Oh My Word!

It’s Only Natural

“Alfredo,” I call over the new gardener, “this here. Is it a weed?”

The backyard exchange with Alfredo wasn’t just a lesson in gardening, but an unearthing of a truth about the fundamental makeup of Creation, colloquially referred to as “nature”. Nature is the system we credit for the day-to-day running of the world, including the celestial bodies of space. To say, nature is an all-encompassing term for the factory setting of the universe, the innate coding entwined throughout, the very essence that makes each entity what it is. Although nature can be tamed or trained, trammeled or trampled to behave in ways incongruous to its default state, a lack of constant force or compulsory system override results in reverting back to factory settings. “Nature” or “natural” are the ultimate descriptors, the words used when logic runs out of explanations, when discovery reaches the end.

The nature of a root compels it to burrow deep and intermingle with the soil to anchor that which grows upward. Knobby or gnarled, thick or thin, a root left to its own devices will continually reach outward. Roots shore up the base of a plant, though their oft seen, their efforts only evident in what grows above. Though roots are generally regarded in their role of literally grounding a plant, roots are just as much a part of the plant as the side that grows in shapes and colors very different from its base. The growing tip of the plant is just the other side of the root, unsurprising as it mirrors its nature to always reach outward.

Though far less pleasing to the eye, and certainly never glorified in tabletop vases, without roots, stems and leaves and fruits and buds are just a wither away from mulch. However, without the stem and leaves and fruits and buds, the root is just an anchor without purpose. Roots are first to form and last to leave, a clue of nature as to why they’re even there. As if something essential to growth is connected to the health and strength of the roots. As if the very nature of roots is to ensure the plant grows.

Roots are more than just a base, as they’re map of the plant as well. Where did this flower come from? Trace its roots. Why isn’t this plant budding? Check its roots. Will the leaves grow back? Depends on its roots.

This truth is most evident when it comes to weeds, which contain roots too quick and eager to promulgate to know they shouldn’t anymore. And really, what’s a weed, but a fast-growing, dominating plant we’ve decided not to keep? Characteristic to a weed is its resiliency in the face of our attempts to uproot it. Weeds return again and again, unless wholly ripped out with their roots. Even then, the soil must be partially overturned to ensure the job’s thoroughly done, or they’ll be back and expanding just as quickly as before. Weeds can do little else, as such behavior was written into their very coding from the start of Creation.

Why so much emphasis on growth? Growth is the greatest indicator of life, the defining line between existing and being alive. Unhealthy growth is fragile, twisted, wilted, and will not endure. Healthy growth is vivid, bold, and vivacious, a constant expansion and reaching to be more.

What sprouts above soil is more fragrant, flavorful, colorful than the roots it stems from. Yet, not a single leaf, stem, branch, blossom can survive without the plain roots that start it all and support the plant beneath. Cut a branch, leaf, or flower and see how long it lasts away from its roots. Cut away a branch, leaf, flower and see how long before another grows in its place.

“Alfredo, why aren’t these trees bearing more fruit this year?”

It’s not enough for roots to burrow, to stimulate the power of growth in the ground, to thrive where soil is rich and nourishing, but to continue to do so even after a tree is grown. It’s not enough to pick and trim, to focus on what’s above, to be satisfied with how things appear, for what’s beneath still requires care.

At their best, roots present the possibility of something sweet and beautiful for others. It’s evident in the blossoms that appear before the fruit forms, a pretty signal that the best is yet to come. Because even a plant has the potential to reach the pinnacle of life through giving part of itself to others. And part of itself is given as proven by the fact that the seeds of the fruit, or even a carefully cut limb of a tree, can be planted in the soil to grow roots of its own with proper care.

However, roots must be watered deep, so they will not only grow, not only provide shade, but also give sustenance. To say, the best comes forth when the roots are strongly anchored, nurtured, and fully immersed. When such is the case, the tree not only provides, but also endures the changes that come in the natural cycle of a year. Leaves shed and blossoms fall, trees become skeletal, yet, as long as healthy roots hunker deep, the tree will flourish again.

Man is compared to a tree in a number of ways, and the parallels reach from the strength of his base to the goodness he bears. The health of a tree, the health of a man is contingent on several basic factors: (sun)light, (nutritious) ground, (plentiful) water, and strong roots. With all these in place, a man, like a tree, may flourish and grow, and, like a tree, the first three factors are null without the last. Even when the first three are sparse to lacking awhile, so long as the last manages to be resilient and strong, man, like a tree, will endure and grow again. Even if it takes awhile to become evident aboveground.

As a tree, man can grow rich in color and reach, with works that spread like a canopy. Such a man may be beautiful to behold, but the man is contained to himself until blossoms appear. A man who gives generously to others is not only not detracting from himself, but representing the best of what man can be. As a tree, a man broken or torn is possibly only showing superficial damage. As long as his roots are strong and deep, as long as there is hope that the roots can be nurtured back to health, he can still regrow. The new tree that rises may not be exactly the same as before, it may not even be somewhere else along the roots, but the same roots anchor it from below. Leaves color and fall, blossoms open and fruits rot, aboveground cycles through a range of changes, but belowground is robust and resilient, for roots are man’s true anchor to life and nourishment. Whatever a tree, or body, may endure, it’s only a matter of time before nature compels the roots to grow upward again.

When his roots are strong, man can prevail through changes wrought by the nature of living, even if it means shedding leaves for a time, or blossoms falling before fruits have a chance to form. Man can weather fierce winds and mighty storms, times of cutting back, times of appearing a skeleton of his potential, because with sturdy roots, with strong values, appreciation of the past, and a true moral foundation, man will not only endure, but flourish again. So long as the roots are not left to rot or wither, they are the foundation for man to rise again.

“Alfredo, what do we do with this little tree?”

Such is the nature of healthy roots, and no outside force can change it through force or will. Only a fundamental change in the very nature of the roots can stunt their growth, and then the roots aren’t really what they were meant to be, are they?

The only way to prevent growth is to yank out the roots completely, to destroy them past the point of functioning. For as long as they cling to the earth, they will strive to fulfill their nature. What if I change my mind? What if I want to replant it? What if I want to transplant it?

That depends on the soil. That depends on the care. Most of all, that depends on the durability of the roots.

For nothing in life is infallible, but the nature of healthy roots to grow. So, even a young tree can one day grow from ancient roots burrowed deep.

On Other, Other Life Forms

Let’s get nitpicky. Also, unapologetically religious in nature, though the points stand on merit regardless. This isn’t a screed against space travel, for looking up, even beyond, is worthwhile. Rather, the aim is to properly frame our search through understanding what exactly is “other life” and where exactly is “out there.”

The terminology “other life” or “other life forms” is presumptuous in nature, as it can only be asked within a vacuum which denies the existence of myriad life forms on planet Earth. Not only are there other life forms aplenty, but the range, capacities, colors, designs, etc., etc., etc., are so diverse and so far-ranging that not a single planet in our system comes anywhere close to dreaming of similar potential. Even more, every part, planet, and particle in space lends to the preservation of life on earth in some way. Almost as if it’s all here for us.

Per Torahic categorization, there are four general kingdoms in creation. The so-called lowest is “silent”, for the predominately inanimate basics of existence, water, soil, rocks, minerals, and the like that comprise it have a lifeforce so quiet it’s barely noted. Thus, we view creations in this kingdom as existing but not exactly alive. The next kingdom is “growth”, essentially plants and all vegetation where growth is usually visible and indicative of the lifeforce within. Third is the “life” kingdom, which includes all creatures from insects to birds to marine life to mammals, as each overtly display an animating lifeforce not only through growth, but also some measure of mobility, intelligence, communication, or similar. The final kingdom is “speaker,” aka man, the only kingdom made in G-d’s image. The lifeforce within man is undeniable, not only for all previously specified reasons, but also because, unlike the other kingdoms, man goes beyond a measure of intellect in his ability to communicate ideas, teachings, morality, ethics, and abstractions to others, mainly through speech. For this display of what’s deemed higher intelligence, man is considered the highest of the four kingdoms.

With that set, our quest for other life begins with understanding why these four kingdoms aren’t life forms enough.

The “silent” kingdom covers just about everything that isn’t obviously alive. For example, the four building blocks of creation, earth, water, air, and fire. The varying parts of our atmosphere which cause the sky to blaze at sunrise and sunset. The very earth from which all things grow, as well as rolling hills, fertile valleys, and majestic mountain ranges. Gentle waters which calm the soul and raging waves which quicken the heart. Rocks which stand against the fiercest winds, but also caves and crevices sculpted over time. Geodes, crystals, stalactites, stalagmites, in shapes and colors man cannot always describe or name. All are “silent” in their steadfast, unchanging existence.

In the context of our quest, any discovery within the “silent” kingdom doesn’t qualify as an other life, not only because some forms within this kingdom have already been discovered in space, but also because the categories within this kingdom literally don’t display signs of life. Never mind that the “silent” kingdom sustains every kingdom above it, revealing it may not be quite so lowly a kingdom as supposed. Either way, our search mandates we find a form that’s obviously alive.

Ergo, despite the wonders and marvels of the “silent” kingdom, our exploration continues.

Does the “growth” kingdom qualify as another life form in our search? Do we seek proof of some sort of life beyond moss and ferns and fungi and flowers and vegetables and fruit and trees? Well, yes and no. We’d be thrilled to find any kind of vegetation, as long as it’s not here. In other words, we want what we have here, just somewhere else. Then again, we don’t have to find an exact replica of Earth, only something that’s entirely like it but on a different planet.

Plants show life in their visible growth, and are incredible dynamic doing so. Plants can run rampant and wild, plants can be domesticated and tamed; some thrive in the sun and some only open to the moon. They have no eyes, they have no ears, yet they know the difference between night and day, between summer, winter, spring, and fall. They know when it’s time to blossom, to shed, to regrow.

Even more, there are plants which heal, plants which harm, plants which flavor, plants which sustain, plants which dominate, plants upholding entire ecosystems, and plants which light the way with their glow. Some plants are beautiful, some terrifying, some cooling, some fragile, some stronger than blades. Some plants tower, some are unnoticed, some provide food, shelter, clothes. The “growth” kingdom climbs and clings, flowers, buds, twists, and bends. The above doesn’t even include the incredible array of shape and color, which continually startle and dazzle the eye of the beholder.

All this is only part of what we know about the “growth” kingdom, for though we live in a highly advanced world, we have yet to discover the full extent of just how many creations call this planet home.

As with the “silent” kingdom which sustains it, the “growth” kingdom provides for the kingdoms above it. But while plants are really, really nice and cool and intricate and beautiful and, and, and, we’re still set on looking for other life elsewhere. We’d be thrilled to find any of the “growth” kingdom on another planet, even though, as mentioned, it sure seems everything out there is pretty well-suited to the needs of here, but never mind that. We’re rather set on finding something new, something obviously alive out there.

Onward to the next kingdom.

