and private spheres are still distant dreams, even up here in the north. Yet in the World Economic Forum's new gender gap index launched in May, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Denmark and Finland ranked one through five among several nations in female economic participation and opportunity, political empowerment, educational attainment and access to health care. Knudsen says she adopted "manly behavior" to reach the top and suspects that she had no choice.
Her generation of women had to establish networks from those old schools, like men - to lobby, push and conduct cloakroom politics over drinks late at night - like the opposite sex, Knudsen says.
And Maria Marcus, a writer and television-journalist notorious in the '70s for a tell-all book about her masochism, says that the not-yet-subtle notions of the equality movement ravaged old ways while it infused women with new life chances: "We started raising question marks because the starting point was discontent with the roles and structure."
Another strong voice that epitomizes the feminist movement here is the writer Suzanne Brogger. In 1974 the feminist madonna, famous for her huge hats, untamability and candid statements, published the book "Free Us from Love," which bulldozed the notions of marriage and family and was translated into 20 languages. And then she ended up in - marriage. Does Brogger want to declare the death of the soft man these days?
Nope.
"The thrill is gone when it comes to mating, that's true; the electricity level is on low. But the dream of the 'strong man's' comeback is mere fantasy," she asserts.
Feminists knew from the start that the women's revolt would threaten male supremacy and upset the erotic scene, even ruin it, Brogger says. "That was the price. You don't change 2,500 years of female oppression in a summer holiday or a generation or two. We are still longing for the fully developed human potential in both men and women in all spheres of life, private and public." And in the meantime? "Women might want - not a sentimental macho," Brogger says, "but a bright man with a sense of humor who can make us laugh."
Louise S. Nissen is a Danish journalist and former U.S. correspondent.
Subject: Toxic Porn, Toxic Sex:A Real Look at Pornography
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:46:33 -0000
From: "vrnparker" <vrnparker@yahoo.com>
Toxic Porn, Toxic Sex:
A Real Look at Pornography - Finding freedom from porn addiction, pornography
addiction, the effects of pornography
by Gene McConnell
Porn & addiction...sex out of context
On a cold, dark night, there's nothing better than a blazing fire in
the fireplace. You can pile on the wood and let it burn nice and warm.
It's safe, warm, relaxing and romantic. Now take that same fire out of
the fireplace (which was built for it) and drop it in the middle of the
living room. Suddenly it becomes destructive. It can burn down the whole
house and kill everyone inside. Sex is like that fire. As long as it's
expressed in the protective commitment of a marriage relationship, its
wonderful, warm and romantic. But porn takes sex outside that context.
Porn - A Big Business
It's a big business that makes a lot of money and doesn't care how.
They'll show you whatever they think will make you come back and buy more.
"There were 11,000 porn video titles last year verses 400 movie releases
from Hollywood last year...[and] 70,000 pornographic web sites." (New York
Times, May 20, 2001, "Naked Capitalists")
Porn's Image of Sex
One of the most vital parts of mental environment is a healthy idea
of who we are sexually. If these ideas are polluted, a critical part of
who we are becomes twisted. The porn culture tells you that sex, love and
intimacy are all the same thing. In porn, people have sex with total strangers
-- people they just met. All that matters is my satisfaction. It doesn't
matter whose body I'm using, as long as I get it. Porn gets you to think
that sex is something you can have anytime, anywhere, with anyone, with
no consequences.
What Sex is Really About
Porn's outlook is stupid and shallow. Relationships are not built on
sex, but on commitment, caring and mutual trust. In that context, like
fire in the fireplace, sex is wonderful. Being with someone who loves and
accepts you, someone who is committed to you for your whole lives together,
someone you can give yourself completely to, that is what makes sex really
great.
Effects of Pornography: The Lies of Porn
You can't learn the truth about sex from pornography. It doesn't deal
in truth. Pornography is not made to educate, but to sell. So, pornography
will tell whatever lies attract and hold the audience. Porn thrives on
lies -- lies about sex, women, marriage and a lot of other things. Let's
look at some of those lies and see just how badly they can mess up your
life and attitudes.
Lie #1 - Women are less than human
The women in Playboy magazine are called "bunnies," making them cute
little animals or "playmates," making them a toy. Penthouse magazine calls
them "pets." Porn often refers to women as animals, playthings, or body
parts. Some pornography shows only the body or the genitals and doesn't
show the face at all. The idea that women are real human beings with thoughts
and emotions is played down.
Lie #2 - Women are a "sport"
Some sports magazines have a "swimsuit" issue. This suggests that women
are just some kind of sport. Porn views sex as a game and in a game, you
have to "win," "conquer," or "score." Men who buy into this view like to
talk about "scoring" with women. They start judging their manhood by how
many "conquests" they can make. Each woman I "score" with is another trophy
on my shelf, another "notch" in my belt to validate my masculinity.
Lie #3 - Women are property
We've all seen the pictures of the slick car with the sexy girl draped
over it. The unspoken message, "Buy one, and you get them both." Hard-core
porn carries this even further. It displays women like merchandise in a
catalog, exposing them as openly as possible for the customer to look at.
It's not surprising that many young men think that if they have spent some
money taking a girl out, they have a right to have sex with her. Porn tells
us that women can be bought.
Lie #4 - A woman's value depends on the attractiveness of her body
Less attractive women are ridiculed in porn. They are called dogs,
whales, pigs or worse, simply because they don't fit into porn's criteria
of the "perfect" woman. Porn doesn't care about a woman's mind or personality,
only her body.
Lie #5 - Women like rape
"When she says no, she means yes" is a typical porn scenario. Women
are shown being raped, fighting and kicking at first, and then starting
to like it. Porn teaches men to enjoying hurting and abusing women for
entertainment.
Lie #6 - Women should be degraded
Porn is often full of hate speech against women. Women are shown being
tortured and humiliated in hundreds of sick ways and begging for more.
Does this kind of treatment show any respect for women?
Any love? Or is it hatred and contempt that porn is promoting toward
women?
Lie #7 - Little kids should have sex
One of the biggest sellers in pornography is imitation "child" porn.
The women are "made-up" to look like little girls by wearing pony tails,
little girl shoes, holding a teddy bear. The message of the pictures and
cartoons is that adults having sex with kids is normal.
This sets the porn user up to see children in a sexual way.
Lie #8 - Illegal sex is fun
Porn often has illegal or dangerous elements thrown in to make sex
more "interesting." It suggests that you can't enjoy sex if it isn't weird,
illegal or dangerous.
Lie #9 - Prostitution is glamorous
Porn paints an exciting picture of prostitution. In reality, many of
the women portrayed in pornographic material are runaway girls trapped
in a life of slavery. Many having been sexually abused. Some of them are
infected with incurable sexually transmitted diseases that are highly contagious
and often die very young. Many take drugs just to cope.
Effects of Pornography: Bottom Line
Pornography makes a profit from the ruined lives of young women and
entraps men who will spend lots of time AND money succumbing to their product.
Effects of Pornography: The Power of Images
It's dumb to think that the things we see and hear don't affect us.
We all admit that good music, good movies and good books add a lot to our
lives. They can relax us, educate us, move us or inspire us.
Obviously, good images do good things to us. It's not hard to believe that bad images can do bad things to us.Images can also persuade us. Businesses know that if they can get a persuasive image of their product in front of you during a highly emotional moment, it will sink into your subconscious mind. The advertising scientists are so good at what they do, they can predict just how much more of their product you will buy if you see their ad. Sometimes, viewers don't even see the name of the product. Reeses Pieces paid a huge price just to have their candy shown for a few seconds in the movie "ET," and sales of Reeses Pieces skyrocketed. Why? Because the emotions connected with watching that small boy reaching out to the alien were transferred to the visual image of the candy. If a split second view of a product -- even when it's not the center of attention -- can affect people's behavior, imagine the effect of a movie that keeps your attention glued to the screen for an hour and a half with sexually explicit images.
What are the effects of pornography on a man?
What kinds of ideas is porn putting into our heads? If the wrong things
keep getting dumped in, your mental environment can get so polluted that
your life is going to have problems. One of the most vital parts of mental
environment is a healthy idea of who we are sexually. If these ideas are
polluted, a critical part of who we are becomes twisted.
Porn Addiction: The Pull of Porn
Not everyone who sees porn will become addicted. Some will just come
away with toxic ideas about women, sex, marriage, and children.
However, some will have some kind of emotional opening that allows
the addiction to really grab hold. The porn companies don't mind at all
if you become completely addicted to their product. It's great for business.
Dr. Victor Cline has divided the progress of addiction into several stages;
addiction, escalation, desensitization, and acting out. For porn addicts,
I've found that there is another stage that comes first -- early exposure.
Let's look at these stages:
EARLY EXPOSURE
Most guys who get addicted to porn start early. They see porn when
they are very young and it gets its foot in the door.
PORN ADDICTION
You keep coming back to porn. It becomes a regular part of your life.
You're hooked and can't quit.
ESCALATION
You start to look for more graphic pornography. You start using porn
that disgusted you earlier. Now, it excites you.
DESENSITIZATION
You start to become numb to the images you see. Even the most graphic
porn doesn't excite you any more. You become desperate to feel the same
thrill again, but you can't find it.
ACTING OUT SEXUALLY
This is the point where men make a crucial jump and start acting out
the images they have seen. Some move from the paper and plastic images
of porn into the real world, with real people, in destructive ways.
Porn Addiction: Am I Addicted?
If you see any of these patterns in your life, you need to put the
brakes on right now. Is porn becoming more and more in control of your
life? Do you have trouble putting it down? Do you keep going back for more?
Porn Addiction: What Can I Do?
The first thing you've got to do is admit that you struggle with pornography.
Believe me, you are not strange or unusual if you do. Millions of men are
at various stages in the struggle with porn. It's really not surprising.
The porn industry has spent billions of dollars trying to snare you. Is
it really shocking that they have succeeded? For some of you there may
also be issues in your past, such as abuse or sexual exposure, that makes
porn addiction even harder to shake. There is only so much you can do in
fighting addiction without help.
You need someone to help you break this addiction. Overcoming the secrecy is absolutely vital. You probably can't escape addiction without it. That doesn't mean everyone has to know you're struggling. Pick someone you can trust who counsels men who are having problems with addiction -- a pastor, youth group leader or counselor. Someone you can completely trust, feel safe with and has experience in the area of addiction isn't going to be surprised.
Is There Any Freedom from Porn Addiction?
Pornography entraps you with lies. In contrast, God can lead us into
truth. Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples.
