Dan Miller, you ask "why so little comment on the views of Catholic abortion rights advocates?" It might have to do with the would-be critics' wise consideration of such things as glass houses, stones, and the contraband contents of their OWN nightstands. Then again, even speaking as a non-Catholic, I can appreciate that a Roman Catholic who follows the full counsel of Pope Paul's Humanae Vitae (which also forbids the use of artificial birth control) might be wrestling with God over the Pope's words vis a vis Catholic politicians. Such a Catholic may share the Pope's conclusions on the sanctity of human life, but he might NOT share the Pope's conclusions on how that reverence should be communicated and transferred to the political world. Through law...or through grace? Most Catholics regard the Pope as their spiritual leader and pay VERY close attention to what he says, but quite a few of these know how to listen to God and read the Bible, and the Constitution, on their own as well.
***

While we're on the subject of consistency in criticism of political candidates and all: I sure am glad Ron Paul isn't cynically using his Christianity to lure Catholic or Protestant voters, nor is he courting the favor of any Religious Right spokesman. His views on abortion are informed by his other career as an obstetrician--he has never in 4000 deliveries seen any medical reason to perform an abortion. Still, as do the Catholics I mentioned above, he knows that changing people's minds about abortion doesn't happen by ramming it down their throats via the Federal Courts. It starts from people talking rationally and philosophically, dare I even say, KINDLY, to one another about the matter way down at the local level.

About those newsletters, you know the ones I'm talking about. If Senators Clinton and Obama knew one percent as much about sound economic practice as Ron Paul does, they too might have been the founders of economic newsletters in which some associates (closer to Ron Paul now than Reverend Wright is or was to Senator Obama?) made some remarks that were, arguably (and I'd argue for: not), as racist as the comments Reverend Wright made.

There IS someone else running in the Republican primaries against Ron Paul. John McCain is his name. I know, I know, John WHO? Yawn. Obama, Clinton, and Ron Paul. That's where all the interesting political news is. Someone please write a blogcritics article all about John McCain. I need something to help me fall asleep.

All this makes me wonder when John McCain will reject Rod Parsley's views. It also makes me wonder why he doesn't seem to have to.

I think your article is fine Dan, as far as it goes. But, you left out the McCain/Parsley team, which almost seems like it would have to be included.

Yeah, I know, it's not the same thing. It is however, an interesting thing in that McCain should call this nut case a "great leader", "moral compass", and "spiritual guide" and that seems to be fine.

Cindy,

I agree. I probably should have included at least a reference the McCain/Parsley team, and didn't. There are lots of other examples which could have also have been used to illustrate the point I was trying to make.

That would have made for a very, very long article, however, since the numbers of fruitcakes who appear during the political season makes it seem almost like Christmas.

Dan

the numbers of fruitcakes who appear during the political season makes it seem almost like Christmas.

Well put...

That is hilarious! LOL

An idea long overdue, from John Lennon: Imagine no religion.

Davidpeace,

There is another bumper sticker type slogan which I like: Imagine Whirled Peas.

I'm no fan of religion, and were I to become God, I would have a difficult time deciding which to eliminate first, religion or cancer. Still, both affect us all, whether we have neither, either or both. So one reasonable test of the sincerity of the campaign promises of a candidate who claims to adhere to a specified religion is whether he accepts the major teachings of that religion related to those promises, particularly if his religion threatens draconian consequences for (public) non adherence.

Dan

I think it's very hard for most people who want to think for themselves and ask questions to follow a church's strict doctrine or a religious leader's absolute authority. A politician of faith needs to find a way to balance that with independence of thought and action.

The role of religion in people's lives has changed greatly over the past 50 years, as preachers and churches have grown more political and more partisan. That's been a huge mistake, IMO, toxic to both church and state, as some churches seek more to coerce and control than to inspire and serve.

The idea that the Catholic church could and would threaten American politicians who didn't vote the church line would have doomed the JFK candidacy. Politicians should be closely questioned on their church-state position, as JFK was. A Huckabee was a truly dangerous possibility, a bigot-friendly McCain is a red-flag.

There is no religious test in the U.S. for public office. Any church--or churchman--left or right, who seeks to impose any kind of doctrinal litmus test for our leaders is acting against our history, rights, freedoms, and best interests.

Back in the day, as they say, when I was a young man and attended catholic mass on a regular basis it seemed to me that the rule was you could screw up all week as long as you went to confession and did your penance afterwards. But if you have any sin on your soul, that's sin that hasn't been absolved through confession and penance, you had better not receive communion.