The range of creatures packed into the “life” kingdom is so immense, we cannot in good faith claim to know its entire. The vast, not yet completely discovered “life” kingdom spreads an umbrella wide enough to include every non-human animate life form between plants and people, including insects, marine life, fowl, rodents, reptiles, beasts, cattle, and all the rest of terrestrial creatures. Every country, every state, every ecosystem has a unique web of animals, insects, marine life thriving in its environs.

Scientists are perpetually “astonished” at the new kinds and species discovered around the globe, as if this world of ours could ever fully be known. And even where we think to have catalogued it all, creatures of the “life” kingdom continue to surprise with their levels of intelligence, adaptability, and significant role on this planet we call home. Just spare a minute to consider the animals and plants that flourish in all the places humans can’t.

Only looking at the life contained in the form of insects is a dizzying proposition, for the thousands and thousands we actually know about which fly, walk, scurry, and roll. Insects that regenerate, insects that burrow in the dark and damp and soil, insects that color gardens and make honey and with strength to carry many times their own weight. Insects hum and call and chirp and buzz, spin silk that can be worn or webs that withstand rainstorms. Insects are harmful and harmless, brainless and multi-eyed, soft, hard, airborne, and pliable. We oft overlook the many we come across each day, but would speak of little else were even one to be found out there.

Though we have yet to discover every insect dwelling on earth, not one is the other life we hope to find.

A moment away from land to plunge into the sea, a world so vast, vivid, and varied, we haven’t nearly plumbed its depths. Beneath the waves, beyond our grasp creatures hide in the sand and glow in the deep no human can withstand. There are creatures so tiny they can hardly be seen, yet enough can feed creatures which cannot be missed. Leaping, breaching, scuttling, wriggling, swimming, floating, preying, and flying, in schools and pods and herds and shoals and consortiums and mobs and runs and swarms. Other kingdoms are also found in the sea, sand and coral, kelp, rocks, salt, and shells. Therein a whole world sustains itself, and the kingdoms above it, as well.

And yet, though fathoms remain beyond our current ability to explore, relatively far out of reach as the stars, none are the other life we seek. Finding some collection of water that sustains life would shake the world we know, but only if we find it somewhere that isn’t here.

Amphibians are forms of both water and land, the slimy, shiny bridge between both sorts of life. As with the others of the “life” kingdom, amphibians aren’t known in their entire, and the range of what they can do is as far ranging as the category itself. They also have their own unique twists to the norm, as bright colors aren’t signs of aesthetics but warnings of danger. Right alongside them are reptiles, including those that sting, bite, and choke. Ones that can swallow prey significantly larger than they, and ones which instantly camouflage to hide in plain sight.

What about the life forms of air? Birds don’t fit a single mold, and the multitudes well exceed human count. Birds that fly and birds that can’t, birds with vision and hearing much keener than man, birds that build nests without hands. Birds sing and twitter, hum, caw, and shriek. Birds dive and hunt, scavenge and hover. Birds sense shifts in the weather, and birds soar on the air. They’re cheery and territorial, colorful as flowers and dark as moonless nights. They’re predators and prey, oversized and tiny, imitators and instigators. But birds are also something we know in some form, and what we insist on is something we haven’t seen before, or at least, something we haven’t yet seen out there.

And so, the search for other life continues.

Perhaps the rest of the “life” kingdom will qualify? The innumerable animals which roam the deserts, plains, jungles, mountains, and forests. From rodents to beasts, from domesticated to wild, there is hardly a color or kind without peer in the “life” kingdom.

Animals hunter and hunted, solitary and social, protective and loyal and vicious and tame. Animals that observe, animals that learn, animals that comfort or guide or guard. Animals that defy the fiercest elements of their topography, and animals that adapt or blend in with impressive speed. Animals with a range of communication and expression, animals soft and hard and furry and rough. Animals weighing tremendous amounts, and animals that can shoulder the burden of even more. Animals endure the harshest habitats and conditions, animals hibernate for months or only wake with the night. Animals symbiotic, parasitic, or with an innate sense for assisting others.

Between claw, talon, teeth, and paw, the “life” kingdom is as wild and varied on land as beneath the sea. Yet, as we seek other life, we brush all this aside, for, when we’re certain there’s so much more to discover and know, why continue to look where we always have?

What sort of life forms do we then seek, if not any of the myriad already upon this earth? Much as we’d delight in finding the same creatures on a different planet, we’re adamant about finding something we haven’t seen before to definitively conclude other life exists. Consider, finding life forms which display some growth, with or without the sun, would be enough to fund space travel for years to come, but growth isn’t really enough to satisfy us.

When we seek other life forms, we don’t want something that grows, or even something that moves with overt signs of life, we want something that communicates, especially in ways we don’t. Putting aside every other kingdom and category of creation, including all their unique methods of interaction, we’ll declare victory in our search for other life if we discover a species that knows how to communicate with what, sound? Gesture? Semaphore? Dashes and dots?

No, no, we want something that communicates as a sign of and sharing of its intelligence. Again, putting aside all other kingdoms we know at present, their various modes of communication and ranges of intellect, our search will be a success only if we find different intellects that communicate with ours. About what’s relevant to us? About things that confirm our projections of what life and intellect should be? Assuming this isn’t a reference to learning about new languages and cultures, what do we really seek?

From all kingdoms of creation, perhaps the closest to “speaker” would be spiritual beings, namely angels. And not the cherubic children or glowing berobed humans with wings and halos, but fiery messengers of the Divine. Then again, unless they take a human form, angels, while other life, are not tangible enough to be discovered, so there’s little point in centering them in our quest.

The highest kingdom of creation is “speaker,” which is only and entirely mankind. Not because we are the only creations with verbal articulation, but because, as the only kingdom made in G-d’s image, we are the only kingdom which seeks and learns and communicates about that which is greater than ourselves. The rest of the kingdoms do not have a mind to challenge their Creator nor the nature He embedded within them. Only “speaker” has the choice to live up to his potential in creation, to fight or embrace his inherent design, to imagine and debate and give coherency to the abstract.

Essentially, we’re looking for other life forms, but not the other life we already know of heaven and earth. This other life may be almost identical to the life we know, or it may be something entirely different than the thousands and thousands we’ve already found. And perhaps the inability to know it all is what’s truly given us hope that there’s more out there waiting to be discovered. The emphasis is less on what we seek than on where we want to find it.

Considering what’s already been mentioned about the categories of creation, the question is why?

Is this exploration driven by a simple desire to know and understand and bear witness to the expansive capacity of the Creator? Or is there dissatisfaction with what we have here, and a desire to have different and more threading through it all? If the latter, nothing found will ever be enough, if the former, at least the premise isn’t so far afield.

So, we’re looking for advanced life forms, yet the question compounds, more advanced than us?

We’ve seen clearly that on this planet there are no other creatures quite like man. Creatures who for all their shapes, sizes, and colors don’t include the full package of abilities to communicate, procreate, perambulate, and debate. Other kingdoms have no struggles with moral frameworks around which to understand the purpose of existence. If anything, they already know why they’re here, so only man grapples with the existential side effects that come with the dissonance of a spiritual soul animating a physical body.

Though man is sustained by every kingdom below him, he also has the capacity to be ruler over them, in the sense that if every part of this vast creation somehow leads back to him, his sustenance, his shelter, his clothing, his appreciation, then it follows all was created to be of service to him. In return, he must use all the other kingdoms enable in a way that will honor them.

Think of what man has achieved. Think of what more he could. Think of the wonders that man has wrought from the kingdoms of this earth, and then reexamine our search for other life. What do we expect to find to surpass what we already have here? What else but perhaps a different conglomeration of the capacities we already know?

Do we cease exploring? Do we ground all ships to the stars?

Such questions can only be answered correctly by those with a clear understanding of what we’re doing here, as space exploration literally can’t occur in a moral vacuum. SomeOne put us here, and He did so for a reason.

That Earth is the only planet to sustain such a teeming array of life isn’t a fluke of smashing atoms but a signal of deliberate intent. Inanimate life exists on other planets, but an intricate ecosystem that sustains life doesn’t. What does it tell you when every entity we know of, both celestial and terrestrial, somehow serves life on earth? It’s almost as if we’re the point of it all. Which affects the search for other life, because it can only be sought in recognition that everything comes back to our purpose here. The purpose SomeOne launched all creation for, and that is to make Him known in this world.

If these other life forms are out there, what for? Is it only so the Creator can show off what else He can do? After everything He created here, does He really need to? Why do we assume this supposed other life is more advanced if we’re the central point of all creation? Why do suspect they’re advanced, when every celestial entity and kingdom of creation is here to sustain us? Why do we think they can surpass us, when we are the ones made to fulfill the purpose of creation?

It’s the “speaker’s” job to make the Creator known in this world. Man is the only creation that can. Everything and anything else only exist, or is known to exist, to assist man in his sacred task. Do we even know what we have? Do we appreciate what’s known, and what can’t be known? That said, now we can explore.

“Whatever the Holy Blessed One created in His world, he created only for His glory.”

A Case Against Blasphemy

Before formulating arguments about why blasphemy laws never work, before outlining the decisive points in favor of unfettered free speech, before launching into lectures about censorship and cancelations, separation of church and state, rights and freedoms and liberties, hypocrisy and hysteria, gather those excellent points, pack them tight, then set them aside. Before even reaching the decision of best, most practical enforceability, truth and necessity must first be asserted.

A strong case has been made that the Founding Fathers of the United States never considered blasphemy laws in writing the First Amendment protections of free speech, because it wouldn’t have entered their minds to do so. No matter how religious someone was at home, religion held strong enough sway over the culture that the government needn’t interfere where society would regulate behavior on its own. The blatant disregard for the Divine rampant in society today was unimagine then, not least because reverent regard for the Divine is vital to upholding the world they made.

So, while it may not have been constitutionally illegal to blaspheme, no one who wanted to remain in good standing and company would consider such a derisive act in public. And sometimes that’s all it takes to ensure the desired outcome, as historical precedent has reliably shown.

Eventually, blasphemy laws were passed and enforced on a governmental level, and there’s plenty of places that may still officially have them on the books. We’ve moved so far as a society that we no longer pay attention to those that remain, so they linger unenforced. We’ve more pressing issues to deal with these days, or so we’re told.

Yet, what if our more pressing issues can be traced in large part to our laxity in regard to blasphemy? And, if not the language itself, then to the same cause at the root of both acceptance of blasphemy and the rest of the societal ills at present. For one thing is certain, neither government nor standing nor company is enough anymore to entirely enforce word choice in most circles. The only circumstance where such efficiency is ever seen is in regard to social constructs around the imagined oppressed of the day. This perversion is an accurate reflection of what results when public displays of religious irreverence are no longer considered blasphemous, let alone tolerated, ignored, celebrated. The result of this is that unassailable protection of natural rights is intentionally subverted and directed toward malicious ends.