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."1 Those
who heard Jesus say this were offended and countered, "We have never been
slaves of anyone, how can you say that we shall be set free?"2 And Jesus
explained that people are enslaved to sin, but that He can set you free.3
Sin not only enslaves us, but it distances us from God. And no one is perfect. No one is righteous in God's eyes. Instead we're told that "We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way."4 We all deserve God's judgment and punishment. Yet God, who is holy and loving, provided a solution for our sin, so that we would not have to be justly condemned. He personally took the punishment for our sin on Himself. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was tortured and died on the cross for our sin so that we could be forgiven. Three days later Jesus rose from the dead, just as He said He would. And He now offers you a relationship with Him. One of the most amazing statements in the Bible is this one, "If we confess our sin, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sin and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."5
The Most Important Relationship
In your search for intimacy and love, pornography is an empty substitute
for real love. We have been created by God to have our intimacy needs met
most deeply by God Himself. "For God so loved the world that he gave his
only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting
life."6 In contrast to the darkness and destruction that pornography can
bring to people's lives, Jesus said, "I came that they might have life,
and have it more abundantly."7 God offers you his forgiveness through a
relationship with Him. Do you want to ask Him to forgive you and come into
your life? You can tell Him right now. If you need help putting this into
words, here is prayer that might help:
"Lord Jesus, I am aware of my sin, and I know that you are also. I ask you to forgive me and cleanse me. Thank you for dying on the cross for my sins. I ask you to come into my life right now and begin to work in my life. Direct my life as you see fit. Thank you for your forgiveness and for coming into my life right now."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just asked Jesus into my life (some helpful information follows)...
I may want to ask Jesus into my life, please explain this more
fully...
I have a question...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you would like further information on dealing with porn or sexual addiction, you might try the following web site: Authentic Relationships.
To read about a woman's struggle with a pornography addiction, go here.
{1} John 8:31-32
{2} John 8:33
{3} John 8:34
{4} Isaiah 53:6
{5} 1John 1:9
{6} John 3:16
{7} John 10:10
© EveryStudent.com
http://everystudent.com/wires/toxic.html
Some of my Best Friends are Gay
March 2004
By Samuel Silver
Chairman, Toward Tradition
http://www.towardtradition.org/article_Truth_Religion_Homophobia.htm
The debate about legal recognition of same-sex marriage is ultimately grounded in our understanding of human nature, values, and the role of human relationships in creating and defining the type society we desire. For the vast majority of Americans, these issues are defined in the context of the Bible and religious traditions.
Everyone knows the secular and radical "gay rights" side of the argument; the public schools, universities, and mainstream media faithfully present it to us. Fewer understand the religious side of the argument, falsely portrayed as ignorant, bigoted, hateful, intolerant, and homophobic.
The idea that opposition to homosexual activity and its public sanction, same-sex marriage, is equivalent to or leads to hatred of individual homosexuals is a "big lie" created to demonize, intimidate, and silence opponents of the "gay rights" agenda.
In one of the founding documents of the "gay liberation" movement, published in the mid-1980's, the National Gay Task Force laid out its plan to create this "big lie." These are just a few quotes from "Waging Peace," as reported in The American Enterprise magazine:
The first order of business is the desensitization of the American people concerning gays and gay rights.
Almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to it enough.
The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome.
Where we talk is important. The visual media, film and television, are plainly the most powerful imagemakers in Western civilization. The average American household watches over seven hours of television daily. Those hours open a gate: the private world of straights, through which a Trojan horse might be passed. As far as desensitization is concerned, the medium is the message of normalcy.
Portray gays as victims. In any campaign to win over the public we must be cast as victims in need of protection, so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of the protector.
We can undercut the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters badly out of step with the times.
At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights, it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified…The public must be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust Middle America. These images might include: the Ku Klux Klan demanding that gays be burnt alive or castrated; bigoted southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred to a degree that looks both comical and deranged. These images should be combined by a method propagandists call the bracket technique.
The propagandists have been extremely successful! We let their Trojan horse enter our homes unabated, and we let them infect the minds of our children. But it is still a lie, built on anti-religious bigotry.
To understand the true religious position, it is critical to distinguish between "hating the sin" and "hating the sinner."
Judaism and Christianity both abhor the sin of homosexual behavior, but only teach love, respect, and toleration for individual fellow humans - all created in the image of God. Religious people who believe homosexual behavior is a sin and oppose same-sex marriage can sincerely say, "Some of my best friends are gay!"
The fact is that a person practicing homosexuality has committed a religious sin, a very serious one in God's eyes. But homosexual activity between consenting adults, practiced in privacy, is primarily a sin against God, and He will deal with it. It is not a matter for government regulation. The same cannot be said about same-sex marriage, which is the public sanction of homosexual behavior.
Truly religious people are tolerant of others with whom they disagree, such as homosexuals, and can live peaceably and neighborly with them in our free society. But the "gay rights" movement does not want tolerance; they want nothing less than forced acceptance of their lifestyle as normal, healthy, and moral; a position most religious people must reject for themselves and their children. And this is where the problems arise.
This undemocratic use of government force by a minority of citizens is at its most despicable when public schools are used to impose these ideas on children of religious families. And as if this use of public schools for ideological indoctrination were not enough, they then use judicial activism to control private organizations, such as the Boy Scouts, which are only remotely connected to the government.
Are there intolerant religious people? Of course, but they represent only a small minority not fully observing a basic tenet of both Judaism and Christianity, "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Their religious practice, however flawed, at least constrains their behavior, and in the long run it is an effective tool for improving their humanity.
On the other side, without religion as the basis for the public moral culture, what will constrain behavior and lead to an improvement of humanity? What will restrain secular intolerance from infecting not a small minority, but a large majority? History's grand experiment with a secular society, Communism, was an evil and dismal failure that killed over 100 million innocent people in the 20th Century. Add to that the Holocaust perpetrated by the socialist, neo-pagan Nazis. All of the (Judeo-Christian) religious wars in the history of the world pale by comparison.
Those who wish to ban religion from the "public square" and impose secularism on the majority of Americans would do well to rethink their position - the grass is not always greener on the other side. As Benjamin Franklin wrote to Thomas Paine in an attempt to persuade Paine to abandon his anti-religion essays: "If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it."
Our free society will be lost forever unless Americans make a political stand to preserve our endangered "invisible framework of social stability;" a framework which can only be provided by Judeo-Christian values. That stand must begin by preserving the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman that has been the cornerstone of civilization for over 5,000 years.
"Sitting this one out" is not a viable alternative. We have to join one team or the other, so we must each choose which team is closer to our own personal values, or which team is further from our values. To avoid a choice is still a choice - one for the other team.
Samuel Silver is Chairman of Toward Tradition
(www.towardtradition.org), a national movement of Jewish and
Christian cooperation, fighting anti-religious bigotry and secular
fundamentalism. He may be contacted at ss@towardtradition.org
Note: This article is excerpted from: "Some of My Best Friends are Gay
- A Guide to Same-Sex Marriage From the Manufacturer's Instruction Manual,"
available online at http://www.towardtradition.org/article_Gay_Friends_1.htm
by James Kurth
WHAT WILL BE the central conflicts of world politics in our future? That is the question that dominates the current debates about international affairs. The most comprehensive, and most controversial, answer has been given by Samuel Huntington, whose concept of "the clash of civilizations" has provoked its own major clash of authors.
I intend to engage in this clashing. I will first review the current clash of definitions over the nature of the new era in international affairs. I will then review Huntington's central argument bearing on potential conflicts between Western civilization and other ones, particularly between the West and a grand alliance of the Islamic and the Confucian civilizations. I will conclude, however, by arguing that the real clash of civilizations, the one most pregnant with significance, will not be between the West and the rest, but one that is already underway within the West itself, particularly within its central power, the United States. This is a clash between Western civilization and a different grand alliance, one composed of the multicultural and the feminist movements. It is, in short, a clash between Western and post-Western civilizations.
The Clash of Definitions
IN THE FIRST few years after the Second World War, it was common for people to refer to the time that they were living through as the post-war period. But a post-war or post-anything period cannot last long, and eventually an era will assume a characteristic name of its own. This began to happen as early as 1947 and was largely completed by 1949. The post-war period had become the Cold War era.
There has been no such development yet in our time of transition. Until recently, it was common to speak of the post-Cold-War era, but to continue to refer to the current period in this way--fully five years after the end of the Cold War--does seem to be stretching things a bit. To speak of the current period as the post-post-Cold-War era, however, clearly would sound ridiculous. And yet there is just as clearly no commonly accepted designation for this indisputably new era that we are now in. The lack of a common term for the era is an outer manifestation of the lack of a common interpretation of the international situation and a common basis for foreign policies, as is every day illustrated by the vacillating and reckless foreign policies of the Clinton administration, the first completely post-post-Cold-War presidency.
The problem is not that there are no reasonable contending definitions of the new era but rather that there are too many of them. Indeed, by 1993, there had developed at least four major candidates for the definition of the post-Cold War central axis of international conflict. Analogous to the war-centered definitions of past eras, these were: (1) trade wars, particularly between the United States, Japan, and Western Europe; (2) religious wars, particularly involving Islam; (3) ethnic wars, particularly within the former Soviet Union, the former Yugoslavia, and the "failed states" of Africa; and (4) renewed cold wars, particularly involving Russia or China. And then along came Samuel Huntington, who published a now-famous article, which in large measure subsumed the four different kinds of wars into "the clash of civilizations."(1)
Trade wars: In the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union and its communism, it was natural for some analysts to focus on the triumph of liberal capitalism and the spread of the global economy as the central features of the new era. But it was also natural to think, in continuity or analogy with past eras, that the major actors in international politics would be the great powers, except that they would now be what Richard Rosecrance has christened "trading states" rather than "military-political states." The great powers would be the great economies, i.e., the United States, Japan, and Western Europe, led by newly-united Germany. International conflict within the world would principally take the form of economic conflict or trade wars.
Religious wars: Other analysts found a different dimension of continuity or analogy with past eras, that of ideologies or world-views. With the collapse of communism, it was reasonable to think that there would be a new conflict with another radical ideology, or at least theology, that would take its place, i.e., Islamic fundamentalism. (The term Islamism is a better one, connoting the distinctive combination of traditional Islam and modern ideology.)
To become truly powerful in international politics, an ideology or world-view needs its "defender of the faith," an "idea-bearing state" that serves as its core country. For communism, that role had been performed principally by the Soviet Union. So too, for Islamism, the role of the core country or idea-bearing state would be taken, albeit imperfectly, by Iran. As it happened, however, it was Iran's much more secular adversary, Iraq, that stepped forward to briefly fill this role in 1990. Subsequently, however, Iran has again appeared as the core country of Islamism. With the growing strength of the Islamist movement in the Sudan, Algeria, and even Egypt, there appear to be good reasons to argue that conflicts involving Islamism will be the defining feature of the new era.
Ethnic wars: Some analysts focused upon the incidence of actual war itself, particularly on those associated with the resurgence of nationalist rivalries characteristic of pre-Cold War eras. The collapse of the Soviet Union was also the collapse of a multinational empire. The same was true of the collapse of Yugoslavia, which was in some ways a smaller version of the Soviet Union. The old communist regimes in the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia expired with remarkably little effort at violent repression. Once they were gone, however, there was violence aplenty among the ethnic groups left among the ruins of the multinational empires of communist parties, just as there had been at the end of the multinational empires of traditional dynasties, such as the Habsburgs and the Ottomans.(2) The Yugoslav conflicts in particular have seemed to many to define the nature of the new era.
