The Conservative Edge

Last week, I read a feature article in Parade magazine about author Dan Brown and his Da Vinci Code series of books. Of course you’ve likely heard about his latest book, The Lost Symbol, which has just been released. The novels make extensive use of symbolism and secret societies that work to achieve power and influence world events.

One idea that was explored in Brown’s first book was that Jesus Christ had a relationship with Mary Magdalene, and subsequently fathered children by her. And, as the generations passed, there arose a secret order of people who could trace some lineage back to Jesus and Mary. A fanciful notion indeed, but one that can be refuted with a single verse from the 53rd chapter of the Book of Isaiah. Furthermore, genealogists generally concur that if Jesus did father any children, His line would have been diluted within a few generations.

I remember Brown being interviewed for a special program aired on the History Channel. The program dealt with secret societies, some of which were mentioned in The Da Vinci Code. None of Brown’s theories could be confirmed. I recall Brown using phrases like “We’re not sure, but…,” “It could be that…,” “There may have been…,” and so on. Maybe that contributed to the success of his book. The more ambiguous and mysterious a story is, the more people want to read it and concoct their own ideas. Many who preach and teach from the Bible do the same thing. Instead of making the Bible easier to understand, a lot of preachers cloak their half-baked theories behind the guise of some “revelation” from God.

But Brown goes further in his latest interview with Parade magazine. He revealed that at one point in his life, he decided that the Bible didn’t make sense, but that science made much more sense. That’s understandable, to a degree. Sometimes things that are seen and proven are easier to deal with than things or ideas that must be accepted by faith. Perhaps Brown, due to his disdain for the Bible, intentionally misconstrued Jesus’ relationship with Mary in order to develop the evolution of the various secret societies.

Where Brown really goes astray is when he discusses his idea of the Sacred Feminine, which is actually his idea of a woman-centered Christianity. He says that he studied older religions, especially paganism, and also the Mother Earth concept. He even asked the questions “What if God were a woman?” and “What if we embraced our feminine side—the more creative, passive, loving side?” Brown contrasted these questions with his observation about the destructiveness of man, and that we spend more time killing each other than on solving problems. He equates this tendency to kill with testosterone.

That idea is absurd. The trouble is, Brown isn’t the only one who claims that testosterone is inherently bad, causing men to kill and destroy. This idea is leading to the emasculation of society, where men and fathers don’t matter anymore, because super women can raise a family alone and save the world at the same time. But men can be creative—just look at the architectural designs of Frank Lloyd Wright, or read the literary works of J.R.R. Tolkein for proof. Testosterone doesn’t automatically make men killers. But I am grateful that there have been men in history who did fight for a cause. This world would be much different if, for example, Charles Martel had not defeated the ancient Islamic warriors at the Battle of Tours. Indeed, I’d like to ask a question—what if George Washington had been a woman? Some men have been pretty great, after all.

Some of you may recall my post about a particular column written by Kathleen Parker. I was moved to write her in response to her piece, as she insinuated that we, as readers, should suddenly be as nice to Barack Obama as we were hateful to George Bush. I merely wanted to remind her that many people learn to be hateful or judgemental from the ideas presented by columnists and writers such as herself.

It appears that another column written by Kathleen Parker is due a response as well. The April 10 edition of the Dayton Daily News featured her commentary, in which she asserts that Obama’s method of world leadership utilizes his ability to listen to others, and shows his humility. There is nothing wrong with being able to listen or being humble. The trouble is, Parker thinks that testosterone is what makes a man arrogant and aggressive, and the lack of testosterone is what makes a man a good listener. This is a great misrepresentation, and a hasty generalization.

Parker completely overlooks the principle of personality types. She is blindly accepting the recent notion that testosterone-powered male leadership is the cause of America’s problems. As I noted before, columnist William Kristof maintains that since Wall Street is dominated by male traders, it was testosterone that drove men to make poor trades, resulting in the market’s nose dive. Parker is making a similar point. She says that, “If George W. Bush was a cowboy, Obama is a group hug.” She also claims, “Unfortunately, most of world history seems to have pivoted on the balance or imbalance of hormones, with testosterone presenting the greatest challenge.”

Nonsense. If that were true, Parker would effectively be ruling out the opportunity for female leadership, since women suffer more hormonal and mood swings than men ever do. It is a gross oversimplification to think that a man’s social skills and decision-making process is controlled solely by his testosterone levels.

What makes an individual a listener or a talker? Why do some people recharge their batteries in solitude, while others get energized in social gatherings? It’s simple. The personality type—or psychological profile, if you will—determines most of a person’s typical behavior. It has been discovered that there are several personality types. We have, for example, the thinking introvert who uses his senses to make logical and reasonable decisions. There are also extroverted people who have keen intuitions, and enjoy the whole conversational and social processes. Furthermore, we all have minor, opposite sides that complement our preferred behaviors. The introvert actually has a warm, social part of his personality that must be exercised from time to time. Conversely, the extrovert must recognize that he must pay attention to his quiet self, and nourish the inner man away from the noisy crowds.

I would encourage anyone to find out more about the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. You will be able to find out your personality type by taking a simple test. The test is simply a set of questions that ask you about your preferred way to handle certain situations, and how you choose to make judgements and decisions. For example, I found that my Type Indicator is expressed as “ISTJ.” This means that I am an introverted person (the “I”) who uses fact and more linear thought (the “S and “T”) to arrive at a clear judgement (the “J”). I’m proud to say that I have the same profile as Abraham Lincoln and Albert Einstein. No kidding.