Free speech absolutists are quick to counter with the case of satirist George Carlin, who was arrested in Wisconsin in the seventies for a routine that was ultimately deemed “indecent.” For many, his case is absolute proof against blasphemy laws, made all the easier if they actually agree with what he said, let alone laugh at it. The laughter part is important, for comedy and satire have proven time and again to be among the greatest weapons the populace can wield against the government. Only a free people can mock their ruling class without fear of repercussion, and the persecution of comedians, or any well-liked entertainer, isn’t usually well-accepted in a liberty-minded society.

Except, blasphemy isn’t aimed at the current government, but at G-d, Who exists beyond any mortal systems. Moreover, blasphemy isn’t the same as comedy, as even the religious and the wider umbrella of believers have jokes that include G-d. The difference is the same as jokes from family members and from outsiders, namely the affection underlying the tone of the former. For non-believers or so-proclaimed atheists, jokes about G-d are usually a euphemism for mockery, belied by the sour notes of jadedness, bitterness, disdain, even anger they can’t entirely hide beneath the laughter. Such comedy does not stem from a desire to share amusement but an excuse to belittle what they don’t truly know or understand or simply find agreement in their contempt. Thus it falls under the blasphemous, not least because the result is not to free speech but to lessen the image of G-d in the eyes of the beholder.

Blasphemous displays are not “fresh” or “edgy” or “freeing” or “empowering” or “complex” or any other manner of progressive mangled label breathlessly used to validate the degenerate. As the law against blasphemy has existed thousands of years, so has the cause for it. To say, the law wasn’t made as a preemptive forewarning of a possible future, rather, the law was established for past, present, and future, because some things about the human condition don’t change, but are merely repackaged over time.

The law against blasphemy first appears in its most definitive form as the third of the Ten Commandments given by G-d to Moses on Mount Sinai. Anyone who believes in the advantages of displaying the Ten Commandments and the necessity of teaching their precepts to all ages should immediately realize that the Third Commandment is not to be overlooked or modified when confronted with manmade free speech protections.

The argument against codifying the Third Commandment into secular law, beyond those of absolute free speech and separation of law from religious influence, is the inevitable conclusion that no other person is harmed in the act of blasphemy. It’s just speech after all, and my right to say it doesn’t negate your right to not listen. Or so we’re told.

Except, does blasphemy really harm no one when it chisels away at the very foundation of our exalted system of governance?

As the point has been made before, rights cannot be separated from their Source, which, as stated by the very same Founders who sought to protect free speech, come from capital C Creator. Thus, a right isn’t a right unless the Creator with a capital C wills it to be. The same Creator who gave Moses the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai, the third of which clearly prohibits blasphemy as “taking the L-rd’s name in vain.” This includes cursing, disrespecting, and all other manner of language or act intended to demean or discredit Him. Among the numerous, natural rights given to man, Creator with a capital C did not grant a right to blaspheme Him. Quite the opposite.

Is G-d so fragile that a few choice words could hurt Him? Does it take one scribble of the pen to fell His Mighty name? No, this is for us. Blasphemy isn’t simply about words or actions, but what they represent and intend, in addition to the conditions which allow them to prosper. As clearly outlined in our founding documents, freedoms and liberties are natural to man, but only because the Creator made it so. In other words, as has been said by many of our founders, belief in that gift from the Creator is necessary to protect all that gift entails from the predations of government and malicious or negligent actors.

Chipping away at that belief undermines the entire system these freedoms are predicated upon, so blasphemy isn’t merely the case of someone saying something somewhere sometime. Rather, blasphemy, its intent and allowance, is an attempt to undo the foundations of our very freedoms by disconnecting them from their Source through belittlement and disdain. History has shown plainly that irreverence is a vital tool in toppling the currently established, for where something is no longer deemed sacred, neither is its protection. If someone can freely treat Creator with a capital C in such manner, then what compels anyone to protect and value what He has given us? What preserves its natural sanctity if it’s been reduced through negligence and degradation?

Blatant blasphemies aside, there are subtler ones which have settled comfortably into common usage that go largely unremarked upon. Ones so common, people would balk or jeer to hear them labeled blasphemous, but we should be attuned to weeding them out on a personal level nonetheless. For example, the depiction of angels as anything from models to literary love interests to cherubic cupids, anything other than the Divine messengers they are, borders on the blasphemous for its mundaning of the spiritual. Even though often at surface, anyone speaking of regarding someone inspirational or aspirational as an “idol” is another example of normalizing terminology that should cause any truly G-d fearing to recoil.

And though many don’t want to hear it, the idea that anyone could partake of this world without acknowledging the Maker and Owner is a different kind of blasphemy. As with the lie of “My body, my choice,” humanity has cemented the idea into common conscience that this world is ours simply because we were born into it. Does that logic extend to any other sort of ownership? Even the claim that conquering invokes ownership is based upon the takers taking what was already taken. Do humans get to invoke squatters’ rights over Earth when we had no part in our arrival upon in?

The truth is the world was given to man, but that fact only stands when recognizing it’s not only a part but the middle of the sentence. Consider, Earth was given to man by whom and for what? Answering that question not only reveals the truth underlying our entire existence, but also explains why any attempt to obscure, misconstrue, or undermine it approaches the blasphemous.

You may vigorously deny such a drastic view, you may expound upon scientific theories that validate your perspective that reality is otherwise, but in honest, unadorned truth, can you really claim to be the only one foolhardy enough to stubbornly remain an atheist in a foxhole? In moments of extreme relief, crisis, suffering, gratitude do you not invoke His name, even unwittingly? Do you invoke nothing? Does that really feel right? If yes, then where do your natural rights come from? Should we give credit to our fondly mislabeled Pluto? If rights are manmade, then they are not natural, for not all men agree on what those rights are or should be.

How far we must go to preserve the sanctity of our reverence for the Creator is a topic for the next part of the debate, and a worthy one to reach as well, but the principle must be, along with a desire to adhere to it, that we cannot profess to value one thing while also allowing for the undermining of what gives that value any status or meaning at all. We cannot despair at those who despair of the world around them, while simultaneously promoting the cause for its ruin and calling it a right.

Clear the mind of all other thoughts for a moment and consider a world where blasphemy is once again enforced, even only on a societal level. What first disappears in this scenario? Anything we need for the furtherance of our civilization or merely things done and words said just for the sake of proving they can be? Think then on what else changes when the Creator is respected as He should be. How many issues of the day, how many policies are affected where at least an outward respect for the Creator is mandated by the populace? What restraints reappear around the intrusions and excesses of government? How does political rhetoric change when blasphemy is no longer tolerated for the civilization destroying force that it truly is? How do the streets, celebrations, art, literature, music, clothing, et al, look when blasphemy is no longer permitted? Are we truly worse us off, knowing as we do now, where our leniency has led?

Taking all these points to their final conclusion results in the ultimate, undeniable truth that it is absolutely, fundamentally impossible to be pro-human and also anti-G-d, let alone blasphemous or derisive of Him. Any other claim can be reasoned to a dead end. Human life is only significant because He has deemed it to be. To say, our belief in the sanctity of human life should be reflected in how we treat life’s Creator. Anything that may infringe upon that, anything which may chip, chisel, or crack that sanctity is, in a word, blasphemous. Thus, blasphemy is not about mere rights and speech but the first line of attack to the foundation upholding civilization.

Instead of wasting time on pushing the boundary of disregard as far as it will go, better to make a concerted effort to focus on that which will strengthen society and better life instead, starting with praise and gratitude to the Creator, Who gave us this life and the rights that allows us to live it best.

We’ve Left Little to Imagination

Cloudless deep blue sky. Green coated hillsides. Calm ocean glimmering under a warm sun. A good day for a hike.

Others were of similar mind, parents and kids and friends relishing the beauty and the day. Some wore t-shirts and shorts, some leggings, tank tops, pants. And some wore colored spandex so form-fitting even bills would reveal their value. Passing one such woman markedly sculpted by spandex, the thoroughness of the impact of the last several decades coalesced into a singular understanding.

Though we gradually desensitize to the ever-infringed upon demarcation of now archaically-perceived propriety, the bright sun and clear ocean air showed it plainly. In our current age of progressive enlightenment, some decision was made that everything must be stated, everything must be qualified, everything must be shown. As necklines plunged and hemlines shortened, modesty and privacy became so unknown they currently border on the fantastical. Is it any wonder then that true creativity is feeling more and more uncommon, considering we’ve left little to imagination?

Imagine a gift, artfully wrapped.

Imagine a gift, artfully wrapped.

Imagine a gift, wrapped only with a bow.

Imagine man throughout the ages in different states of wrapping. Then think of how much has changed once we stopped closing doors, stopped covering up, stopped being subtle. In just another push to progress ourselves right into eternal, unmitigated happiness and freedom, we became more and more explicit in language, in dress, in art, in literature, in entertainment. The easier everything became to access, for any number of excuses from “education” to “we’re all adults here,” the less need there was for our minds to conjure what we couldn’t see. How much is there to imagine when everything is right in our line of sight?

The result of such changes is most often noticed in the various possibilities of creative output. One dominant tendency is to imitate or rework what’s already been created, repackaging instead of reinventing. While that could lead to some unique creative endeavors, it’s difficult to call the same rose by another name just to make it appear as something else.

The other inclination most often revealed is that when someone wants to garner notice, they no longer do so through an admirable, “Here’s what I’ve done,” but something more akin to, “Look at this body I have! Like this and this and this!” Such is the machination of a disingenuous illusionist, who seeks to distract from what’s real with shock and morbid fascination rather than true wonderment and value. It fixes the viewer’s eyes on something he can’t bring himself to look away from, so he doesn’t realize he’s not seeing anything interesting, intriguing, or intelligent at all.

These approaches lead to underdeveloped creativity and people unable to bring life to empty spaces. Both hamper imagination, and thereby human innovation and achievement. Imagination is defined by its ability to range, to explore unmoored and unfettered, to envision what else could be. When everything is known, and in such sharp focus too, what is left for the mind to wonder about? What motivates creative endeavors, when the eye is so overstimulated by continual, concentrated bombardments of noise over substance?

At times there is an advantage to knowing what a thing is, to spending hours, months, years exploring its entirety, usually in regard to what matters most in life, faith, meaning, relationships, and the like. For these, and similar, solidity is more important than imagining, so the more focus on what we have, the stronger, more resilient it can become. Moreover, this is specifically possible for things that truly matter because they have already been deemed worthy and good by the Infinite. Further exploration doesn’t just uncover more, but also how much more could be because it intrinsically contains that quality. These are things which strengthen and endure as long as the discovery never bottoms out, the knowing never plateaus, the search for more uncovers greater depths.

Thus, the concern for imagination isn’t about individual potential, but society overall, the majority of designers, writers, filmmakers, entertainers, the ones who unwrapped the box bit by bit, unraveling the mystery, the compulsion to know more. As they unwrapped each layer in attempts to outdo the level of before, it wasn’t just the unknown laid bare, but imagination itself. They tried to hide the undesired effects with oversized, glittering bows, presenting the obvious with forced razzle dazzle, so no one would notice they weren’t presenting much at all.