Renewed cold wars: Other analysts have found a dimension of continuity or analogy in the military capabilities and political systems that had characterized the Cold War. The Soviet Union had been a threat because of its vast size, its military power, and its authoritarian regime. When the dust settled after the end of the Cold War, Russia was left with a population that was only half that of the former Soviet Union but that still made it the largest nation in Europe. It was also left with a territory that was three-fourths that of the Soviet Union and that still made it the largest country in the world. Most significantly, Russia was also left with twenty thousand nuclear warheads, that still made it the only state in the world that could destroy the United States. A renewed Cold War between Russia and the United States is a plausible prospect.
A variation on this theme of a renewed Cold War is represented by China. With its vast population and territory, its large army and nuclear weapons, its booming economy, and its still-communist regime, it has many capabilities that could be combined into a threat to the United States.
Thus, by 1993, there were four major contending definitions of the new era in international politics. Each was grounded, by continuity and analogy, in past concepts and experiences and each seemed to be supported by major events that had recently occurred in 1990-93. With so many reasonable contenders, there was no consensus on the nature of the new era or the focus for foreign policies. The Clinton Administration, in particular, has been torn between these contenders and has been unable to construct a coherent foreign policy.
Enter Huntington
IT WAS IN this complex context that Samuel Huntington entered the debate. With his customary genius at discerning a common underlying pattern in a mass, and a mess, of disparate phenomena, Huntington argues that the central axis of conflict in the new era will be between cultures or civilizations. Although he does not directly address the four contending definitions that we have identified, his concept of civilizations deals with them all.
In regard to trade wars, Huntington implies that these might occur but that they will not be central. The United States and Western Europe are parts of the same Western civilization, and conflicts between them will be marginal and manageable. Japan is another matter, however, because, according to Huntington, Japan is its own distinct civilization. This is why, he observes, the economic conflict between the United States and Japan has been more acrimonious than that between the U.S. and Europe. Overall, however, Huntington sees Japan to be close enough in interests to the West to also make conflicts between them manageable.
Conversely, the conflict between the United States and Islamism becomes central and perennial in Huntington's view. It is the perfect example of a clash of civilizations.
Ethnic wars are also central in Huntington's scheme. He notes that the most prominent of these conflicts have occurred on the "fault lines" of civilizations. The most obvious is the conflict between Muslims, Serbs, and Groats in Yugoslavia, which represents a conflict between Islamic, Orthodox, and Western civilizations. Similarly, the conflicts within and among the successor states of the former Soviet Union have been not just between different ethnic groups but between different civilization groups, e.g., the Muslim Azeris and the Orthodox Armenians. Conversely, there has been almost no violence at all between different groups within the same Slavic-Orthodox civilization, e.g., Russians and Ukrainians.(3)
Finally, from the Huntington perspective, one would expect renewed conflict between the United States and Russia or between the United States and China. The United States represents Western civilization, Russia represents Orthodox civilization, and China represents Confucian civilization. The conflict will take different forms than it did during the Cold War, when the language was ideological. The language of the new conflicts will instead be cultural. But they will still be conflicts between great powers, and nuclear powers at that, who represent different world-views and different ways of life. And although Huntington does not himself say so, they conceivably would take the form of a cold war, complete with those old and familiar features of nuclear deterrence and military alliances.
The Huntington vision not only subsumes each of the contending definitions of international conflict, it also orders the relations and the priorities between them. Given a civilizational perspective, one could see the axis of conflict to be between Western civilization, which is now dominant, and all the others, which are now subordinate--"the West and the Rest," as the title of Kishore Mahbubani's article had it (The National Interest, Summer 1992). Huntington, however, does not see it this way but rather sees the central conflict to be between the West and a sort of grand alliance between the Confucian and the Islamic civilizations, with the Confucian civilization strong in industrial power and military weaponry, and the Islamic civilization strong in oil reserves and geographical proximity to the West. Given a civilizational perspective, the long (really more than thirteen centuries) conflict between Islam and the West would indicate continuing conflict for a long time to come. On the other hand, although the conflict between the West and Confucian civilization is not long (really less than two centuries, or since the Opium War of 1840-42), it has frequently been extremely bitter. Furthermore, the booming economies of Confucian countries now give them the power to think about redressing the old and unequal balance between them and the West.
Conversely, Huntington does not see a central conflict between the West and the Orthodox civilization. He does not make an extended argument as to why not, but he does observe that Russia is a "torn country," the most important torn country in the world (others are Turkey and Mexico). Such a country is torn between two civilizations, perhaps with the elite and its policy drawn toward one, and the mass and its history drawn toward the other. Russia has been a torn country in this sense since Peter the Great or for almost three centuries--torn between "Westernizers and Slavophils," between Europe and Eurasia, between the Western and the Orthodox civilizations. Huntington seems to think that because there is so much of the West within Russia that a civilizational conflict will not develop between the two. One could just as easily conclude, however, that a civilizational conflict will develop within Russia itself and that the torn country will become a traumatized country, with a resulting rigidity and hostility in its relations with its repressed other self, the West.
Perhaps Huntington also found weighty two historical legacies. First, Orthodox civilization's most enduring and profound adversary has been Islamic civilization. Second, Russia's most traumatic sufferings were under the "Tartar yoke" of Genghis Khan and his successors--hardly Confucian "civilization" but, from a Russian perspective, much the same thing. If so, Huntington probably thinks that it would be a foolish West indeed that allowed its differences with Orthodox civilization to drive Russia into the arms of its most ancient adversaries. Rather, Russia should be a natural ally of the West against the grand alliance of Islamic and Confucian civilizations.
Similarly, but more simply, Huntington does not see a central conflict between the West and Japanese civilization. He explicitly states that the differences are largely economic and could be sensibly negotiated. It is also likely that he sees Japanese civilization as an isolated civilization, caught between Western and Confucian civilizations, and that a wise Western leadership can readily keep Japan as an ally rather than drive it into alliance with Confucian civilization. Indeed, a number of Huntington's critics in East Asia think that is precisely his purpose, to construct a way by which the West could once again divide and rule East Asia, this time by setting off an isolated and vulnerable Japanese civilization against a rising and threatening Confucian one. After all, on the face of it, there are good reasons and historical precedent to conclude that Japan is a part of Confucian civilization (or more accurately, that Confucian civilization is a part of Japan).
Huntington versus Huntington
HUNTINGTON HAS HAD a long and exceptionally distinguished career as a political scientist. His distinctive contributions to political science have focused on political institutions, in particular the state, military organizations, and political parties. His books on these topics are seminal works that have made him one of the most read and respected political scientists in the world.(4) Yet political institutions are virtually absent from his essay on the clash of civilizations. In fact, however, the origins, spread, and persistence of civilizations have been intrinsically linked with political institutions, such as traditional dynastic empires and modern nation states, and with the power that they have wielded. But different civilizations have produced different kinds of political institutions, and this will make for different kinds of clashes and conflicts. A Huntingtonian attention to political institutions will cause us to amend the Huntingtonian analysis of civilizational clashes.
Islamic civilization: A legacy of weak states: Islamic civilization was created and spread by military prowess and political power. There were times when there was a leading Islamic power, most prominently the Ottoman empire (sometimes known as "the Ottoman Ruling Institution"). The Ottoman empire was a true civilization-beating state. However, there was never a time when there was only one strong Islamic power. Even the Ottoman empire had to deal with other Islamic empires in Persia and in India. Since the Ottomans' collapse at the end of the First World War, the Islamic civilization has been fragmented into many conflicting states.
The closest approximation today to a core state for the Islamic civilization is Iran, but it is largely isolated from the rest of the Islamic world by either its Shi'ite theology or its Persian ethnicity (and, temporarily at least, also its dismal economy). It is virtually impossible for Iran to become the core state for the Islamic civilization; it is, however, also virtually impossible for any other state to become so. The other large states who might seem to be potential leaders (Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, and Indonesia) are so different from, and so contemptuous of, each other that no concerted policy toward the West or toward the rest (e.g., Orthodox, Hindu, or Confucian civilizations) is possible. Islam will remain a civilization without an empire or even a core state to carry out a civilizational foreign policy. This means that the clash between the West and Islam is not likely to take place at the level of conventional or even nuclear wars between Western states and Islamic states. (The Gulf War is the exception that proves--and strengthens--the rule.) Rather, it will more likely take place between Western societies and Islamic groups, as a long series of terrorist actions, border skirmishes, and ethnic wars.
Confucian civilization--A legacy of a strong state: The story of Confucian civilization is precisely the opposite of that of Islam. Confucian civilization has been centered upon a core state for 2200 years, ever since the time of the Han dynasty. Whereas the history of Islamic civilization has been marked by long periods of fragmentation, punctuated by brief periods of unity, the history of Confucian civilization has been marked by long periods of unity (or at least deference to an imperial center), punctuated by brief periods of fragmentation.
Today, as in the past, Confucian civilization has only one contender for the role of core state, i.e., China. (Huntington may be wrong in holding that Japan is not Confucian enough to be a member of Confucian civilization, but he is right that it is not Confucian enough to be the leader of that civilization.) All of the other Confucian countries (and they are few and mostly small--Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore) can be expected to revolve around, or at least defer to, China. The clash between Confucian civilization and the West (or the rest--i.e., Orthodox or Hindu civilizations) will really take the form of a clash between China and some other state (or states). This means that what happens to the Chinese state will be crucial to the direction, and the timing, of a clash of civilizations.
Two generations ago, almost no one thought that the Confucian form of statecraft had any value in the modern world. For all the differences between Western liberals and Chinese communists, they both agreed about this. For the past decade or more, however, there has been a broad consensus that the Confucian societies have created states that are outstanding at industrial development. These are South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and (insofar as Confucianism rather than Shintoism or Buddhism should get the credit) Japan. They are the most successful trading states in the world.
The Chinese state must make the great transition from being a communist state to being a Confucian one. This is not going to be a smooth and easy process. The ideal Confucian state in the modern era has been the Singapore of Lee Kuan Yew. Its achievements have been extraordinarily great, but its size is extraordinarily small. (It is really a city-state, with a population of only 2.8 million.) The other successful Confucian states have also governed rather small countries, with the exception of only partly-Confucian Japan. So there is a crucial question: Will the modern Confucian state be able to govern 1.2 billion people?
There may indeed come a clash between Western and Confucian civilizations, but sometime soon there will intervene a clash between the communist past and the Confucian future in China itself. The nature of that internal clash will largely shape the nature and timing of the external one. A clash of civilizations that occurred after a long Chinese "time of troubles" would have different consequences than one that occurred in the near future.
In any event, the clash between the Western and Confucian civilizations, like the clash between Western and Islamic civilizations, is not likely to take place at the level of conventional or nuclear wars. Rather, it will more likely take place between Western-style or liberal capitalism and Confucian-style or state-guided capitalism, as a long series of economic conflicts, human-rights disputes with an economic dimension, and trade wars.
From Christendom to "the West"
A CLOSER LOOK at Huntington's list of major civilizations will raise a fundamental question about the nature of civilizations and the differences between them. He identifies "Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American, and possibly African civilization." This is, on the face of it, a motley collection of terms. Four clearly identify a civilization with a religion (in Toynbee's term, a universal church). However, the two civilizations with the most advanced economies--the Western and the Japanese--are identified in secular terms. We have already noted that Japanese civilization is a result of a synthesis of three religions--Confucianism, Shintoism, and Buddhism--so in its case the use of a national term rather than a religious one seems logical.
