Ouch.
Men are like a fine wine. They all start out like grapes, and you have to stomp on them and keep them in the dark until they mature into something you'd like to have dinner with.
Automobiles and Christians
It seems odd to me that people seem to be concerned with Howard Dean as a secular president. This because he doesn't want to talk about religion. I read recently where Dean is caving to the pressure and will be more open about his beliefs, more so if he makes it to a general election. Honestly, I don't see why it matters.
For one thing, Dean is campaigning to be President of the United States, not the Pope. In the United States we have this thing about separating church and state so a leaders religious views should, it would seem to me, be less important than his political views. Does he go to church every Sunday or does he favor lower taxes? What does church going have to do with anything? George Washington didn't attend church much. (According to one biographer, he was doing good to sit in on a service three times in a year.) Thomas Jefferson had no use for religion, but had a abiding belief in God. We revere these men as wise and even heroic. Sleeping in a garage doesn't make you a car. Going to church doesn't make you a Christian.
Dean's attempts to speak about religious matters have been awkward at best. So he has only a vague idea about religious dogma. So what? Bill Clinton was Southern Baptist. He could talk the talk, but I don't think anyone could say he walked the walk and keep a straight face. JFK was Catholic, but his womanizing is not only undisputed, it's legendary. So are the American people saying all our president needs is to appear religious? Doesn't that fly in the face of the right's own (heavily Christian) religious traditions? "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness." That's the New Testament, Matthew 23:27, for those of you not familiar with The Bible.
I could perhaps understand a desire to have the leader of our country acknowledge a power higher than himself. A megalomaniac certainly isn't the type of person one wants running one's country. Just ask an Iraqi. On the other hand, let's take a look at a few historical figures who professed religious convictions:
Pope Nicolas V - In 1455, Pope Nicholas V congratulated King Alfonso of Portugal for his conquest of Guinea and expressed his hope that "...many...negroes, taken by force, ...or by other lawful contract" would be "converted to the faith." He also authorized King Alfonso "to invade, search out, capture, vanquish and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, ... and to reduce their persons to slavery." This papal bull was the basis for the displacement and subjugation of Native Americans in the U.S. 400 years later.
King Ferdinand V of Spain - Ferdinand decided that his country needed unity and that unity could be achieved through religious hegemony. Thus began the infamous Spanish Iquisition. He began by driving out Jews, Protestants and other "unbelievers." It is believed that some 2,000 Spaniards were executed in the first 15 years of the inquisition's history. Originally authorized by Pope Sextus IV in 1478, the Catholic Church later tried to intervene, but was unsuccessful. The Inquisition's history spans over 300 years, finally ending in 1834.
William Stoughton - Appointed by Governor Phips of Massachusetts, Stoughton presided over the now famous Salem Witch Trials. Stoughton had a degree in theology, but no legal education of any kind. During the trials, many questionable courtroom practices were allowed including the allowing of spectral evidence against the accused. Twenty people were executed and four more died in prison during the year long investigations of 1692.
For my part, I'd be much more comfortable with a President who keeps his religious beliefs private instead of parading them about for the world to see. It's not what a man says that makes the difference in the end, it is what he does. "By their fruits ye shall know them." Sorry. I don't remember who said that.
They’re everywhere! They’re everywhere!
I, James, am neither a god nor an angel, but a man like any other. Therefore I act like a man and confess to loving those dear to me more than any other man. You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else, and more than you who are here assembled. I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had his John, and I have my George.
The above was written by King James I/VI -- as in James of the King James Bible...
Something to think about.
The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift
Albert Einstein
“Nature has a way of breaking that which does not bend.”
I find that I'm writing once again in response to a column by Ann Coulter. I'm not sure how I feel about that. Ann seems to me to be an odd juxtaposition of value systems. Admittedly, I only know her through her writing. I have no way of knowing if Ann is the same person in private that she is on the public stage. It may also be asking too much to have any well reasoned or consistent writing from an Op/Ed column, but it's a nice thought.
In her latest column, Ann somehow equates the removal of religious symbols from our country's courtrooms, namely the Ten Commandments, with anarchy. I'm still not sure how she manages to do that. The assumption seems to be that man is incapable of governing himself without the intervention of a higher power. An interesting assumption on two counts. First, with respect to the Ten Commandments, only three of the ten are actually codified in U.S. law. Secondly, history is replete with examples of religious governments being some of the most oppressive and violent. The savage acts of 9/11 were done in the name of religion.
At the root of all the agitation on the right is the courts' growing indifference to tradition. Tradition is a fine thing, but there needs to be some kind of balance, I would think. Take, for example, Ann's current subject: monuments to the Ten Commandments. I'm not really sure what the solution is there. I tend to think the ACLU is going a bit overboard studiously eradicating every trace of religion from government. An engraving in a 150 year old building seems rather harmless and is a nod to the cultural traditions of the region. I don't really see anything wrong with that. If a sitting judge is Christian and wants to display the Ten Commandments that should be fine as long as his rulings are based in U.S. law. Same if the sitting judge happens to be a Jew and wants to hang the Star of David in his court.
On the other hand, if the sitting judge is a pompous ass who has demonstrated his inability to stick to U.S. law, who installs a two ton monument as a political statement, thumbing his nose at his peers and their criticism of his judicial practice, then the monument and the judge need to go.
Which is, in fact, what the ACLU's efforts are trying to avoid in the first place. There is a long standing Christian tradition in this country. There also happens to be a long standing tradition of Judaism. There also happens to be a long standing tradition of Unitarian Universalists and/or Deists. If you ask me, it seems everyone should have a greater tolerance for other religious views and accept that their religious values do not apply to others not of their faith. I've never heard of the Jews trying to codify Kosher laws into U.S. law. However, if you feel strongly about something, say abortion is a barbaric practice, perhaps your energy would be better spent finding alternatives to abortion for those who find themselves in that predicament rather than trying to make it illegal. You know, actually help someone. If homosexuality is something you find immoral, no one is asking you to participate. It seems simply mean spirited to make sure that anyone who does participate be second class in the eyes of the law.
The right cries out for "traditional" values, but they seem to conveniently forget that there are several long standing traditions that have already been abandoned in this country and few seem to miss them. Slavery has been a part of human history much longer than not. Same goes for the oppression of women. Ann had better be grateful to the women of the 1800s and early 1900s who went to prison for the right to count as a human being in the governance of this country or she wouldn't be writing her column. The family matriarch would have married her off a long time ago and she'd be raising children and cooking meals for her husband and keeping *his* house clean (since she would not be allowed to own property). Religious hatred is also a long standing tradition. We see it today in the Middle East between Jews and Arabs, between Arabs and the West, between Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants. Tradition is fine, but tradition for the sake of tradition is a problem. Man should be free to chuck traditions he finds has no longer has a use for.