In making everything known, the excitement of discovery frayed, our perception of the unknown shifted. Why explore, why imagine, when there’s no mystery, no reward for stages reached and levels earned? No delayed gratification, no commitment, nothing more than a screen or a word or an absence of fabric. No longer is there the length, breadth, depth of infinite when a thing has been stripped to its most finite.

Another prevailing fallout is apathy, oft mistaken for acceptance or maturity, instead of the rewiring of how our minds and bodies should healthily react to what was once kept covered or enclosed. To the point, live on a nudist colony long enough and the clothed will appear abnormal.

How easily we forgot, even scorned, the standards that once were with the distance of time and numbing. We scoff at the stiffness, the suffocation of the world past, yet, can we really say that certain modicums of respect, curtesy, and social norms were worth paying off just so we could dishonestly call less more?

The evolution, rather devolution, of the bathing suit is a prime example. Already the bathing suit of the late 1800s was considered scandalous for the amount it bared a woman’s legs, then the early 20th century brought the bikini, from the French Riviera, of course. Even then, the pearl-clutching design that bared midriffs was only the beginning, as Hollywood starlets unsurprisingly help popularize and mainstream the style, and swimwear became even skimpier from there. Whatever excuses or explanations for the advent of the so-called fashion, from wartime fabric rationing to innovations in materials to bodily freedom, none explain why we’re not rightfully honest about what is essentially water durable undergarments, which should be treated as such.

They should not be worn, they should not be worn in mixed crowds, and they should certainly be blamed for creating double standards of styles meant to arrest the eye then condemn the eye they capture. And if there’s any instinct of contention, think of how people walk, talk, and pose while wearing one. Think of how it’s all meant to attract notice.

In that vein, examine any photo of deliberate body staging, for social media, advertisements, red carpets, and the like. Regardless of how much, or little, someone is wearing, don’t let the image distract from a very important detail in many, many of these photos. Look at the pose. Look at what message it sends. Look at the eyes and ask how many appear beautiful in face and body but dead or shallow in depth of expression? In exposing all, we’ve smothered our consciences and emptied our insides of substance.

Bikinis, clothing, aren’t the only culprit in revealing more than they should. Of course, there’s less and less discretion when it comes to social media, but for wider industries, as previously discussed, movies and books have followed an essentially similar path as the bathing suit, cutting out substantive material to reveal more and more in a skewed effort to shock, transgress, push boundaries, and incorrectly claim to be fresh and new.

Horror and crime can be overly gritty, but there’s no contention romance has mainstreamed what used to be relegated to erotica. Instead of romances portraying something sweet or aspirational, instead of overall writing making much better use of subtlety, romances of today are quick to spend time explicitly describing each step. And while some may accuse the former of being fantasy, the same is even truer of the latter, not least for the fetishism woven throughout.

Perhaps this only happens in a society that decided everything has be to revealed, then luxuriated in the validation of similarly-minded people. Perhaps this happens in a society where real relationships between men and women have been attacked, then sidelined, for something, ironically, entirely of imagination. This sort of imagining has not been of benefit to us.

Other reasons may compel a people to stop imagining, reasons much more insidious and malicious in outcome and intent. Those more advanced in years may rely less on imagination, because they’ve settled into the final bend, and feel no further need to dream a future they won’t live in. But for the young, what could halt their dreaming when they have so many years yet to live? After all, dreams of the night are for sorting the mind, but dreams of the day are for the future. But why would a young person dream if he has no surety of tomorrow?

Before anyone blames this on policy or politics, think hard on how the issue roots deeper than the current argument of the day, more symptom than cause for the end of dreaming. The young have been told for decades that they’re powerless, hopeless, and hapless in the face of the inevitable end the past has precipitated. They’ve intentionally been taught naught to little of what truly drove men to build, of what inspired innovation that changed the world, of the ripple effects of groundbreaking or consequential invention. Without such lesson and context, there remains little reliable foundation for dreaming. And without dreams of day, dark thoughts easily cloud a bright tomorrow, leaving empty, soulless minds scrambling for succor and a stable ledge from which to launch their dreams.

But they can dream! They can rebuild!

Sure they can, but will they? How many are motivated to do so when the dust coating their vision isn’t from construction but demolition? Even as they’re encouraged to make history, they’re simultaneously being shown its destruction, as if they won’t somehow understand that if the very foundation of their world can be demolished then anything can be. Despite the obsession with history, the past isn’t honestly studied, but rather treated like a rage room where what’s dead goes to be broken. Why build today if it’ll only be condemned and destroyed tomorrow?

There is no drive to create legacy where everything is deliberately upended. Neither is there incentive to imagine something incredible, to reach for the greatest achievement when they don’t believe it’ll be allowed to last. How can they when they were only taught to tear down or imitate the accepted instead of build up or create something new? How can they when all that was long upheld as the best and most admirable has been crushed and melted down? The point of achievement is undermined when no one can agree on what’s good and right and worthy and beautiful. It can be gutting to build and dream and imagine for a world they’re been told will no longer be. It’s even more difficult to invest if there’s no one for whom to build.

Even more, throughout their young lives, they’ve been constantly bombarded with the current crisis framed by rage and panic, by hysteria and histrionics falsely forming fatal threats to the certainty of tomorrow. Shrieking desperation may attract attention and news stories, but it also turns the future into a precarious spaghetti-fling with questionable, unproven solutions. Instead of an upbeat message of the future is yours if you build it!, the young are frightened into believing the world can disappear in any moment which lacks monumental change. Who wouldn’t retreat into the safely compacted world of the screen, into numbing, mindless scrolling? Who wouldn’t hide away in inanities or wholly performative emotions? Who could, and not eventually suffer for it?

The worlds they retreat to instead are controlled landscapes rendered by pixels and prompts, easily manipulated or redesigned with a few keystrokes. Soaring and beautiful perhaps, but wholly disconnected from reality, particularly one already replete with so much beauty, from the majestic to the fierce, from the tranquil to the thunderous. These other worlds are not only missing the natural, but even their artistry is lacking the detail and imagination of a human hand, worlds wholly unlike those built by men whose visions were shaped by the feel of soil between their fingers, rather than the bright, and often false, colors of mimicry.

Of course, the true cause and solution is rooted in the same truth as most ills of society, the careful, surgical removal of the Infinite, which once defined every contour of life and assured tomorrow. The young have not been taught to look up and beyond. They haven’t been pointed toward the aspirational and inspirational which well outlasts the lives of mortal men. They haven’t been told how a single small action matters, even if no one notices, even if no effect is seen, simply because everything matters in the totality of the Grand Design for Creation. Anger is fleeting and exhausting, Divinity is fulfilling and everlasting.

Potential dreamers have been denied the greatest gift of mankind walking on two legs, whose natural line of sight is the horizon. How easy it is to look up from there, but only if you haven’t been beaten until your neck only curves down. Only if you haven’t given your brain over to a device, instead of given your mind over to devising.

And yet, despite all that has been done, there will always be imagination. As long as there is a soul in a body somewhere, the spark of the Infinite will drive a man to reach beyond his self, in creativity, in refinement, in imagining how things could be better.

We must keep reminding others of that. We must keep weaving dreams of day. We must keep directing their gazes up. Imagine the world that would be.

Make Morality Mainstream Again

A while ago, I met a mother and her daughter, the latter of whom I hadn’t seen in several years. On the cusp of turning twelve, she’d obviously grown in the time since, and, her mother proudly informed me, had become quite the reader. Indeed, the girl held quite a thick book in her hand.

Which was it? The girl showed me the cover. I turned to the mother.

“Do you know what your daughter is reading?”

She’d figured telling her eleven-year-old she could read whatever was marked 14+ was a safe enough guardrail for appropriate content. As reading is an experience between book and reader, the mother wouldn’t have seen what her daughter was taking in. She couldn’t either know that her daughter’s book was familiar not because it was something I’d read but because it was something I wouldn’t. Worse, she thought she could trust the institution.

THE READING DILEMMA

Parents want kids to read, but as most can’t keep up with their reading habits, they don’t fully realize what’s being allowed, even promoted, in books for young readers. As with other once vaunted institutions, the publishing world has morphed in ways many aren’t fully aware of.

Over a decade ago, I signed my first contract for Young Adult (YA) fiction. Before and since, I’ve watched the genre boom through the stages of audience demographic to viable business. Throughout, YA has expanded from books for teens to a genre unto itself, attracting talented writers, lucrative contracts, and the golden goose of Hollywood adaptations.

YA is officially for readers 14-18 years (and up). However, as it’s after Middle Grade (8-12 years), tweens are frequent readers, plus many eleven-year-olds reading up. There is “lower” and “upper” YA, but they’re unofficial categories for libraries or writers specific about their target audience. Most retailers and publishers categorize all teen books under the general YA umbrella. NA, New Adult, mainly written for college-aged readers into their early twenties, is often sheltered under the YA umbrella too.

Alongside the wider publishing industry, YA has changed significantly over the years, reflecting broader shifts in society. What follows isn’t an analysis on talent or quality but content, as something about words in a book makes what’s written more real, valid, romantic, admirable, aspirational. Thus, the intent is to shed light on some of the many topic and imagery that are included in books for young readers.

At risk that this won’t earn me any friends in publishing (at best), here’s some of what I’ve seen:

DEVOLUTION OF YA FICTION

Growth of the YA audience/genre is an objective benefit, logical as it is to increase methods for targeting potential customers. As YA has increased in business and position, its morphing into genre unto itself has attracted many adults readers. As a YA author, I read mainly within my market and see the appeal for adult readers considering how well the genre’s developed.

The migration of older readers to YA is certainly one of the many reasons it’s been so adultified. Other factors include the poisonous stranglehold ideological tentacles have on many aspects of culture, entertainment, and education. The shifts adults have finally caught onto in adult fiction and film have infected literature for younger audiences, picture books through YA.

A quick example, originally, romantic comedies centered on a man and woman who clashed at the outset, then eventually found their way to each other at the end. The story would build to some romantic declaration, then a kiss. Anyone who’s been watching knows that there’s now a whole lot of touching that happens before any romantic declaration occurs. Longer, more frequent kisses are only second to scenes of the pair sleeping together before deciding how they really feel about each other. All this is becoming commonplace in YA. What was once cutesy stories about a high school girl chasing a crush has now become stories featuring a whole lot of other firsts, even seconds, and then some.

The devolution of YA is a result of purposeful normalization and reshaping of societal norms through manipulatively emotional appeals by writers, agents, and editors. On average, books from larger publishing houses take roughly eighteen months to two years to evolve from contract to product on the shelf. To say, story trends are set in motion well before their rise in popularity.