The real anomaly in Huntington's list is the most powerful and most pervasive civilization of them all--Western civilization, which is identified with a term that is only a geographical direction. Instead of connoting the profound essence of the civilization, the term Western connotes something bland and even insipid, with no content at all. And instead of connoting the global sway of the civilization, the term Western connotes a locus that is limited and confined, with no breadth at all.
The problematic quality of Western civilization goes deeper than an anomalous term, however. It reaches to the most fundamental character of the civilization, to its definition and its direction.
The fact of the matter is that Western civilization is the only civilization that is explicitly non-religious or post-religious. This is the radical difference of the West from the other civilizations. It helps to explain why there are new conflicts between the West and the rest. It predicts that these conflicts will become more intense in the future. And it also points to a possible fatal flaw within Western civilization itself.
Three hundred years ago, no one knew that there was a Western civilization, not even those that were living within it. The term then, and the one that would be parallel to Huntington's terms for the other civilizations, was Christendom. The story of how Christendom became Western civilization and how most other civilizations have retained a religious identity is crucial for understanding the clash of civilizations in the future.
Western civilization is, as Huntington notes, the product of a series of great cultural and historical movements. The featured tableaux in this grand parade are the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, and the Industrial Revolution. Huntington's own list does not include the Counter-Reformation. This may be natural enough for Americans; Europeans, however, have good reasons to include it.
The Enlightenment brought about the secularization of much of the intellectual class, the idea-bearing class, of what hitherto had been called Christendom. The civilization was now no longer called that, even though much of its ordinary population remained Christian. The French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution spread Enlightenment ideas and secularization to important parts of this population, but the Christian churches continued to be a vital force within the civilization. But ever since the Enlightenment, it has not been possible to refer to the civilization as Christendom.
For a time in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, "Europe" became the preferred term for the civilization. But this was also the very time that saw the rise of European settlements in the New World to the status of independent nations. This soon made impossible the term "European civilization."
For a brief and exuberant time in the nineteenth century, when this civilization seemed to be the only dynamic and growing one and with all the others in manifest decline and decay, the preferred term was just "Civilization" itself, since this civilization seemed to be the only one around. But this term, too, could not be sustained.
It was only at the beginning of the twentieth century that the term "Western civilization" was invented. The term registered the awareness that this civilization, unlike others, did not place religion at its core. It also registered the awareness that this civilization was only one among many. It was a civilization past the enthusiasms of faith and also past the exuberance of being a civilization so blessed that it was in a class by itself. In short, the term Western civilization was the product of a high degree of intellectualism, perhaps even a sickly self-consciousness. The term was itself a sign of the first appearance of decline. It is no accident that, almost as soon as it was invented, it began to be used in this pessimistic context, as in Oswald Spengler's The Decline of the West (1918). Had the term been left in the hands, or rather the minds, of Europeans alone, it probably would have had only a short and unhappy life.
It was the New World that was called in to redress the pessimism of the Old. The Americans breathed a new meaning into the term Western civilization, first as they dealt with the European immigrants in America and then as they dealt with the European nations in Europe itself. For Americans then, and for Huntington now, Western civilization was the ideas of "individualism, liberalism, constitutionalism, human rights, equality, liberty, the rule of law, democracy, free markets, the separation of church and state."
The new content of Western civilization became the American creed. Conversely, the new context for the American creed became Western civilization. The combination of American energy and European imagery gave the idea of Western civilization both power and legitimacy. The power helped the United States win both the Second World War against Nazi Germany and the Cold War against the Soviet Union. The legitimacy helped it to order the long peace within Western Europe that was so much intertwined with that Cold War. The term Western civilization has experienced, therefore, its own heroic age.
That age, however, is now over. It is over partly because the term no longer provides the United States legitimacy among the Europeans. Even today, however, when there is no longer any obvious great power threatening Europe, the Europeans are often willing to defer to U.S. leadership (as the successive crises in the Persian Gulf, Bosnia, and Africa have illustrated in different ways). The main reason why the heroic age of the term is over is because it no longer provides any energy within the United States itself, and this is because it no longer has any legitimacy among Americans.
The decline of Western civilization is a tale that scholars have been telling ever since the fin-de-siecle of the nineteenth century. As I have argued, the rise of the term "Western civilization" was itself a sign of the first stage of that decline. Now, at the fin-de-siecle of the twentieth century, the decline of that term is a sign of a much more advanced decline. The tale of the decline of "Western civilization" as a term is part of the longer tale of the decline of Western civilization itself. This is connected with certain transformations within the West that have matured in the 1990s.
The Great Transformations
ONE BIG EVENT of the 1990s, of course, has been the end of the Cold War. Many observers naturally see this development to be the most important one for international affairs, particularly those who focus on international security and the national interest (and who read The National Interest). But the 1990s have also seen the maturing of other major developments that will have major consequences for international security and the national interest, and that will shape the clash of civilizations: first, there has been the transformation of the most advanced countries from industrial to post-industrial economies, and their associated transformation from modern to post-modern societies; second, there has been the transformation of the international economy into a truly global one.
The transformation from industrial to post-industrial economy: At the most obvious level, this means the replacement of industrial production with service processes. These changes have been noted and discussed for more than a generation, at least since Daniel Bell published his seminal The Coming of Post-Industrial Society (1973). It will prove useful for our purposes, however, to emphasize one dimension of this transformation--that of gender.
The agricultural economy was one that employed both men and women. They were, it is true, employed at different tasks, but they worked at the same place, the farm, which was also the home. The industrial economy largely employed men. They worked both at different tasks from those of women and at a different place, the factory, which was away from the home. The service economy is like the agricultural economy in that it employs both men and women. But it employs them at much the same tasks and at the same place, the office. Like the industrial economy, that place is away from the home. These simple differences in tasks and place have had and will continue to have enormous consequences for society.
The greatest movement of the second half of the nineteenth century was the movement of men from the farm to the factory. Out of that movement arose many of the political movements that shaped the history of the time--socialism and anti-socialism, revolutions, and civil wars. The full consequences of this movement from the farm to the factory culminated in the first half of the twentieth century with the Communist revolution in Russia, the National Socialist reaction in Germany, and the Second World War that included the great struggle between the two.
The greatest movement of the second half of the twentieth century has been the movement of women from the home to the office. Out of that movement there have already arisen political movements that are beginning to shape the history of our own time. One is feminism, with its political demands ranging from equal opportunity to academic deconstructionism to abortion rights. Feminism has in turn produced a new form of conservatism. These new conservatives speak of "family values;" their adversaries call them "the religious right."
The full consequences of this movement from the home to the office will only culminate in the first half of the twenty-first century. They may not take the form of revolutions, civil wars, and world wars, as did the earlier movement of men from the farm to the factory. Feminists have constructed elaborate theories about how women are far less violent than men. But there are other factors at work.
The movement from farm to factory in large measure brought about the replacement of the extended family with the nuclear family. The movement from home to office is carrying this process one step further. It separates the parents from the children, as well as enabling the wife to separate herself from the husband. By splitting the nuclear family, it is helping to bring about the replacement of the nuclear family with the non-family ("non-traditional" family, as seen by feminists; no family at all, as seen by conservatives). The splitting of the family's nucleus, like the splitting of the atom's nucleus, will release an enormous amount of energy (which feminists see as liberating and conservatives see as simply destructive).
Some indication of that energy, and its direction, may be gleaned from the behavior of the children of split families or single-parent families, especially where they have reached a critical mass forming more than half the population, as in the large cities of America. In such locales, there is not much evidence of "Western civilization" or even of civility. For thousands of years, the city was the source of civilization. In contemporary America, however, it has become the source of barbarism.
The transformation of the international economy into a global one: At the most obvious level, this means the replacement of national production that is engaged in international trade with global production that is engaged in a world-wide market in trade, investment, and technology. These changes too have been noted and discussed for a generation, ever since Raymond Vernon published his seminal Sovereignty at Bay (1971). But their maturity has only come in the past decade, as Vernon has recently discussed in his Defense and Dependence in the Global Economy (1992). We will only note one of these aspects. The globalization of production means the relocation of industrial production from high-wage and high-skill advanced-industrial countries to low-wage but high-skill newly-industrial countries (NICs). This is the de-industrialization of the advanced countries, the dark half of the post-industrial transformation that we discussed above. The two transformations--from industrial to post-industrial and from international to global--are intimately connected.
The conjunction of two processes--the de-industrialization of the advanced countries and the industrialization of the less-advanced countries--means that the most advanced countries are becoming less modern (i.e. post-modern), while the less advanced countries are becoming more modern. Or, viewing it from a civilizational perspective, the West is becoming less modern and the rest, especially Confucian civilization, are becoming more modern.
Americanization vs. Multiculturalism
THE MOST SIGNIFICANT development for Western civilization, however, has occurred within its leading power, which was once its "defender of the faith." Increasingly, the political and intellectual elites of the United States no longer think of America as the leader, or even a member, of Western civilization. Western civilization means nothing to many of them. And in the academic world, Western civilization is seen as an oppressive hegemony that should be overturned.
The American political and intellectual class instead thinks of America as a multicultural society. The preferred cultures are those of African Americans, Latino Americans, and Asian Americans. These cultures are derived from the African, Latin American, Confucian, and Islamic civilizations rather than from the Western one. Together, they form a sort of series of beachheads or even colonies of these civilizations on the North American continent, and are now contesting the hegemony there of Western civilization.
The United States, however, has always had a large African American population, and it has long had a large Latino American one. Conversely, although the U.S. Asian American population has more than doubled since the changes brought by the immigration law of 1965, Asian Americans still represent only three percent of the U.S. population. The gross demographics of the United States are still much the same as they have been for decades. Something else had to be added to convert a long-existing multiracial demography into a multicultural ideology, establishing a multicultural society.
It is not merely the addition of large numbers of immigrants from different cultures in recent years. This is not the first time that the United States has experienced large numbers of immigrants from different cultures, with prospects for their acceptance of the dominant culture seemingly problematic. A similar condition existed a century ago, particularly from the 1880s to the 1920s, when the culture formed within the U.S. by Western Europeans (principally by those of British descent) had to confront large numbers of immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe (principally Poles, Jews, and Italians). These immigrants were all from Western civilization, but this was no consolation to the Americans who were already here. Most of these "old-stock" Americans did not even know that they were part of Western civilization (the concept had hardly been invented yet), but rather thought of themselves in terms of religious, national, or (spurious) racial identities.
The reaction of the political and intellectual elites of that time to their multicultural reality was precisely the opposite of that of the political and intellectual elites of today. They did not rejoice in multicultural society and dedicate themselves to making it even more multicultural. Rather, they undertook a massive and systematic program of Americanization, imposing on the new immigrants and on their children the English language, Anglo-American history, and American civics (what Robert Bellah would later term the American "civil religion" and what Huntington has elsewhere termed the "American Creed"). The Anglo-American elite was aided in its grand project of Americanization by the booming U.S. economy during this period, which gave immigrants ample economic reasons to assimilate, and by the restrictive immigration law of 1924, which essentially halted immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe and allowed the Americanization process to operate upon and shape a settled mass.