So, I think Kathleen Parker has it all wrong. If Obama is a good listener, maybe he has introversion as his dominant process. If he is instead an extrovert, then maybe he chose to exercise his complementary side while he was in Europe, using his minor ability to be humble and listen to others. I just hope he can keep his humility with those he actually governs here at home.

I noticed a small news item this weekend that hinted of a big change in the near future. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told some law students in Boston, Massachusetts that there could soon be an opening on the Supreme Court. The nine justices have their picture taken together only when a new member is added. “We haven’t had any of those for some time, but surely we will soon,” she said.

Justice Ginsberg has dealt with some health issues recently. It is unclear whether she meant that she would be retiring, or whether another judge would step down. It was assumed during the presidential election that the new President would likely be appointing one or more new judges to the Supreme Court if any current judges retired. But this statement by Justice Ginsberg indicates that there may be a new person on the Supreme Court sooner than anticipated.

Indeed, there have been many things happening at an accelerated rate since January. I have noticed changes in attitudes, editorials, and news reporting here in Ohio. Let me briefly give a few examples. First, our newspaper has ran several articles calling for increased numbers of women in Ohio politics, as well as greater numbers of women for high school girls’ basketball coaching positions. Our paper has been featuring liberal and feminist columnists from The New York Times almost exclusively. One of those writers made the absurd assertion that men were to blame for the stock market crash; it had something to do with high levels of testosterone. (See my post about “Feminism and Nadya Sulemon.”) Our paper also featured the results—on the front page, mind you—of a new poll that revealed a growing number of Americans who no longer claim association with a particular religion. The editors must have been giddy to imply that Americans are becoming less religious. If you look closely, you will notice similar changes in your community.

Let me go further in stating that I believe there is a strong undercurrent of power that is now working in America. It is the effort of a beast-like power and authority that wants to strip the remaining freedoms we have from American society. We are seeing things take shape: the building of a community-based urban organization that will implement and enforce social programs; the illegal assumption of the administration of the 2010 Census by the White House; the obvious attempt to discredit conservative media programs and target them for future termination; the growing media consensus that America is no more a religious country; and soon, perhaps, a remake of the Supreme Court that will result in liberal and socialist interpretations of American laws, and the Constitution itself.

In the final weeks of the Bush administration, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 majority that Americans did indeed have the right to own guns for self-defense. The Obama administration has already reversed many of Bush’s policies, such as the stem cell research issue. But if Obama and the liberals can get the Supreme Court shifted to the left, they will surely review the court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment. And if the court decides that Americans can’t have a legal means of self-defense, then the government will have free reign to do what it wants. The two things that any dictatorial power wants to take away from the people are wealth and self defense. The Obama administration is already working on stripping away the right to personal wealth. If they take away our right to bear arms, they could then do as they please.

Can’t you feel the power growing? It’s a dark and evil kind of power. It reminds me of the Star Wars movies, where Senator Palpatine slowly and surely sets himself up for the ultimate power grab. I just hope that the American people wise up before it’s too late.

I want to begin with this disclaimer: I know there are many loving wives and mothers who want to establish and protect a traditional two-parent household. I believe that women should be paid fairly for the work they do outside the home, and recognized for their work in the home. The Biblical proverb holds true, that a virtuous woman has a value that far exceeds that of rubies. I certainly agree.

Somewhere along the line, however, our values have changed. Single moms are held in highest esteem, while single dads are ignored. High school girls show off their status by getting pregnant. Court systems overwhelmingly give child custody to women; many fathers have limited visitation rights, with some only being able to visit by webcam. The recent Valentine’s Day was almost entirely devoted to pleasing women. In fact, I couldn’t find one advertisement in my local paper that suggested any kind of gift ideas for men.

Look at television. Daytime talk show programming is dominated by “The View”, “Oprah” and “Ellen.” Prime time shows include “The Closer” and “Saving Grace.” Lots of sitcoms feature an attractive woman who has to continually chastise an inept, bumbling, unattractive husband. White males, especially, are portrayed as smart or stylish only if they are gay as well. Movies are just as offensive.

Just a few days ago, I read a column by Nicholas Kristof, who writes for The New York Times. He proposes that the Wall Street meltdown was caused by too much testosterone. Apparently, some studies have suggested that high levels of testosterone cause men to make risky decisions. As a result, men who made risky trades saw those trades go sour, which caused chain reactions in the marketplace, resulting in the loss of millions of dollars for investors. Kristof says, “Wall Street is one of the most male-dominated bastions in the business world…there’s evidence that the result is second-rate decision making.” I wonder if Mr. Kristof thought there should be fewer men on the trading floor when his 401k was making money. It’s clear that he doesn’t realize how the market works, and equally clear that he is jumping on the feminist bandwagon.

If we want to find an example of risk-taking, we should consider the behavior of Nadya Sulemon, the mother of the octuplets born in California. She is a perfect example of feminism gone crazy. She has obviously absorbed the feminist idea that she can do whatever she wants with her body. The feminists and liberals insist that a woman has the right to choose an abortion, but Sulemon has taken that view to the opposite extreme. She claimed the right to have as many babies as she wanted. Now, there are eight little people in a California hospital fighting for their lives. Doctors fear that some of them may develop permanent disabilities. Their medical costs are expected to reach into hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Testosterone wasn’t involved in the risk taken by Nadya Sulemon. I’d love to take Nicholas Kristof, Hillary Clinton, Rosie O’Donnell and a host of other feminists on a tour of the maternity ward where those octuplets are being cared for. I would remind them that it’s one thing to lose a million dollars, but another thing to put a child’s life on the line. This is what feminism and liberalism has done to America’s families and children. You can’t put a price on a child’s life.