Whatever the view on agents as gatekeepers to the larger houses, publishers only publish so many books in a year, an amount significantly less than all the people who want to be published. Hence, agents act as preliminary filters for editors, whittling down potential authors to relatively more manageable numbers. An agent must really believe in a writer and project to nab one of those few spots. Like most creative fields, writing is highly subjective, so in addition to general quality, each agent and editor has preferences for stories they want to work with. They’re also usually pretty clear about what they’re looking for, so part of the progression of change can be traced back to what’s being requested.

CHARACTER INCLUSION CHECKLISTS

When I first entered the “querying trenches,” wish lists from agents mainly specified genres and their various offshoots. Although ideologies make a home in all genres, most were subtler, more akin to a light sprinkling than the deluge of today.

Within a few short years, wish lists changed. Unofficial “checklists” appeared in the now familiar cancerous categories of equity, representation, marginalization, and other socialist pseudonyms. Nonfiction for teens is dominated by activism, coming out, and adaptations of left-wing figures’ biographies. Rather than prioritize quality, potential, uniqueness, the new gatekeeping is often focused on the inclusion of certain ideologies.

For the first while, emphasis was on strong female characters, an odd request considering the YA market is dominated by female writers and readers. Previous character portrayal thus had little to do with some imagined patriarchal oppression. Now, female characters are “fierce”, projections of feminist fantasies celebrating girl bosses who are objectively pushy, uncooperative, obnoxious, self-righteous, and/or highly unrealistic. Somehow, they capture the most desirable love interest, a magical combination of masculinity and emotional vulnerability, who is inexplicably un-neutered by support of her domineering principles. Frequently, the girl makes the first move.

Worse than overbearing feminism is unrealistic portrayals of a girl’s physical abilities accompanied by most unsavory rage and wrath and anger. Supposedly, these traits aren’t anathema to the gorgeous guys (when it is a guy) these girls miraculously attract. Unless there’s a moth to flame metaphor here, it’s a lie to pretend wrath is a healthy attraction.

This well reflects the move away from what’s become so-last-century stories featuring underdogs who searched deep for courage and heart to overcome challenges, raising up others alongside themselves. A time when character development focused on, well, character. More wholesome stories have been replaced with a self-proclaimed oppressed burning with self-righteous rage and violence.

Such characters have seeped into fantasy for adults as well, most notably in armies featuring female combat soldiers and warriors without special powers, who somehow go toe-to-toe if not best male counterparts. Often this sort of matchup is shown as some cunning of smallness, agility, and destruction of arrogant male condescension. Never mind that such fighting is highly unrealistic, and any male is rightly confident if paired against a woman in physical combat. No amount of small body darting or ingenuity will save a girl from the full force of one landed male punch. The unquestioned portrayal of women able to best men in physical combat is worrying considering the real possibility of a reader confusing fact with fiction. Besides, a country which sends its women to war will no longer exist, as it’s a country with males but not men.

The current not-so-secret of major houses is that a book doesn’t have a high chance of getting published if it doesn’t check certain markers, especially for midlist and debut authors, though A-listers are not immune. A Caucasian is hardly allowed to write a story featuring a so-called BIPOC, but a straight author must somehow include the ever-expanding gay-bcs, and it must be in a positive light. Some authors were always writing these characters, which at least reflects acting of their own volition. For the rest, many didn’t start until required. Because of the careful wording around these ideologies, many don’t speak out against these practices so as not to appear hateful and bigoted.

The mandated appearance of so-called marginalized and under-represented in stories lest the author risk erasing…someone, somehow also operates along these lines. Although, apparently, only very specific groups are at risk of disappearing. These standards are ridiculous in their least damaging iterations.

How many so-anointed BIPOC were consulted over their standard portrayals? How can every individual of every minority be consulted for approval, and who chooses which faction decides? How many Latinos, speakers of gendered language, agreed to Latinx and Latine? Christian characters in mainstream publishing are rarely portrayed as steadfast believers or even rebels rediscovering faith. Jewish stories usually feature a character who’s “lived experience” is assimilation, so the character is of a religion but doesn’t represent it. A real portrayal of the true beliefs these characters come from would not align with the world mainstream publishing wants to shape.

Even more ludicrous is that “disabled” and “neurodivergent” are considered identities, as if a physical or medical condition is cause for new labeling. The approach used to be that you are still you, worthy of respect and consideration, despite these conditions. In the glorified world of the self-hyphenate, the world of we-are-our-self-declared-identity, it’s the foremost feature mentioned, with accompanying expectation of praise and exaltation, regardless of an individual’s character or behavior.

Don’t confuse the argument against the labeling with the individuals, because they are separable. Worse than the tokenism is the reduction of individuals to secondary characteristics. Is this really the first thing you have to say about yourself, the most essential thing to know? When did it become norm to turn skin color or medical condition or physical ability into a character trait, the very notion of which says that anyone in this group must be viewed primarily through this lens, as if each is exactly the same? How myopic. How belittling.

Following the cue set by movies, books for teens also morphed from cutesy rom-coms to ideological showcases. Unsurprisingly, there’s been the introduction of the stereotypical gay best friend. Then storylines focusing on coming out or discovering someone close was gay, with accompanying template for writing them. The one coming out is always the strong one, the resilient one, though much language must be banned lest they be offended or erased, so their strength is dependent upon a carefully constructed bubble. Not only is inclusion necessary but happiness is the only possible, deliberately portrayed reaction. Never mind if some or all of it runs counter to a writer’s religious beliefs.

Moreover, “I’m not sure how I feel about this, but I’ll still treat you with respect” was never an acceptable response. And it is an acceptable response in all manner of situations, unless you exorcise it in efforts to forcibly shape a particular worldview. Additionally, the attitude is that since you can’t tell me who to love, and loving this person makes me happy, you must not only ally but champion me. Why is it offensive to present different acceptable, respectful reactions to teens? Who exactly is erased if this character isn’t presented at all?

As before, don’t confuse the argument against mandate with the individuals. The contention isn’t about love, but about religion protecting the sanctity of romantic relationships and marriage, a religious practice since the dawn of time, as seen across centuries and civilizations. Marriage is described as sanctified and holy, because it’s Divine in nature, and thereby under the domain of the religious. If it’s just a contract, then of course any government can regulate it.

It’s disingenuous to deny that such enforcement clashes with the very nature of what writing is about. It shuts down discussion, then subverts it entirely by pretending there’s nothing to debate. That shouldn’t be a source of pride for publishing, but deepest shame. In their efforts to supposedly widen the window of story matter, they’ve narrowed the frames and tinted the panes to exclude suddenly unacceptable voices entirely.

PORNOGRAPHY AND CONSENT

Compounded upon all this, most books are no longer relatively clean romances building to a single kiss, as every stage of the relationship has become more explicit. Some scenes are akin to manuals, containing the sort of imagery once the sole province of steamy romances. When efforts are rightly made to remove these books from shelves, screeches of censorship! erasure! representation! resound. We wouldn’t, and shouldn’t, tolerate any adult approaching a kid on the street and telling stories with such description, nor should we allow it from close friends or family. Authors do not hold special status in this, no matter what the screechers screech. Taking such books off shelves isn’t an indication of bigotry, intolerance, hatred, or erasure, but moral obligation.

The counterargument from writers, agents, and editors is that explicit detail is necessary because of something to do with “lived experiences” and consent.

First, if kids are doing it anyway, then adults definitely needn’t assist. Second, consent is not quite the magical word society would have us believe. Third, “everyone has different experiences” is not a reason for writing graphic content, and the replacement of “intimacy” with “experience” is largely responsible for why relationships are in the gutter and leaving people unfulfilled. Intimacy is something private between two individuals; experience is a vague euphemism to pass off what should matter as transitory, despite irrevocable effects. It’s difficult to imagine in an age when phones, cameras, and microphones track a person everywhere, but there was once an ideal called privacy, and the intimate was part of it.

Pushback also leads to defenses of “sexuality,” another way of saying adults want to teach kids all kinds of ways to pursue these “experiences”. Changing the wording doesn’t alter the nature but does allow immoral actors to force celebration of their fantasies and fetishes. The wrongness is incontestable, though not surprising from those who promote polyamory for teens and romantic relationships between humans and demons or other ungodly creatures.

The feeble argument for writing scenes of teens sleeping together is they must see what consent looks like. Again, authors do not hold special status or exemption. There is no strong enough argument for writing scenes for teens in which one character undresses another and verbally asks permission every step of the way. Especially because the new trend seems to be the girl not only “consenting”, but also a burning I want this. If she wants, this wording implies, then she must have, abandoning all reason and morality. Consent has become an excuse for all sorts of undesirable, immoral, even illegal behavior, but mutual agreement is supposed to make it okay. This isn’t the behavior we should be promoting for teens; we should be giving them better things, bigger ideas to think about.

Worst of all, why is any adult writing about two sixteen-year-olds sleeping together? A teenager, no matter how mature, is still developing and while smart and clever not really old enough to fully understand what she’s “consenting” to, and is probably being taken advantage of. We treat eighteen with the same magical power as consent, as if any age should be sleeping around, even if legalese only extends so far. Teen pregnancy, abortion overall, would hardly be an issue if everyone stopped sleeping with people they shouldn’t. Any adherent to morality knows this, though morality is just another thing scuttled from teen fiction. G-dless ideology is the new morality; immoral, manmade gods have replaced G-d; lust is the new love; sexuality excuse for pornography; perceived racism and misogyny validation for violence and rage.

Many are we who did not consent to this.

These scenes are in teen films as well, though how many parents know this in an age of individual devices? Adults pretending to be teens take each other’s clothes off before a camera for real tweens, teens, and/or adults to watch. Please explain in clear and simple language why this is not a form of pornography. What absolutely vital role does this scene have in advancing the story?

Consent is not enough. Wanting is not enough. We’re encouraging teens to turn their bodies into used cars, dented, scraped, scarred, and baggage laden, for what? Why is this hollowing out of self and morality good? This serves no benefit for teens and the overall state of relationships. Consent has become an excuse for all sorts of undesirable, immoral, even illegal behavior, but we’re supposed to think that everyone agreeing makes whatever they agree to okay. It’s incredibly obvious that feminism and the sexual revolution didn’t free women, but chain them in a prison of animalistic, unsatisfying desire, dooming them to jadedness, frustration, and loneliness.

But they’re so responsible! So mature! By such logic, a responsible sixteen-year-old should be able to buy guns, alcohol, and drugs.

But identity! No, identity doesn’t mandate a book with graphic imagery, nor is it “sexuality” or “feeling seen” or any other term you hide behind. Witness the tattered remains of social morality that writers do not balk at writing this for teens. They should balk at writing this for anyone.

Once we recognized that betterment came through battling temptations. It is not difficult to see how the enforced normalization of all this was also an effective ridding of undesirable shame. Not only have we banished feeling bad, we’ve enforced celebration of what shame once kept in line.

But they’ll never be prepared! How did any of us get here if none of this existed for millennia?

But look at the sales! Many people also bought rock pets.