This grand project of Americanization was relentless and even ruthless. Many individuals were oppressed and victimized by it, and many rich and meaningful cultural islands were swept away. But the achievements of that project were awesome, as well as awful. In particular, when the United States entered into its greatest struggles of the twentieth century, first the Second World War and then the Cold War, it did so as a national state, rather than as a multicultural society. (Hitler consistently underestimated the United States because he thought it was the latter rather than the former; he was thinking that the U.S. was still what it was at the time of the First World War.) It was because of the Americanization project that the United States could become the leader and the defender of Western civilization.
Indeed, one of the consequences of this grand project of Americanization was the spread within the American academic elite of the concept of the Western civilization. The political elite remained comfortable with Americanization of the mass population. The academic elite (particularly at Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and Princeton), however, was in the business of teaching the elite of the future. For this purpose, simple Americanization was too rough and primitive. Rather than imposing Americanization unilaterally on people who were in some sense both European and American, it would be better to find a new common denominator for both Europeans and Americans. This became "Western civilization." As we have seen, very little in this Western civilization happened to contradict the American creed. All of the elements that Huntington identifies as being the elements of Western civilization were in the American creed also.
Deconstructing the West
THE PRESENCE OF African Americans, Latino Americans, and Asian Americans might have been sufficient to create a multicultural ideology in the 1980s and 1990s. But these three groups alone probably would not have been sufficient to have that ideology adopted by much of the American political and intellectual elites, or to have it translated into policies aimed at establishing a multicultural society. Even a grand coalition between them would not have been grand enough to take power and make policy. A truly grand coalition had to include, indeed had to have as its core, a group that was much closer in social and educational background to the existing elite and much more central to the emerging post-industrial economy. That group, which was not really a group but a majority, was women. We have already noted the importance of women in the post-industrial economy and the consequent importance of feminism in post-modern politics.
The feminist movement is central to the multicultural coalition and its project. It provides the numbers, having reached a central mass first in academia and now in the media and the law. It promotes the theories, such as deconstructionism and post-modernism. And it provides much of the energy, the leadership, and the political clout.
The multicultural coalition and its feminist core despise the European versions of Western civilization, which they see as the work of "dead white European males." They also despise the American version or the American creed, particularly liberalism, constitutionalism, the rule of law, and free markets. (They also in practice reject the separation of church and state, because they want to use the state against the church, especially to attack a male-dominated clergy as a violation of equal opportunity and to attack the refusal of church hospitals to perform abortions as a violation of women's rights.) The multicultural project has already succeeded in marginalizing Western civilization in its very intellectual core, the universities and the media of America.
The Real Clash
THE IDEAS of the Enlightenment were invented in Britain in the aftermath of the religious wars of the seventeenth century. They were then adopted by the intellectual elite of the greatest power of the eighteenth century, France, which then proceeded to spread them throughout Europe. The ideas of the post-Enlightenment were invented in France in the aftermath of the ideological wars of the mid-twentieth century. They were then adopted by the intellectual elite of the greatest power of the late twentieth-century, the United States, which is beginning to spread them throughout Western civilization.
The overthrow of the Enlightenment by the post-Enlightenment is also the overthrow of the modern by the post-modern and therefore of the Western by the post-Western. At the very moment of its greatest triumph, its defeat of the last great power opposing it, Western civilization is becoming non-Western. One reason is that it has become global and therefore extra-Western. But the real, and the fatal, reason is that it has become post-modern and therefore post-Western.
The real clash of civilizations will not be between the West and one or more of the Rest. It will be between the West and the post-West, within the West itself. This clash has already taken place within the brain of Western civilization, the American intellectual class. It is now spreading from that brain to the American body politic.
The 1990s have seen another great transformation, this time in the liberal and the conservative movements that have long defined American politics and that, whatever their differences, had both believed in the modern ideas represented by the American creed. Among liberals, the political energy is now found among multicultural activists. Liberalism is ceasing to be modern and is becoming post-modern. Among conservatives, the political energy is now found among religious believers. Conservatism is ceasing to be modern and is becoming pre-modern. Neither these liberals nor these conservatives are believers in Western civilization. The liberals identify with multicultural society or a post-Western civilization (such as it is). The conservatives identify with Christianity or a pre-Western civilization. A question thus arises about who, in the United States of the future, will still believe in Western civilization. Most practically, who will believe in it enough to fight, kill, and die for it in a clash of civilizations?
IT IS HISTORICALLY fitting that Samuel Huntington has issued a call to Western civilization and to Americans within it. In the seventeenth century, the first Huntingtons arrived in America, as Puritans and as founders of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. In the eighteenth century, Samuel Huntington of Connecticut was a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a lender to General George Washington of the funds necessary to sustain his army at Valley Forge. In the nineteenth century, Collis P. Huntington was a builder of the transcontinental railroad. In the twentieth century, Samuel P. Huntington has been, for more than forty years, the most consistently brilliant and creative political scientist in the United States. Huntingtons have been present at the creation for most of the great events of American history, which in turn have been linked up with great movements of Western civilization--the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, and the Industrial Revolution. It is fitting indeed that, in our century, Samuel Huntington has been not just an analyst of Western civilization but an exemplar of its creative intelligence.
The American intellectual class of our time is present at the deconstruction of Western civilization. When that civilization is in ruins, however, it will be its glories, and not multiculturalism's barbarities, that will be remembered. And when that intellectual class has also passed away, it will be the brilliant achievements of Samuel Huntington, and not the boring cliches of the deconstructionists, that will be remembered also.
1 Samuel P. Huntington, "The Clash of Civilizations?" Foreign Affairs (Summer 1993), pp. 22-49. The tide included a question mark, which was both inconsistent with the article's strong assertions and with Huntington's customary style. A debate between Huntington and his critics followed in the next two issues of Foreign Affairs.
2 See my "Eastern Question, Western Answer," The National Interest (Winter 1993-94), pp. 96-101.
3 There have, however, been violent clashes in Moldova, between Orthodox Slavs and Orthodox Rumanians. When the civilization is defined as Slavic-Orthodox, rather than the more obvious Orthodox alone, this anomaly can be overlooked.
4 Especially The Soldier and the State (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957); The Common Defense (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961); Political Order in Changing Societies (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968); and American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981).
James Kurth is professor of political science at Swarthmore College.
-1-
Publication Information: Article Title: The Real Clash. Contributors:
James Kurth - author. Magazine Title: The National Interest. Issue: 37.
Publication Date: Fall 1994. Page Number: 3+. COPYRIGHT 1994 The National
Affairs, Inc.; COPYRIGHT 2002 Gale Group
Jewish World Review March 17, 2004/ 24 Adar, 5764
Marianne M. Jennings
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/jennings031704.asp
http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | Three op-ed topics bring out the Stephen King ids. Topic one: Animals can survive in conditions less charming than a Kennebunkport bed and breakfast. Animal rights activists wish me death by dismemberment. Two: Overeating is responsible for heft. Fat rights activists place curses upon me. A husky idler from New Zealand wished me an early death from my exercise and use of cottage cheese.
Topic three: gay marriage. Homosexual activists are unequaled in both the length and volume of their op-ed mental snaps. They too wish me death by dismemberment, preferably early on, and also hurl curses, but they are Energizer Bunnies. They go on and on and on. Columns from 5 years ago still bring hate mail. Rational discussions or thoughtful rebukes are welcomed, even at 5 years out, but childish attacks grow tiresome. One homosexual correspondent insists that my data on homosexual men having higher education levels are skewed. This chap fervently argues, "The dumb ones stay in the closet."
These groups have three tactics in common: emotion, not rational thought; facts, science, or studies be damned; and hatred toward those who disagree. Gay rights activists have one more trait - they harass the employers of their opponents. Applying economic pressure, they obtain agreement, or, at a minimum, silence. They preach tolerance and acceptance, but are, oddly, totalitarians. I cannot speak for the views of my correspondent's doofuses in the closet.
The rash of defiant homosexual marriages and judicial usurpation of public policy formulation on marriage are further evidence of the gay movement's totalitarian nature. The slumbering and subservient public has finally awakened to the homosexual movement's usurpation of process through press-starved politicos and courts that relish end-runs.
Cornering straights and frightening them into submission is the gay modus operandi. An entire nation is now backed into a corner with the U.S. Constitution's full faith and credit clause serving as one wall and the borrowed emotion of the civil rights movement as the other.
Judicial, media, economic and political forces have allowed the gay movement to run roughshod over complacent straights. Forced silence on the parts of the straights now finds gay marriage an inevitability. I predicted as much years ago. I write now with one additional thought that accompanies policies totalitarians impose: bad idea.
Homosexual activists argue that the straights don't deserve dominance over marriage policy because they have an abysmal record. Moral authority here is misplaced. Dr. Maria Xiridou's 2003 study of Dutch homosexual men found their relationships last an average of 1.5 years. Other studies found an average of 8 partners per year among male homosexuals and near 100% rates of unfaithfulness even in committed relationships, with the longest lasting having some "provision for outside sexual activity." In the U.S., heterosexual first marriages last an average of 10 years.
But, for purposes of argument, I'll concede their point on our failure at marriage. However, such is an argument AGAINST gay marriage. All the "liberating" changes to marriage over the past 35 years are now acknowledged by conservatives, liberals, social scientists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and, lately, Britney Spears, as failed public policy with dramatic negative effects on children. No-fault divorce, open cohabitation, and acceptance of births-out-of-wedlock have resulted in a plethora of social ills that include emotional instability of children, inability of children to commit to relationships, and increased reliance on therapy and medications to fix the voids in the hearts and minds of even grade-school children. Another change, to two mommies and two daddies, can hardly halt this trend.
Children have the best chance for a normal life by living with a mother and a father, of different genders. This ideal does not spring from religion or prejudice. Common sense dictates such. Thousands of years in a lab of innumerable cultures and faiths support the proposition.
Stanley Kurtz has ably outlined the impact of just civil unions, not homosexual marriages, in Denmark and Sweden. The resulting degradation of marriage there has resulted in an increase in out-of-wedlock births. With the status of marriage no longer unique, fewer couples there marry. Over half of the children there reside in homes in which there is no permanent couple, let alone a mother and father.
Marriage exclusively between a man and a woman is a violation of no one's civil rights. Governments have uniformly reached consensus on that limitation for self-preservation reasons. Those with biological capabilities for procreation warrant special status for the role they will play in preserving society by repopulating it with responsible citizens, not neurotic messes, confused about who is in charge and how they got there.
How it all lays out! So rational. So logical. But, rational thought and logic are not the components of totalitarian thought, to wit: What I want, right now, forget consequences. This is no way to run a democracy, but we cower in fear because these Stephen King ids have been unleashed. The ending for this thriller does not bode well for the straights. Worse, it spells destruction for the children of the totalitarian state.
Livy, The History of Rome
“If each of us, citizens, had determined to assert his rights and dignity as a husband with respect to his own spouse, we should have less trouble with the sex as a whole; as it is, our liberty, destroyed at home by female violence, even here in the Forum is crushed and trodden underfoot, and because we have not kept them individually under control, we dread them collectively. . . . But from no class is there not the greatest danger if you permit them meetings and gatherings and private consultations. . . .”
“Our ancestors permitted no women to conduct even personal business without a guardian to intervene on her behalf; they wished them to be under the control of fathers, brothers, husbands; we (Heaven help us!) allow them now to interfere in public affairs, yes, and to visit the Forum and our formal and informal sessions. What else are they doing now on the streets and at the corners except urging the bill of the tribunes and voting for the repeal of the law? Give loose rein to their uncontrollable nature and to this untamed creature and expect that they will themselves set bounds to their license; unless you act, this is the least of the things enjoined upon women by custom or law and to which they submit with a feeling of injustice. It is complete liberty or, rather, if we wish to speak the truth, complete license that they desire.”
“If they win in this, what will they not attempt? Review all the laws with which your forefathers restrained their license and made them subject to their husbands; even with all these bonds you can scarcely control them. What of this? If you suffer them to seize these bonds one by one and wrench themselves free and finally to be placed on a parity with their husbands, do you think that you will be able to endure them? The moment they begin to be your equals, they will be your superiors…”
“Now they publicly address other women’s husbands, and, what is more serious, they beg for a law and votes, and from sundry men they get what they ask. In matters affecting yourself, your property, your children, you, Sir, can be importuned; once the law has ceased to set a limit to your wife’s expenditures you will never set it yourself. Do not think, citizens, that the situation which existed before the law was passed will ever return…”
“Radical egalitarianism and individualism have altered much in American life. The question of just how irresistible they are, the test case of whether any institution can maintain its integrity in the face of the deforming pressures of a modern liberal culture is, of course, the Roman Catholic Church. What is to be seen is whether the church can maintain its doctrines and its institutional structure in the face of pressure both from without and from within.
“The Roman Catholic Church is the test case because, as Hitchcock put it, “few religions in the history of the world have placed more emphasis on doctrinal purity, liturgical correctness, and moral authenticity than has the Catholic Church. . . . If at almost all times in the history of the church, a concern for orthodoxy has been paramount, the contemporary Church has an eerie feel about it precisely because of the absence of that concern.” If, despite powerful and orthodox American bishops, orthodoxy is no longer a major concern in the American church, that is surely a sign that the church is giving way to the culture. The church’s opposition to abortion, homosexual conduct, and the ordination of women is under attack and appears to be a minority position among the Catholic laity, perhaps even among the American bishops. If the church gives way on any of those issues, the culture will have effectively destroyed it. The other reason the church arouses hostility is that its structure is hierarchical and authoritative, in addition to the fact that its priesthood is male. It has clear lines of authority of the pope. These are matters that create no small outrage in the egalitarians of our time, and one sees even within the church demands that it be democratized, that it accept beliefs and behavior it has always condemned, and that it accept radical alterations of its ancient structure. Columnists pronounce the church out of touch with the people in the pews and find that reason for the church to change.
“That is not reason for the church to change. The protestant mainline
denominations are out of touch with the people in the pews because the
churches’ leadership changed, moving well to the left of their membership.
That is a different situation than a church that is trying to remain unchanged
while the culture changes its members. If the church changes doctrine and
structure to follow its members’ views, it is difficult to see the value
of that church and its religion. Religions must claim to be true and, in
their essentials, to uphold principles that are universal and eternal.
No church that panders to the zeitgeist deserves respect, except from those
who find it politically useful, and that is less respect than disguised
contempt.”
From “Slouching Toward Gomorrah” by Robert Bork.
EDITORIALJuly 6, 2003 VNN8197
BY PRADIP SHARMA
http://vnn.org/editorials/ET0307/ET06-8197.html
EDITORIAL, July 6 (VNN) — A friend recently forwarded me an article by a Swamiji from America who, while commenting upon homosexuality, referred to India as being under 'Victorian' social standards. My first impression after reading the Swamiji's statement was to wonder if Shree Swamiji had ever bothered to learn anything about our nations history and social customs?
If modern Hindu India were in fact 'Victorian' then the moral part of our countries' society, i.e. moral Hindus, Muslims and Christians would be quite happy.
But the sad fact is that we have become far more 'Americanized' than 'Victorian'.
The 'Americanization' that I am referring to can best be summed up as a progressively immoral society where sex, drugs, and MTV are constantly being pushed into everyone's face. The degenerate wealthy people of our country are administering us this slow poison.
During the 'Victorian' period of Indian history, ethics were at a high standard and people were respected for their morality, their honesty, and for their human dignity. Now all that has changed dramatically. Now boozing, illicit sex, lying, cheating and other common forms of debauchery like gambling have become the social accepted norm, especially in our larger cities like Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Chennai, and Kolkota.
Moral men and women in India would be quite relieved if we were only a 'Victorian' society. Certainly that would be better than the cat-and-dog society that we are quickly becoming.
As for the 'Americanized' view of a liberated women or liberated homosexuals we can only pray that such perverted sub-human standards of social behavior can be resisted in our country. But since we are in the evil age of Kali Yug sooner or later we will regrettably have to face such disorders as are being spread by rascals.
In the meantime we should try to give support to our old ways, our Hindu ways and our Vedic ways even if some modern Swamijis ridicule as 'Victorian'.
A class of people known as Aryans established the Vedic ways of life. These Aryan people were an enlightened race of people both materially and spiritually and their understanding of the world, the universe, medicine, mathematics, astrology, poetry, art, music, the kingdom of Vaikunta and all things concerning the matters of life were far superior to anything the world has seen to date.
In comparative study the American way of life that centres around the idea, " If it feels good, do it!" pales in comparison to the Aryan way of life which centres around 'atma-gyan' (knowledge of the soul). In the Aryan civilization there were standards of human behavior, not simply based on social trends of the time, but based on universal knowledge, knowledge of the eternal soul. Knowledge of the soul, life after death, the next life and knowledge of the stringent laws of material nature formed the basis of socially accepted norms in Vedic society. The unauthorized trends that may have cropped up in Vedic society at any given time were quickly cut down by the raj-rishis (saint-kings) if the trends degraded the Vedic standard of morality.
Because modern 'Americanized' society is a demonically driven society without any proper knowledge of the atma, all types of social subhuman behaviors are being accepted as normal. Not only in the United States but also worldwide.
Greater knowledge informs us that the universal laws of God (known as Dharma) does not change simply because a certain society in time degrades itself morally. For example, in the time of Nazi Germany under Hitler it was not a crime or a sin to kill a Jew. It was socially accepted in German society to look down upon Jews and to treat them as less than animals. Many Jews were experimented on in Nazi concentration camps like they were simply rats in a science laboratory. But would our modern thinking Swamijis have us believe that the Nazi leaders did not get any bad karmas for their mistreatment and murder of the Jews? After all according to the Nazi worldview it was perfectly acceptable behavior to persecute the Jews. The Protestant Reich-bishop Ludwig Mueller and Pope Pius XII also supported Hitler and turned a blind eye to his atrocities but would our modern thinking Swamijis have us believe that God favored the decision of the Pope because it was politically correct in the Nazi view? In all probability God was not pleased with the Pope because the duty of God's representative is to represent God's view and God's desire and not to simply bend to political correctness.
But the controversy these days among many Vaishnavas is not the issue of it being socially acceptable to kill members of a particular community or religious denomination, but rather the controversy is about homosexuality becoming 'socially acceptable' and therefore eligible to be an accepted part of Vaishnava society - Gay Vaishnavas.
In the Aryan civilization homosexuality between man/man or woman/woman was never accepted favorably toward the fulfillment of the purpose of human life.
If a society degrades itself morally by accepting homosexuality as normal then that is their choice but the laws of God, Shastric law, the Laws of Manu and the laws governing Godliness do not change. A woman may not be punished by the society she lives in if she exposes her breasts in public, but under the watchful eye of the Cosmic Ruler (Paramatma) she will have to accept the body of a tree in her next life. And the homosexual for his or her failure of discrimination will have to accept the body of a pig and other such lower animals in the next life. The universal laws do not change and therefore the old ways are the best ways. Not the modern Americanized concept of life which runs on without proper knowledge of the atma.
Some one may argue that the strong statements the Shastra makes against illicit sex life, nudity and other such things are just to scare the people, but if this is true then we should consider that the Shastra must have some good reason to scare the people into following a pious life and not allowing themselves to be degraded. Why then do our liberal Swamijis minimize the Shastra and thus encourage degradation?
In a God conscious society (a human society) there is no place for homosexual behavior simply because such behavior degrades one to accept the body of an animal in the next life. Therefore in Ancient Indian society all homosexual activities between men/men or women/women were immediately curtailed. Such activities were not allowed to flourish or to be propagated as they are in today's Godless world.
Some persons have mentioned the erotic sculptures at Khajuraho as being some sort of proof that ancient Indian culture was more liberal and friendly toward such things as promiscuity and homosexuality, but this is very misleading. The fact is that Khajuraho was built by the Kings of the Chandela Dynasty who belonged to a Tantrik fertility cult and not to the main stream of Vedic (spiritual) culture.
Unfortunately the sculpture at Khajuraho also shows 'bestiality' (sex with animals) so are we to accept that as also part of Vedic or spiritual culture? I think not.
A major argument of the Vaishnava pro-homosexual movement in America is that illicit sex between men and women or between man/man or woman/woman is basically the same thing and since nobody really discriminates against the former illicit sex (man/woman) then Vaishnava society should also not discriminate the later (man/man or woman/woman).
Some Swamijis say that modern American society has come to better understand the phenomenon of being born homosexual and that it is also important that spiritual traditions do the same if they are to remain vital. But this idea is highly debatable. First it is an undeniable fact that American society is obsessed with sex. Sex is everywhere and at all levels in America. It is like a cancer in the American brain.
What have they understood? The next thing from the Americans will be Viagra in Coca Cola!
However, it is certainly not a fact that everyone in America (what to speak of the world) accepts homosexuality as a natural occurring condition from birth. In fact many tendencies towards homosexual behavior have been traced through social studies to imbalanced childhood experiences and even child abuse.
It is doubtful that every homosexual is simply born that way. In fact according to social studies the homosexual community in America has an agenda to convert otherwise 'normal people' to homosexual activity. They say, "You don't know how great it is until you have tried it!"
But if one is a 'born homosexual' then this is due to their bad karmas from a previous life. God does not make most people normal and from time to time decides to randomly cause a few people to be born homosexual. Homosexuality is a cultivated consciousness from a previous life. A person is born homosexual due to their karmas from a previous lifetime. In a previous lifetime that individual made a wrong choice and committed some sort of forbidden sexual activity and as a result that person is now born homosexual. So if we allow homosexual activity to spread in society then more and more people will eventually be born homosexual. This appears to be what is happening.
According to Shastra at the end of creation all living entities reside in the body of Maha Vishnu. They remain in Maha Vishnu until the next creation when they are born with their material desires from their previous lifetimes. The homosexuals first appear in the new universe being born from the anus of Brahmaji.
This is not a chance occurrence. This is due to their previous desires.
We do not hate a person because they may be born as a homosexual but these persons should recognize that their consciousness is improper and they should resist their lower tendencies and try to elevate themselves through spiritual culture.