Deviants and defenders will attempt to claim that (a) this sort of stuff always existed, which isn’t really a reason for its continuance, and (b) previous generations were undoubtedly stifled in their inability to express their true selves. Perhaps. And yet, previous generations built civilization, with significantly less medical prescriptions too. Previous generations were better at family and community, meaning and purpose. We have “experiences.”

But this is what married people do! Some writers introduce a faux or rushed marriage into the plot, perhaps because their weakening moral compass prevents writing an explicit scene between unmarried characters. Marrying the characters and making them eighteen doesn’t magically okay writing this for teens. Everyone does it—indeed there are many common bodily functions which shouldn’t be demonstrated in public—isn’t either reason enough.

Pressures to include these scenes is evidenced by authors long regarded as “clean” storytellers, authors who won’t swear or indulge in graphic or gratuitous content, authors who clearly express Christian beliefs in their acknowledgements, writing them too.

Would they give this book to their priest? To a young church member? Would they read the scene aloud for family or friends or the very teens they write for? If even the professed religious authors do not have the fortitude to oppose this, if even they can be convinced of the supposed validity, then gone is the bulwark protecting children from the psychological and moral damage resulting from these scenes.

But inclusivity! We must reflect the world around them! Considering what’s in these books, all should pray teens aren’t seeing this around them. Either way, that doesn’t excuse writing about it. Moreover, cries for inclusivity from those shutting down differing opinions are inherently without substance. True inclusivity is achieved when stories focus on universal truths and laudatory values shared by all.

The fundamental argument is that “could” is not “should”, and the only reliable arbiter between the two is Divinely-based morality. Current permissiveness is only possible in a society which worked for decades to expunge religion from its vital foundational position and influence. The demonization piled atop its degradation was simple insurance that the moral truths of religion wouldn’t interfere with the newly established secular order. We can still be good people, they claimed. Witness the tattered remains.

Allowing, championing, this sort of writing has not made us better, and instead of listening to concerns, activists and proponents double down. Need you any proof of the separation between ethics and morality and elitism and academia, scroll through an article or two in defense of these scenes. The more “educated” the individual, the twisted the pretzel of rationalization. Rational lies, all of them.

These lies are prominently center of the new crusade against so-called “book banning,” although the books are still available at retailers and publishers. Fueled by self-righteous hysteria, activists take great pride in influencing state legislatures to enact decrees against book bans in protection of “lived experiences,” representation, and the like. If a teen doesn’t see two boys or girls or more sleeping together, so the thinking goes, then they face imminent, unspecified harm, never mind that their sacred voice has been quashed. They claim BIPOC and queer authors are specifically targeted, failing to mention it’s the content not the author rejected. Somehow the bigots are the ones who don’t want kids reduced to “sexuality”, while the tolerant are the ones who do. Need anyone ask if these protections extend to writers who don’t align or even disagree with their worldview?

I’d say these books are better suited for adults, but adults are despairing of the unreadability of books in their categories too. And that aside from the targeted “decolonization” of books and authors that adults, especially men, enjoyed reading. From the myriad of books extant, no plot was ever turned, no story ever dependent upon an explicit scene, in the bedroom or elsewhere. Neither does such render the work art or literature, but rather indecent and abhorrent. Parents struggle to encourage their kids to read when such are the books available.

ELIMINATING THE WEST

For some time, agents have specifically requested non-western narratives, histories, and legends. Atop the deteriorating state of the current education system, teens aren’t being presented with a fictionalized character in history, which may thereby spark interest and curiosity in real history. No wonder they know so little of the past when they’re not offered history at all.

What does make it in represents very select time periods. Other permitted historical fiction is alternative histories where the past is magicked or reimagined, almost always in some gender swapped way. While alternative histories can be creative, the lack of regular historical fiction seems to indicate the only permitted history is a remade one.

Otherwise, most of western history isn’t on shelves because no one wants to represent it. Which means no one’s fighting for it to be published. Which means young readers aren’t given glimpses into the past that made this present and will highly influence the future.

And this from those who claim large swaths of the population don’t properly teach history. The same who pushed the fabricated and widely debunked lie that slavery was unique to the west, the only culture who actively sought to end it. The same who have yet to consider the absolute necessity of mandating schools to teach the true horrors of communism done right. The same who have a monochrome view of colonization and chameleon approach to the faux oppressed-oppressor narrative.

A rather high volume of Asian-based stories, histories, and mythologies fill the market instead. The proliferation of Asian and other eastern fiction isn’t objectively concerning, but it’s deliberate increase alongside western stories’ deliberate decrease is. It’s less an expansion of viewpoints and more a supplanting of anything west.

I grew up reading historical fiction, but there’s a dearth on shelves for teen readers, who must see where we come from through the eyes of characters resembling our ancestors. Instead of walking through time in their shoes and understanding their struggles in the context of when they lived, we project modern ideologies upon the one protagonist somehow vastly ahead of her time. It’s deliberately false and disconnects readers from the world that created the one we live in.

Whatever your opinion of our world, it was formed in those histories, and we cannot appreciate the present without understanding the world that made it.

MENTAL HEALTH

Another major trend in teen fiction is the focus on the broad category of mental health, its emergence unsurprising considering the uptick in modern society. Whatever the viewpoint on diagnoses, the truth is that the ones calling for greater awareness have much to do with having caused the issues.

Teens living in the most prosperous, free society that ever was should not have such measures of mental health struggles, yet they do. Skim the messaging of the last several decades and it’s no wonder why.

Teens are raised on a bombardment of lies and damaging viewpoints resulting in a precarious Jenga structure at their foundation. For decades they’ve been told they can sleep around without lasting consequence, negating the need to build deep, lasting, exclusive relationships. Families, a fundamental source of meaning and grounding, have been shoved aside for the faux glory of sleeping with whomever, whenever, and the new solution of “found family”. Just because a pill supposedly prevents biological consequences doesn’t mean a different sort of toll hasn’t been exacted. And that follows the perpetual degradation of dress, reducing the entirety of an individual to a form as valued or devalued as any other physical object.

Added to the disrespect of the body is the incessant, unfounded claim that “climate change” is going to destroy the planet by…well, soon. Never mind that we’re doing better than before, and all predictions have been proven wrong. Imagine what continual doom and gloom does to the mental state of a teenager already grappling with ping-ponging hormones, who should be presented with optimism for the future they’re about old enough to create.

Well, we have a pill for that too.

Teens have been told the American dream is gone by those who set out to destroy it, that American greatness isn’t worth dreaming about by those who recolored it a nightmare. Hobbies and collected skills, the work of their own hands, have been shunted for social media trends and unfettered internet access. Phones are given to younger and younger kids, so they don’t grow up in the tangible, real world but an algorithmic, digital one. Inevitably, the worst of that world affects them.

They’re told that they’re hated, feared for the way they were born. They’re told they’re not even who they’ve been since birth, basic facts purposely turned into issues and doubts to shake the foundation of self. Those most adamant about the contrived need for teens to discover identity are the most diligent at axing their very roots.

The response to the mental health crisis, the jadedness, the internal turmoil they’ve helped facilitate by destroying the enduring, reliable fabric of society is to encourage more of the same empty, hollowing behaviors.

Atop all this is never-ending rage, rage, rage.

At the base is the deliberate removal of religion.

No matter an individual’s choice of observance, religion undeniably provides what liberal society and decadence cannot; meaning. Eternal, enduring meaning. The knowing that you’re more than a clump of cells passing through this timespan, because you are an integral link in a chain reaching back millennia. Your ancestors didn’t endure hardships or fight to build civilization so you could be the end of the line, but so you could gratefully take your place in it. You and your actions matter. Not because you’re a political vote or celebrated community, but because you were made in the image of G-d Who woke you today as there’s something only you can do in His world. What effect would the proliferation of this messaging in literature have on the mental state of the youth?

And for those pontificating about diversity and inclusion, who in truth only want different skin colors espousing the same beliefs, there is no greater unifier than religion. Belief in a higher power unites individuals of different backgrounds, colors, and, most valuably, opinions, in ways no mandate or ideology ever can.

While lengthy, the above in no way encompasses all the changes, reasons, and effects pertaining to the devolution of teen fiction. And, as the focus is not on talent but content, it can be shifted as easily as it was before.

You may disagree with everything I’ve written. You may accuse me of jealousy, hatred, bigotry, racism, misogyny, xenophobia, erasure, et al. I only encourage you to look for yourself. Peruse bookstore aisles; click through new releases; check who’s getting awards. What do your eyes see?

BECAUSE COULD IS NOT SHOULD, II

In the 1960s, Ralph Ginzburg’s conviction for promoting obscenity through his magazine of “literate eroticism” was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. He lost the case, but NPR isn’t the only one to have dubbed him a “free speech icon” in the historical record. Debatable if what he fought for is considered free speech, but he certainly shouldn’t be elevated as an icon for publishing obscene and erotic materials.

The fight may seem silly to the generation of today, as there remain almost no limits on what can be published or filmed anymore. Worse, such materials no longer garner notice through delivery in the mail or ducking behind a curtain to a secluded section of a store, as all of it comes directly to a private handheld screen, or in an innocuous cardboard box, without anyone the wiser.

A win for free speech, absolutists and liberally-minded say. In a strictly legal sense, perhaps, but standing upon the wreckage of society wrought by that supposed victory, debate is smithereened by the undeniable wrongness of the cost. That battle was a harbinger for the fate of the morality war, a war long since clouded by terms and rationalizations around unfettered freedoms and absolute legalities. Thus, the battles rage, but clarity, and thereby the war, can only be won with unyielding, unassailable adherence to the conviction that legally could is not morally should.

Recent studies show that Gen Z wants to see less obscene material in books and entertainment, and though some may profess puzzlement at these results, they’re entirely logical. As they came to shelter under the aegis of free speech, travesties like obscenity, pornography, erotism began appearing everywhere, from big-budget Hollywood films to books for young readers. The current generation has been so inundated by the never-ending ticker tape parade celebrating the mainstreaming of immorality seeing it is no longer edgy but numbing and meaningless. Proliferation led to oversaturation, so much became too much. Then again, Gen Z’s preferences may not be anchored in morality, but rather in eventually rejecting something they saw everywhere, through easy, ready, and constant access. The mind may eventually forget, but the eyes cannot unsee. Thus, the role of the reliable moral guardrail, the knowing that could is not should.

Consider the rebranding unrepentant individuals have welded upon the porn industry. Despite the absurdly high rate of suicides by women, and men, reports act surprised at such inevitabilities, describing several in a row as having shaken the industry to its core. They’ll speak about terrible treatment from an industry insensitive to costs of healthcare, mental health, abuse, harassment, exploitation, drug and alcohol use, and more, in addition to the self-destroying doubt that comes between signing one job and wondering when the next will knock. Never mind the unspoken truth that shame has a way of creeping in unrelenting when the day is quiet and the mind is unoccupied. As the average lifespan for a female so-called adult film entertainer is below forty, anyone with a functioning mind and intact moral compass knows that the fault is not in the treatment, but the industry’s very existence.