Secondly (concerning keeping Indian tradition 'vital') the situation with homosexuality in America and India is quite different. In America you have concentrated centres where thousands, if not tens of thousands of homosexual men and women gather in one place to live like San Francisco and New York. But in India we do not have that situation. India has its eunuch communities and they are already accepted by Hindu society. And they are not so many in number.
So to adjust the Shastra, to be more accommodating toward homosexuality in India would not at all serve to vitalize our traditions. The traditions in India (unlike America who basically has no culture of its own) are already in place for centuries. Also if we adjusted the Shastra and became more liberal towards illicit sex so as to accommodate the ultra modern men and women in Indian society that would be of no use because our modern "cool dudes" and "cool chicks" are not interested in God. They, like the American materialist only want to enjoy life, at any cost. So what will be the gain of bringing our Shastra down to their level.
It is a fact that homosexuality has been here since the beginning of the universe (as mentioned above) when some offspring of Brahmaji tried to have anal sex with their father. This was, according to Shastra, demoniac and historically very demoniac societies like the Roman society openly practiced homosexuality and even sex with children.
This brings us to another sensitive point and that is the similarities between modern American society and Roman society. By comparison the similarities are shocking. In fact the only Roman social behavior that is not yet found its nitch of acceptability in America is pedophilia (sex with children). All other remnants of Roman society are already in place in America; the thirst for violent sports, the thirst for war, the lust for sex (Viagra), the lust for consumption and covetousness are all norms in that society.
The only thing missing in American society that differs from Roman society is the accepted sexual activity with children. And that too could be just around the corner or accepted by the end of this century if that society continues on its liberal journey without guidance from the Shastras. This is already happening to some extent when we see that famous rock stars like Michael Jackson and even some clergy members can commit pedophilia and are excused of the offence simply by paying a large amount of money to the victims family. This resembles the old Roman Catholic tradition of 'Indulgences' where one could pay (even in advance) for their sins by paying money to the church. Nowadays the pedophiles can just pay money to the families.
In any case homosexuality is a diseased conditioned and ignoring it as such will never help a spiritual tradition to remain 'vital'. The vitality of a spiritual tradition depends on the purity of its followers and not on compromising moral standards in society. Truthfully speaking, homosexuality should be dealt with much like SARS or any other disease that threatens the well being of our society. It should be isolated.
Some people will be outraged by such talk but are we to forget that homosexuality has spawned one of the deadliest diseases ever known, AIDS! A homosexual with AIDS who engages in sexual activity is spreading a murderous disease and should be dealt with by society like a criminal, like the criminally insane. (sexually insane).
And should we also forget that illicit sex in general breed's uncleanliness and thus is the cause of a variety of other venereal diseases!
If sex and all its lusty expressions were acceptable in God's eyes then why has He attached so many killer diseases to it? Did not the sages of India observe and learn from Mother Nature and all her creatures - and shouldn't we also learn by such observances?
The first step toward normalizing a society plagued with homosexual activity would be to recognize homosexuality as a disease and then minimize its' spreading. If those who have the disease are not willing to recognize it as a disease, then basically they become an enemy to normal healthy society and they should be rejected. Even those who are a "dancing dog" in the hands of a woman are rejected in spiritual circles, what then to speak of homosexuals. How will accepting them "vitalize" our tradition?
Some of our modern Swamijis have proposed that if materialistic society accepts homosexual behavior as normal then in the name of progressiveness, the Vaishnava communities should also accept homosexuality in their circles. However, we do not find in the Vaishnava Shastras such terms as homosexual-Vaishnavas, bisexual-Vaishnavas, or heterosexual-Vaishnavas. What we do find in Shastra are the terms Kanishta-adhikari Vaishnava, Madyama-adhikari Vaishnava, and Uttam-adhikari Vaishnava,
The position of a Vaishnava is never determined according to their fallen state of sexuality be it any of the above. Sexuality is not a characteristic (lakshan) of a Vaishnava. In fact a Vaishnava knows that all types of sexuality in this material world, even sexuality under the strictest laws of Dharma are dangerous. Lord Krishna says in Shree Gita that he is sex life that is not contrary to religious principles.
The sex life that Shree Krishna speaks of in Gita is sex life according to samskar i.e. sex between a married man and woman for the purpose of begetting offspring, not for sensual pleasure. But even that sex life is dangerous. Sometimes while impregnating a woman the man dies of a heart attack or sometimes while giving birth the mother also dies. Sex life is dangerous and there is no getting around it.
Not only is sex even under Dharma dangerous in that one takes his/her chances with death, but one also runs the risk of becoming attached to the pleasures of sex or to one's partner. And material attachment leads to again taking birth in this material world.
A Vaishnava does not identify him or herself with their sexuality. A Vaishnava does not say, "I am a heterosexual Vaishnava" or "I am a gay Vaishnava." If he or she does make such identifications then they are not really Vaishnava at all. Being a Vaishnava is not a casual thing and a Vaishnava does not have any material designation. To be a Vaishnava is a very great achievement. A Vaishnava says, "I am servant of Shree Krishna, I am servant of my Gurudev, I am the servant of the Vaishnavas." That is Vaishnava, and all other false identifications must be left behind, especially sexual identifications born out of lust.
It is said that at the end of Kali Yug it will be socially acceptable for a man and woman to eat their own children. Should the liberal Swamijis of that time then introduce the term 'cannibal-Vaishnava'? We may laugh or say that this is offensive but the fact is that such things have already been norms in Mediterranean and Mesoamerican cultures within the past 4000 years where the clergy of the temples authorized such acts. In several instances archeologists have unearthed evidence that reveals that these people and cultures eventually became so pagan that they stooped to eat their own children. Not only thousands of years ago, but even in recent times America's infamous celebrity Andy Warhol was said to have eaten aborted human fetuses. So what makes American 'morality' any different now?
Pradeep Sharma (History and Sociology Major)
pradeep5808@yahoo.com
BALTIMORE (AP) - Twelve-year-old Nicole Townes is out of a coma but still struggling to recover after being pummeled and stomped at a birthday party in a beating that was shocking not just because of its savagery, but because it was meted out by other girls.
Authorities say it is symptomatic of a disturbing trend around the country: Girls are turning to violence more often and with terrifying intensity.
"We're seeing girls doing things now that we used to put off on boys," former Baltimore school Police Chief Jansen Robinson said. "This is vicious, `I-want-to-hurt-you' fighting. It's a nationwide phenomenon and it's catching us all off guard."
Police and prosecutors said Nicole's beating Feb. 28 began when a boy at the party, acting on a dare, kissed the girl on the cheek. The other children exploded with "eeeewws" and laughter, according to the police report.
The 36-year-old mother of the birthday girl apparently was offended, because the boy was supposed to be her daughter's boyfriend. So the mother allegedly urged her daughter to "handle your business," an order police said meant the girl was supposed to defend the family's honor.
Nicole was scratched, pummeled, kicked and stomped by as many as six women and girls, police said. She was in a coma for nearly three weeks and is still hospitalized. Her family said she may have permanent brain damage.
Charged in the assault were the birthday girl, 13; her mother; her 19-year-old sister; and three other girls, ages 13, 14 and 15. Police also charged a 24-year-old woman who lived with Nicole with child abuse and neglect for leaving the girl at the party.
"We're just stunned and disgusted and we still can't understand how such a thing could have happened," said the family's pastor, the Rev. Durrell Williams of the Full Gospel Deliverance Church. Williams described Nicole as a timid girl, "not one of your fighters."
Around the country, school police and teachers are seeing a growing tendency for girls to settle disputes with their fists. They are finding themselves breaking up playground fights in which girls are going at each other toe-to-toe, like boys.
Nationally, violence among teenage boys - as measured by arrest statistics and surveys - outstrips violence among teenage girls 4 to 1, according to the Justice Department. But a generation ago, it was 10 to 1. Schools report a similar pattern in the number of girls suspended or expelled for fighting.
Experts say the trend simply reflects society - girls are more violent because society in general is more violent and less civil. Some say that the same breakdowns in family, church, community and school that have long been blamed for violence among boys are finally catching up to girls.
And some believe the violence is also fueled by the emergence of movies and video games such as "Tomb Raider" in which women wreak violence with the gusto of male action heroes.
The assault on Nicole illustrates how some parents are almost as immature as their children, said Rosetta Stith, principal of a Baltimore public school for teen mothers.
"You keep hearing that phrase, `Handle your business,' `Handle your business,'" Stith said. "Now I ask you - What business could a 13-year-old possibly have? But for a lot of girls, it's all about respect, defending your turf, fighting for your man."
Last May, girls were videotaped beating and kicking other girls during a hazing at well-to-do Glenbrook High School in suburban Chicago. And fighting among girl gangs in cities such as Los Angeles and Chicago has educators and community workers scrambling for solutions.
"It's a high-priority topic that resonates with any school, any principal today," said Bill Bond, who heads a project on school safety for the National Association of Secondary School Principals. "I've been to 17 association meetings this year and the topic has been addressed at every meeting."
Lauren Abramson, director of the Community Conferencing Center, a Baltimore agency that resolves disputes through mediation, said one difference between boys and girls is that gossip is more likely to be at the bottom of a dispute between girls.
"Gossip as a source of violence is understudied and little understood," Abramson said. "But time and again, when we bring the parties together, get them to talk and dig into what started it all, it invariably comes back to something somebody heard somebody else said."
Phil Leaf, director of the Center for the Prevention of Youth Violence at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, said society should not have been caught by surprise by the surge in girl violence.
"In retrospect, we can see girls falling prey to the same influences as boys," Leaf said. "A decade or so ago, we were worried about the lack of male role models in the home. Today, there is a dearth of effective female role models as the mothers who used to be there are forced back into the job market or get rendered ineffective through abuse of drugs and alcohol."
Leaf said the situation in Baltimore and other cities reminds him of the William Golding novel "Lord of the Flies": "We're seeing the effects of children growing up in a world without adults."
Okay but you should also include a link to
the original article about the beating of that poor child. If you haven't
got it you can just take the title and google it. (that article is the
one above)
-----Original Message-----
From: Jaya Tirtha Charan dasan [mailto:
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 7:39 PM
To: Shyamasundara Dasa
Subject: Re: Violence Among Girls Increasing in U.S.
pamro., agtsp.,
This message is so full of powerful truths and excellent info' would you mind if I turned it into a page to put on the seX-files???
ys, JTCd
At 10:37 12/05/04, you wrote:
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Letter PAMHO:8172037 (214 lines)
From: Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic
Astrologer) (USA)
Date: 09-May-04 00:11 -0400
To: Yasomati (dd) ACBSP (Mayapur
- IN)
Cc: Tattvavit (das) ACBSP
(BBT)
Cc: Sudama (das) (San Antonio,
TX - US)
Cc: India (Continental Committee)
Open (Forum)
Cc-For: ISKCON India (news & discussion)
Cc-For: Prabhupada Disciples
Reference: Text PAMHO:8153788 by Yasomati (dd) ACBSP (Mayapur - IN)
Comment: Text PAMHO:8176713 by Braja Sevaki (dd TKG) (Mayapur
- IN)
Subject: Re: Violence Among Girls Increasing in U.S.