And for those about to wail about free speech, expression, association, and the like, think very, very carefully about what it means that a woman might commit suicide after a career spanning about three years and two hundred films. Two hundred films. That’s, at minimum, two hundred partners in three years. You call this freedom, expression? You call this entertainment? You’re shaken by a rash of suicides? You think a soul dies just because the body no longer listens? No, you’ve fallen prey to thinking that legally could may as well be should.

If absolutists and activists are so psychotic as to still support the allowance of this industry, if other nut jobs are adamant about rebranding so everyone can hide behind a false, brittle shield of self-worth, then society itself must make it unimaginable for the existence of such “entertainment” resulting in a multi-billion-dollar industry, let alone anyone willingly admitting to being part of it. Laws should make it impossible to profit, society should make it impossible to allow without honest, devastating shame.

So brazen, so lost has the distinction become that the industry has award ceremonies. The industry has a hall of fame. The industry calls popular and “high performers” stars. Some are even married, which means their spouses allow them to participate in this so-called “work.” As if there never was a case in the history of man of a job negatively impacting a worker.

Mainstream film isn’t much better, which could be why Gen Z is rejecting its excess entirely. Mainstream film also features nudity and eroticism and essentially pornography by another name, just with bigger budgets and more recognized studios. How did Hollywood get around laws of indecent exposure? What’s the difference between a stripper and an actress who takes her clothes off in a film? The camera? The salary? The mansion at the end of the day? Who are we kidding with slogans of speech and freedom in recognizing just how far things have been allowed to go?

But I didn’t ask for it! I didn’t sign on!

No, you probably didn’t, and you probably skip when the scenes come up, but it must go beyond that. Laugh at it for being ludicrous, but change won’t come until enough people walk out of a theater and demand a refund in middle of a film including nudity. It can start with one, but it must grow to many, so theaters are forced to tell Hollywood the movie is tanking because of this perverse inclusion. Cancel a streaming service and tell them why. Return a book and say it’s “did-not-finish” because of content. Hit them in the wallet while such purveyors unrelentingly, unashamedly go after yours. Do not rely on the excuse of “we’re all adults here” so “they could do whatever they want.” We remain broken until we fix it through returning to could is not should.

Hollywood has been clever over the years when it comes to self-regulation, first in adhering to the Hays Code when they acknowledged the one-time power of the Catholic Church over culture, and then again with a self-designed rating system, which has gradually loosened its standards over the years. It isn’t difficult to trace the devolution of content and recognize what’s happened over the decades, the results on the national moral compass, especially without a society-wide rejection that doesn’t heavily rely upon laws and politicians. And that aside from those who don’t care about either side, whether in the name of libertarianism or simple apathy.

Watch a film from every decade to see for yourself how the compass lost its bearing. In the early years of film, men and women were hardly ever shown in a romantic embrace. This quickly morphed into the slightly comedic “press faces against each other, pull away and sigh” which was the forerunner to an actual kiss. When the kiss came it was short, a press of the lips to the elongated who-knows-what of now. In between came longer kisses, then the grand-ending kiss, followed by applause for some reason. If you sat in a park, on a bus, in a library and watched a couple make out, let alone applauded at the end, no one would call that art. If you watched two people joined only by business contract do the same, and you reacted in like manner, no one would think that normal. If you sat and watched a man or women disrobe, you would rightly be marked a creep. If a man or woman disrobed in public, no one would think that a good indication of their mental state of being.

Yet films include this all the time, when actors, with or without relation to each other, embrace, with or without clothes, for your supposed viewing pleasure. Because art and story and free speech and expression, or some such. Because someone somewhere convinced everyone that film and books and entertainment wouldn’t sell without. Because no one ever bought a clean book, especially of literary merit before the changes of the 1970s. Because no one ever watched a movie until nudity was allowed. It’s a wonder humanity endured for centuries without the books and films to show us the way! How did Shakespeare ever sell a play presented by only male actors and without a single real embrace? How did anyone manage to express themselves before such so-anointed rights were protected by law? What bafflements of history!

Consider some of the films consistently ranked as the best of all time. Citizen Kane has no nudity. The Shawshank Redemption relied on no romance. The Godfather has endured as a top film for decades for the acting, the actors, the story, not because of a random topless woman in a dark bedroom. How many viewers recount that scene in discussions of the film, even without focusing on the greatest moments? You may brush the scene aside as irrelevant, and yet a woman was told, and agreed, to take her shirt off for the camera. The fact that it’s oft forgotten is further proof of the irrelevancy of such a scene, as basically every scene of nudity is.

She didn’t have to! No one forced her to do anything! Freedom of something or other!

All the more egregious when done under the banner of storytelling. Do you truly think this is what capital C Creator intended with the gifts He granted us, the very same we call “rights”?

Disagree? If your wife or girlfriend or sister did the same with some random guy at a party, how do you know it wasn’t just an expression of art? Or exercise of freedom? Or whatever other weak excuse we use to justify, to numb ourselves to what we’re shown over and over in film and literature? Because, you know, we’re all adults here.

When a mother shows off a video of her teenage daughter’s first “onstage kiss” during a show at a performing arts high school, the correct reaction isn’t squealing or delighting but befuddlement, even outrage, at her obvious pride. Never mind the actual show the high school had chosen, why are we pretending that teenagers making out on stage is fine, even laudatory?

We recognize it’s wrong when it’s someone close to us, when the cameras and studios are far away, but somehow a “professional” doing the same for millions of viewers and dollars is different. And we’re meant to be impressed when they send most of the film crew out before stripping down. Don’t say, well, great art has nudes, because someone sat for those glorifications of the human form. But that’s for another day. Either way, the point remains that no fictional story, in any medium, hinged upon the inclusion of explicit nudity, or more. Fictional is specific here as documentaries using historical footage are obviously of another nature entirely.

For all the screechers shrieking about women’s rights, where’s the outrage over an actress who can’t sign a desired role without agreeing to kiss some dude or take her clothes off for the screen? It’s not empowering, it’s not a symbol of control, because there’s no contract otherwise. The signee is being controlled, used, degraded, objectified, and all under the euphemisms of rights, expression, and empowerment. The soul is alive though the body has been numbed to incessant calls that this is wrong, that there’s a moral underpinning between could and should.

Don’t be such a prude! No one forced anything! Everyone makes their own decisions!

 Correct. And when you perform for the public, the public has what to say about it, including a rejection of such public displays. We’ve bungled the railway as a society when such has not been shamed and condemned off the tracks.

Storytelling of all shapes used to be about messaging and morality; today it’s about how far the line can be nudged in pursuit of the mistakenly glorified progressive. Reverting to animalistic behavior and practices devoid of human dignity is nothing but regressive.

There’s only one way we get to this state and it’s the same reason for why society is the way it is of late. Everything, everything, comes back to the removal of G-d, and thereby morality, from society. Cry all you want for rights and freedoms, but we’ve seen the results these so-called wins have wrought. We are fighting against the toll they’ve enacted, for the parallel tracks of removal and degradation are not incidental. Even human reason celebrated by the much ballyhooed Enlightenment cannot prevent this slide, but rather unwittingly precipitated it. Because the human mind can logically discern the difference between could and should, but only Divine morality mandates uncompromising submission of the former to the latter. Rights, after all, were given by capital C Creator, and on this He not only says shouldn’t but don’t.

Before you shrug all this off as an angry diatribe of a cat-lady prude, note the annoyance or resistance to the icky fingers of shame that latch on in acknowledgement of this truth. Note the twisted pretzel of reason for allowance in the face of simple observance of results.

We could fix this, and we should. Maybe not all at once, and maybe not many at a time, but each can focus on his own life and decisions. Each can take one step at a time to push back against the so-called victory which has resulted in so much loss.

We need only hold tight to the millennia-old moral compass with conviction. We need only remember that rights protected by legalities still come from a single, infinite Source. We need only once more recognize the vital moral difference between could and should.

(Because Could is Not Should, I)

BECAUSE COULD IS NOT SHOULD

Recently, I had a conversation with someone about women serving in the army.

The contention was that if a female can, then why shouldn’t she? Say the fitness tests didn’t have lower standards for women, say all qualifications were the same, if a woman passes them all, if a woman proves her strength and ability and agility to be on par with men, then let her serve. After all, she could.

Women could serve in the army, perhaps, but not in combat. In general, they don’t actually have the physical fitness to meet the same standards as men. They don’t actually have the same all-around military skillset as men. They don’t have the strength to drag a wounded man to safety. They don’t have the stamina to hike miles and miles and miles with dozens and dozens of pounds of equipment on their backs. They don’t have the same sort of tactical minds and strategic ways of thinking. Perhaps some of this could be taught, but the mindsets are fundamentally different at their core.

But what if there was a woman who could? If a kid was hurt, a woman could carry him miles and miles on her back. Even pregnant, if needed. Women could, and if they want to, they should.

No. No. Could is not should.

While it’s true there are some very strong women, and while it’s true that women have accomplished great feats of strength, these are anomalies most often occurring in heightened or extreme circumstances, where there’s a danger to life or a focused determination arising from a very specific need to get something very vital done. It’s not proof of enduring, reliable strength. It’s not proof of consistency. It’s certainly not proof that women should serve in combat, and everything else that entails, no matter their physical fitness.

Follow this argument long enough and someone will inevitably bring up the female sharpshooters who served in the Russian army during World War II.

True, women can often shoot equal to, even better than, men, but that does not mean women should serve as snipers in war. A job which requires endless hours of stillness, ducking bullets, and relieving yourself in the woods or plastic bottles. Is this what we envision for women? Is this the greatest they can achieve? Becoming predatory, patient, precise, hardened killers? Considering how men struggle with PTSD, why would we willingly subject women to it?

Oh, and as for those roughly two thousand female snipers that Russia sent to war, only about five hundred made it back. In body, at least.

Men have one job, one primary job, and that is to ensure women are nowhere near where bullets are flying. Unfortunately, women get caught in warzones, women get caught in terrible situations, but to deliberately send them out to serve in combat, to feed the beast of war, the thought should be too abhorrent to contemplate past its formation. Because could is not should.

Recently, I was helping to clean up after a social event. I was carrying a bag of garbage in a box out to the front of the house. It wasn’t heavy, and I carried it just fine. I passed from the kitchen through the living room, where a few young men sat on the couch.

“Don’t worry,” I joked to the sitting men, “I got it.”

They glanced up, saw that indeed the box was no issue, then went back to whatever they were doing. And why not? I was older, competent, a woman carrying out the garbage, but a woman who could carry it after all. Obviously, they were not needed.

A couple passed by, herding their two young kids to the car. The wife walked past first, saw what I was carrying, then turned to her husband and told him to take the box. He did so willingly, not because I couldn’t, but because I shouldn’t. So even though it wasn’t heavy, and even though I could carry it, I didn’t argue. I let him take it from me because he should, and if I would fight it, I would mold another man for that line on the couch.