------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mataji,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Bhakta-vigna-vinasa Nrsimhadeva Bhagavan ki jaya!
So nice to hear from you after so long, I hope all is well with you
and your
family. Please pay my respects to your good husband Kala Prabhu and
your son
Krsna Dasa Prabhu.
> On Tuesday, May 4, 2004, at 12:47 AM, Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic
> Astrologer) (USA) wrote:
>
> >>>
> >>> Leaf said the situation in Baltimore and other cities reminds
him of
> >>> the
> >>> William Golding novel "Lord of the Flies": "We're seeing the
effects
> >>> of children growing up in a world without adults."
> >
> > These are the direct effects of Feminism in the USA.
> >
>
> Aren't you over simplifying? How about this is a result of unwanted
> progeny, lack of protection of both women and children, consciousness
at
> the time of conception, during pregnancy, and birth.... Both boys,
and
> girls are affected by this "Lord of the Flies" mentality.
> Scientists are now establishing direct links between criminality
and
> birth circumstances, including consciousness. see
> http://birthworks.org/primalhealth/databank.phtml?kw=juvenile+criminality
>
> ys Yasomati dd
_________
> Aren't you over simplifying?
It does sound simplistic doesn't it? But feminism has many aspects to
it and
impacts society in many pernicious ways. To go into all the ways that
feminism negatively impacts modern society would be beyond the scope
of an
email and could well fill a large tome. I will however, just briefly
mention
some of the negative impacts of feminism.
(Here is a tome "War Against the Family" that discusses the different
forces
set on the destruction of the family:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0773726438/qid=1083971331/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-8459808-0916115?v=glance&s=books
)
You mention "consciousness at the time of conception." Is it that 50
or 100
years ago people in the USA were performing the garbhodhana samskara
and
suddenly they have stopped 20-30 years ago yielding so much varnasankara?
No.
So what has changed? Well one notable event was the rise of feminism
in the
60s to present. The radical ideology of feminism is against the natural
order (it is an ideology full of internal inconsistencies). They shame
women
who want to be stay-at-home-moms and urge them to take up careers.
Motherhood is looked down upon, as is the maternal instinct. To balance
their careers with family mothers leave their children in daycare centers
often shortly after having given birth. This disrupts bonding during
early
years, an important factor pointed out in the link you gave us.
In the work place it is estimated that 30-50% of women have affairs
with
co-workers. These are often adulterous affairs adversely affecting
families
leading to divorces. Children are often conceived as well. (Varna sankara?)
With no fault divorces in place in many western countries especially
USA and
Canada women are the main initiators of divorce today often for frivolous
reasons. Because of feminism the laws are fully stacked in favor of
the
women and against the father. The father if he is lucky will see his
kids
every alternate weekend (a 14% dad), he will lose his home and 50%
of his
income, and is basically screwed by the unbalanced legal system. Hence,
seeing many fellow men being severely mistreated by the feminist legal
system many men now do not want to marry and marriage rates in USA
and
Canada have fallen precipitously, same for UK, and other G7 countries
where
feminism is a dominant player.
The following site has many articles regarding the feminist divorce
industry
and what it does to fathers. You will note that many of the articles
are
written by women, thus clearly not all women favor feminism:
http://www.fact.on.ca/news/news0003.htm
Interestingly since it is known that many wives have affairs at the
work
place it is now a routine procedure that the husband insists on DNA
testing
of children to establish paternity during divorce proceedings because
in
20-30% of cases the children are not his. (Could this be varna sankara?)
> lack of protection of both women
It is impossible to protect women if they insist on independence. To
protect
means to control and feminism abhors such "patriarchal" treatment.
More comments below:
>Violence Among Girls Increasing in U.S.
> By WILEY HALL Associated Press Writer
>
> BALTIMORE (AP) - Twelve-year-old Nicole Townes is out of a coma but
still
> struggling to recover after being pummeled and stomped at a birthday
party
> in a beating that was shocking not just because of its savagery,
but
> because it was meted out by other girls.
>
> Authorities say it is symptomatic of a disturbing trend around the
> country: Girls are turning to violence more often and with terrifying
> intensity.
>
<snip>
> Experts say the trend simply reflects society - girls are more violent
> because society in general is more violent and less civil. Some say
that
> the same breakdowns in family, church, community and school that
have long
> been blamed for violence among boys are finally catching up to girls.
>
<Snip>
So what is behind the breakdown of these institutions? Feminism.
>
> "In retrospect, we can see girls falling prey to the same influences
as
> boys," Leaf said. "A decade or so ago, we were worried about the
lack of
> male role models in the home. Today, there is a dearth of effective
female
> role models as the mothers who used to be there are forced back into
the
> job market or get rendered ineffective through abuse of drugs and
> alcohol."
>
> Leaf said the situation in Baltimore and other cities reminds him
of the
> William Golding novel "Lord of the Flies": "We're seeing the effects
of
> children growing up in a world without adults."
Why no male role models? Feminism and the divorce industry.
For more insight into how feminism is a destructive force to civilization
we
quote from James Kurth's seminal essay "The Real Clash:"
(See: http://www.hknet.org.nz/seX-articles.html
for whole essay, it is the
second article so scroll down)
"The greatest movement of the second half of the twentieth century has
been
the movement of women from the home to the office. Out of that movement
there have already arisen political movements that are beginning to
shape
the history of our own time. One is feminism, with its political demands
ranging from equal opportunity to academic deconstructionism to abortion
rights. Feminism has in turn produced a new form of conservatism. These
new
conservatives speak of "family values;" their adversaries call them
"the
religious right."
"The full consequences of this movement from the home to the office
will
only culminate in the first half of the twenty-first century. They
may not
take the form of revolutions, civil wars, and world wars, as did the
earlier
movement of men from the farm to the factory. Feminists have constructed
elaborate theories about how women are far less violent than men. But
there
are other factors at work.
[But considering that we are commenting on an article detailing the
drastic
rise in female violence this will probably end up as yet another feminist
myth. For more females behaving badly see:
http://www.angryharry.com/pggentlergender.htm ]
"The movement from farm to factory in large measure brought about the
replacement of the extended family with the nuclear family. The movement
from home to office is carrying this process one step further. It separates
the parents from the children, as well as enabling the wife to separate
herself from the husband. By splitting the nuclear family, it is helping
to
bring about the replacement of the nuclear family with the non-family
("non-traditional" family, as seen by feminists; no family at all,
as seen
by conservatives). The splitting of the family's nucleus, like the
splitting
of the atom's nucleus, will release an enormous amount of energy (which
feminists see as liberating and conservatives see as simply destructive).
"Some indication of that energy, and its direction, may be gleaned from
the
behavior of the children of split families or single-parent families,
especially where they have reached a critical mass forming more than
half
the population, as in the large cities of America. In such locales,
there is
not much evidence of "Western civilization" or even of civility. For
thousands of years, the city was the source of civilization. In contemporary
America, however, it has become the source of barbarism.
<End quote>
As I said at the beginning though it may sound like a simplistic answer
it
is not. Secular fundamentalism (materialism) in its manifestation as
feminism is very destructive. The tragic irony is that while we members
of
ISKCON should be a force to combat feminism, feminism has instead deeply
infiltrated into the heart of ISKCON because of the betrayal of several
ISKCON leaders including GBC members who embrace feminism outright
and
promote it in ISKCON. They are not even honest feminists because they
are
quick to distance themselves from the "F" word. But as the vernacular
saying
goes: if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck then it must be
a duck.
So though they abjure the feminist rubric they are feminists nonetheless.
To find out more about feminism please visit the following resources.
These
sites have very good links. Now I should say that I do not agree with
everything that is said here, these are done by karmis, however we
follow
the principle that "you can take out gold even from a filthy place."
Some
are better than others; in any case you will find a lot of very useful
information here regarding the topics I have discussed in this text.
Your humble servant
Shyamasundara Dasa
http://www.ShyamasundaraDasa.com
_________
This site is like an anti-feminist portal with a good introductory
essay
plus many organized links and a blog:
http://jkalb.freeshell.org/web/antifeminism.php
http://www.vdare.com/roberts/marriage.htm
http://siddhanta.com/weblogs/culture/ (new blog by a devotee)
Popular culture's war on men
http://www.mcgill.ca/reporter/34/05/misandry/
(Text PAMHO:8172037) ---------------------------------------
------- End of Forwarded Message ------
(Ajitha, Former Naxalite Terrorist 'Exposes' Sex Scandal Becomes Social Activist and Head of NGO. Becomes Champion of Indian Women's Causes; Star Witness in Sex Scandal Reveals It Was All A Setup.)
From Violent Terrorism to Social Terrorism
Prime witness in sex racket blames activist
November 04, 2004 20:46 IST
A prime witness in the sensational ice cream parlour sex racket case in Kerala on Thursday retracted her latest charges of sexual harassment against state Industries Minister P K Kunhalikutty saying an NGO activist "forced her to say everything."
Rejina, who was arrested and produced in a court in Kozhikode in connection with a suicide case, told reporters outside the premises that a social activist, Ajita, who brought the alleged sex scandal to limelight in 1996, "forced me to say everything." http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/nov/04sex.htm
Ajitha, the Activist's View on the Anti-Hindu film 'Fire.'
What is your view on the controversy surrounding Deepa Mehta's film
Fire?
Deepa Mehta has criticised an upper-caste Hindu structure. The opposition to the film from certain fundamentalists is unfortunate. I don't think lesbianism is the issue against which they are agitated. Their ire is against the attack on the Hindu structure. This should be fought tooth and nail. Otherwise it will invite other dangers.
FULL INTERVIEW http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/jan/12keral1.htm
The Naxalite movement, which stormed Kerala in the 1950s and '60s, withered away by the end of the '70s, sending most of the people involved into oblivion. A few, however, have managed to keep their revolutionary ardour alive and work to improve society. One such is Ajitha.
After her release from prison in 1977 after a nine-year incarceration, Ajitha tried to play the role of conventional housewife for a while, marrying and giving birth to a child. Until 1988, when a conference of women's organisations in Bombay stirred her into action again and she founded an organisation called 'Bodhana' (Awareness), based in Kozhikode (Calicut).
At that time, however, the women's movement was in its infancy in Kerala and Bodhana died a premature death after the fourth conference of women's organisations in Calicut. Ajitha then set up another organisation called 'Anweshi' (Searcher) in 1993, which she says has grown out of its infancy and now commands attention.
Anweshi came into the limelight with the exposure of the sensational Calicut sex scandal involving several top politicians and influential public figures. It has goaded the police machinery into action, though the politicians have so far managed to evade the net.
Ajitha, however, is not one to give in easily. After an agitation yielded no result, she moved the Supreme Court to get the politicians, including Indian Union Muslim League leader P K Kunhalikutty, arrested.
Ajitha worked briefly with the Janadipatya Samrakshana Samiti (Committee
to Save Democracy), founded by former Communist Party of India-Marxist
leader K R Gouri 'Amma'. But she soon found that she could not adjust with
the ways of the veteran politician and parted company.