A while ago, I was carrying bags into a local center. A man who knew me since birth was coming down the stairs. I wasn’t struggling, they weren’t that heavy. He was several decades older, but he took them out of my hands, because “a lady doesn’t carry bags.”

Maybe it’s because he grew up in the Midwest. Maybe it’s because he grew up right. Maybe it’s because he grew up before the hammerings of women and society effectively obliterated the distinction between could and should.

For we’ve lost the ability to discern the difference and with it we’ve lost something vital in how men treat women. Because men have incessantly been harangued for holding doors open because women are also strong, because men have been told not to be heroes because women do not need saving, because men have been yelled into accepting that women can do it themselves for we are just as competent as any man, if not more. Truth is, even where the data clearly states the facts to be otherwise, it doesn’t matter the details of what a woman could do but should.

In not being gracious about held open doors and bags taken out of our hands and checks paid at restaurants and the shielding of protective instincts, we’ve created a culture in which women take out the garbage, not because it’s full and the man isn’t home, but because the man sits on the couch and stays out of the way. And there’s a generation now, and more to come, who don’t know this isn’t how it should be. They don’t know that they shouldn’t allow it, because they’ve been angrily castigated into submission by crusading women who want to prove their strength by beating down men, then step on them further in bemoaning the lack of good men. They’ve been led to believe that insisting on carrying the bags, acts of protection, cleaner language, and the like, is belittling, stifling, unmindful of the women who could do it themselves, and just another way to prove them weak. Don’t do unto women what women can do for themselves is the skewed doctrine of current social etiquette ingrained into men. Can’t you hear the raw emotion, the lyricism in their expertly wielded profanity? An incessant insistence that we are no delicate violets has smashed the vase that held the bouquet, and left the rest of us wondering where the flowers went.

No wonder men are angry, jaded, lost, frustrated, and more, because when men are not allowed to know the difference between could and should, then it’s not just women affected, but also the men who can’t show their best selves in the way they treat women. Men are not challenged, demanded to become more when there’s no appreciative women to mandate it be so.

Men carry the bags, hold open the doors, put of the fires, deal in politics, arrest criminals, and even go to war not because of what a woman can or can’t do, but because of what she should. It’s respect and reverence to the women they hold on a pedestal, because that is how men should regard women. There’s no contention that women should be worthy of that treatment through raising men on a pedestal of respect and admiration too. Because women are not either allowed to be their best selves, also stifle their best selves when it is not in encouraging men to be the best they could.

So now that women have insisted that we can do it all ourselves, now that women raised in this world wonder where the men have gone, now that men aren’t allowed the simple fulfillment of being a hero, protector, provider, strongman, did we win? Did feminism fulfill its promise of freedom, as each successive wave eroded the pedestal we women stood upon, so our faux-exalted perch upon its present rubble is a pyrrhic victory at best? Have we won in remaking society by turning men into males because women were turned into men?

The answer lies beyond physical makeup to a fundamental truth, a truth that brings fulfillment, joy, meaning, and a balance of good and holy. It all comes down to a man knowing how vital is his role in discerning the difference between when a woman could and when a woman should.

MAKE G-D MAINSTREAM AGAIN

As the academic year shifted to summer, focus on books in libraries and curriculums likewise shifted to summer reading lists. As an author, I’ve taken up some summer reading of my own, mainly used, bargain-priced books published over a decade ago. From the markings, many are former library books, since replaced with some of the books many parents are concerned about today.

Without rehashing what’s been spoken of many times before—though also not quite thoroughly enough—in regard to current books for young readers, I’ve noticed something about some of these summer reads beyond the more obvious choices of subject matter and protagonists. While many of the changes in children, teen, even adult, literature is quite clear from covers and blurbs, subtler changes were also implemented in the same time frame, ones less easily charted than bestselling genres, fads, and the like.

I’ve written before about the prevailing lack of historical fiction for young readers, and perusals of the options on hand for my summer reading has only further confirmed its current, glaring absence. There’s something else, however, something connected yet even more important that should not be overlooked. It’s something that probably doesn’t appear in studies or graphs or sales numbers, but detected only by those who look for it. Namely, and perhaps unsurprisingly, the removal of G-d from books for young readers, and adults too.

If you’re an avid reader, you may have noticed this, but only now realize how prevalent the practice truly is. Alternatively, this assertion may seem baseless, as numerous books among the highly popular fantasy genre, for example, mention religion plenty. Except, look again. More often than not these books speak of gods not G-d. Where there is monotheistic religion, it’s often portrayed as corrupt or at odds with the celebrated science or magic of the day. It’s backward, antithetical to progress and change, too politically powerful, home to a secret society of assassins, and many other things which don’t include honest, faithful service. So, while there may be religion in books, how is it really portrayed?

While that aspect of world building isn’t difficult to notice, what it used to be only recently struck so potently because the mention of prayer to a single G-d appeared in a book that wasn’t purely historical, where such reference could be relegated to accuracy as compared to modern cultural norms. The book for teens was fantasy, had dragons, yet the jailed, despondent protagonist kneeled in the dirt and prayed to G-d. Significantly, the book was from a major publisher, not a specifically religious one. To say, there was a time when mention of G-d in a mainstream narrative was commonplace, because it reflected a time when readers lived in a society where adherence to Him was commonplace too.

An editor once asked after my adamance to include a clear monotheistic belief in one of my fantasy series. The books didn’t focus on any particular religion, but were particular to mention Heaven as a Divine reference. Bear in mind, the question was from one practicing Jew to another, so there was no anti-religious sentiment at its base.

I think the question was both warning and curiosity. Warning that perhaps the inclusion was moving from present to preachy, and curiosity about why monotheistic Divinity needed to be so specifically noted, particularly in a fantasy realm.

The answer is a very simple and profound truth, because even in fantasy, there is no world without G-d.

This adamant assertion was unintentionally tested when I sat down to write a book that was largely historical fiction, albeit with a touch of fantasy. The book is set in ancient Egypt, a land of many, many gods, so a protagonist with pagan belief’s wouldn’t just be expected but also historically accurate.

Except, I couldn’t do it. No sooner had I begun to research the Egyptian pantheon, then I knew there was no way my fictional character living in a fictionalized historical setting would pay any sort of obeisance to this plethora of deities.

Because, endeavoring to make belief in G-d real down to the bones means that even in fiction, there is no world without G-d.

A number of religious authors write fiction for mainstream publishers. Some can be noticed for their cleaner books, and some are noticed for Who they choose to thank in their acknowledgements. Academically curious, I once asked one of the latter about the religion she’d crafted in her fantasy series, about the many gods in her made-up world in relation to the single One she believes is in the real one. Her answer was a bit disjointed, and it was undoubtedly because she’d never been asked that before. Characters, plot, vision for her series, but not religious portrayal. Who ever cared to notice the dichotomy between the two? And why should she not craft a world of many gods when that’s become dominant in mainstream books over the past decade, at least. On the other hand, another writer told me her memoir was rejected by a major publisher, specifically in part because she reasserted faith in G-d despite her incredibly tragic circumstances.

That’s not to say there aren’t any books from major mainstream publishers that don’t include monotheistic religion. The difference, of course, is that many books which speak of G-d aren’t usually a seamless blend of belief woven through the narrative but most often a conflict with or rejection of such beliefs.

A character who wrestles between faith and personal desire is not only realistic but highly relatable too. This sort of character can easily propel a narrative featuring intriguing internal religious struggles. But only when the character recognizes that G-d is truth and goodness, and life is a journey to such truth. Not when society has dictated that G-d must be nipped and tucked to validate current trends, wherein infinite G-d becomes a manmade god, even gods.

The scalpular removal of G-d isn’t relegated to literature, only one pillar of culture, of course, but noticeable in all aspects of society. Beyond the fights over the Ten Commandments in schools and religious commencement addresses, the demonization of religion has been so effective that any modern, grounded, “logically-minded”, “rational” individual wouldn’t dare admit to religions adherence for fear of undermining the foundation he claims to stand upon. Rather, people who will admit to higher beliefs tend to be “spiritual” and aren’t pressed to explain what on earth such a euphemism means. The braver among them will admit to believing in G-d without follow up as to what such belief mandates. Are there no actions, morals, or values that must result from such belief? Is proclamation enough without behavior to match?

The dirty truth about sole reliance on most exalted human rationale at the helm of society is that almost anything can be rationalized, the smarter the more adept at intellectual treatises for all sorts of deviances. Faith in omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent G-d is the only guide for superseding the risks and vagaries of human intellect, as only G-d is a consistently reliable guardrail for every level of society. For it’s not law and order which make societies safe, but law and order founded in fear of G-d which succeeds. It’s not kindness that unifies societies, but kindness founded in love of G-d directing human interaction. Communities of truly G-d fearing individuals are safer not for better policing, but for better adherence to Divine morality.

Consider Apollo 8’s message beamed backed to earth when approaching the lunar sunrise, how the astronauts chose at such an awesome moment to quote from Genesis the verses of G-d’s creation of the world. Compared to all the hullabaloo of late regarding government and private space flights, can you imagine one of the recent astronauts or space tourists reciting scripture in breathless exhilaration of what incredible sights they’ve seen? Can you imagine any non-avowed religious individual invoking almighty G-d for just about anything? Now, truly religious individuals stand out in society not for their faith, but for their scarcity. There was a time when proclamations of faith was not just a political ploy, but a norm.

When Moses stood before Pharaoh in Egypt, he didn’t only say, “Let My people go.” The famous line is accurate, but only part of the sentence. More correct is, “Let My people go, so they may serve Me.”

We bring G-d back into society not with laws and public mandates, but in knowing how the sentence starts and how the sentence ends, for only then can we have a true foundation and direction for living. We bring G-d back into society when each individual decides to make it so in his own life and interactions.

Include G-d in regular conversation with verbal appreciation and notice of His guiding hand. Invite G-d back to the table with blessings and grace. Return G-d to political discourse with unambiguous reminders that rights can never be discussed without mention of capital C, Creator. And even if you claim not to care about religion and almighty G-d, send your children for religious instruction anyway, so they’ll know there’s only one true foundation for a civilized society of accomplished, achieving men. Tremble as you will at the thought, but there are worse things your child could be called, by much better people at that, than “religious.” If you trust the intellect and logic you’ve inculcated within your child, then trust them to embrace G-d too, even if you are still working at it. We’ve seen in ways subtle and obvious how the world turns when people reject traveling the path set by Him.

And if you insist that you need no religion because you have found purpose in marriage and family and service and friends, well, that’s all a rose by another name. Society insists we can pursue such meaning without Him, when these are significant and worthy because He ordained it so.

No matter what laws or devices, protests or dissertations may be devised, no matter how logical or meticulous the attempts to remove G-d or how vicious condemnation of the religious, the simple fact remains that there never was nor ever will be a world without Him. Let us embrace it and not flinch to say it is so.