There's a long history in this country, especially in the northeast of career criminals, organized crime bosses like Vito Genovese leaving buttloads of money to the church so they could be buried in hallowed catholic ground.

There's more truth to those scenes in the Godfather with Michael Corleone meeting with leaders of the church than you would think...

And as far as someone leaving the church...all I can tell you is what my mother said as she was signing the papers that put me in the navy...I had filled everything out earlier and had put no preference under religion...mom looked at me...that evil italian stare that some women can give and said through clenched teeth...and I'm quoting here....

you were born a fucking catholic, you were raised a fucking catholic and you'll die a fucking catholic...

The last ass whooping I ever got from mom was when I looked at the recruiter and said....

Can you change that to fucking catholic? I remember pain...and the next thing I knew I was in boot camp!!!

just a thought...

Lee,

Thanks for your comments, with which I agree.

The related problem, which I tried to point out, is that if a candidate says (perhaps in a region which grows apples commercially) that apple pie is his very favorite desert, which he eats at every opportunity, while also proclaiming devout membership in a church which absolutely prohibits the ingestion of apples in any form, he has a sincerity problem. That problem is legitimately subject to discussion during his campaign for office.

Dan

Andy,

Bless you, my son. Go thou and sin no more.

And while you are at it, if you are looking for a great church, here it is.

Bishop Dan

Shameless huckstering...

:>)

Oh, wait.

That's what churchmen do...

Clav,

I confess. Will I be given absolution if I promise not to do it again until the next time?

Dan

Catholicism is nothing if not pragmatic...

Of course, my son.

Just say three Hail Marys and an Our Father and drop a C-note in the collection box on your way out.

And don't let the door hit...Oops, Bless you, my son.

Dan,

I think we are discussing two different types of churches.

It's like discussing football rules then applying them to a basketball player. Can't work.

Each Church or denomination has it's own discipline or rules of the game. In Obama's church one can go against the teaching of the Pastor. Were he to go against the apostle Peter, then it would be an issue.

I dunno, Zedd. St Paul went against Peter, and look where it got him!

Zedd,

Yep. I agree. Here, under your analogy, Senator Kennedy is the football player, and Senator Obama is the basketball player. Yet Senator Kennedy seems able to go against the most important moral teaching of his church with impunity, while Senator Obama has difficulty when he claims (currently) to differ from some of the major teachings of his long term pastor.

I think both of them are legitimately questioned on the bases of these disagreements; Senator Obama has been, and his answers have been, at least to some extent, acceptable. Senator Kennedy seems to have got a pass or free goal or own goal or whatever it is called in football.

Dan

I think Lee touched on this above, but religion does put politicians in somewhat of a quandry in this day and age. Religion, especially here in the U.S. has become so politicized in recent years, in part owing to the likes of Jerry Falwell and his "moral majority," Pat Robertson and other evangeliists, and more recently the work of Karl Rove during both of the Bush campaigns.

Some of the issues Dan discussed above do tend to make various candidates seem duplicitous. It's kind of the old "rock and a hard place" situation.

No candidate for any significant office in this country - local, state or national - could hope to prevail without professing their religious beliefs. A professed atheist or agnostic should just forget about holding political office, beyond perhaps second assistant, junior vice dog catcher.

Obviously, some politicians are more religious than others. But to appease the voters, he or she must wear their faith on their sleeve, kinda like Obama is expected to wear a fucking flag pin on his lapel. When any particular religious organizations or thier leaders espouse certain credos, it then falls to the politicians to either embrace or disavow those credos.

My wife has suggested that all politicians should join the Unitarian Church since they believe in everything and nothing at the same time. That might work.

B-tone

We can easily see why religion will disappear from political life. In the past access to 'media' was so limited that inconsistencies and such couldn't be well explored, but now they can.

It's only a matter of time before US politicians stop trying to use religion as a virtue for election, and voters stop getting themselves involved in these weird ecclesiastical ponderings that they can never solve. Perhaps citizens will move away from religion, as has happened in many other countries where public life has been successfully separated from private life.

Can you think of what religion Sarkozy or Berlesconi are? I'm not even aware that they have any religion. I only recall that Tony Blair is vaguely christian because it came up in connection with Bush somehow.

By contrast, everybody in the world knows that Bush is some kind of weird evangelical christian and that he makes a point of it, although it doesn't seem to affect his relationship with the Pope ("Ben baby, you better recognize Jaysus Cheeerist as your personal savior or burn in H*ll!!!").

Baritone,

Good points.

I once, long ago, flirted with the Unitarian Church, but found it too political -- very oriented toward the left, even almost half a century ago. Still, their idealism was remarkable. I still remember the Unitarian version of the Doxology:

From all that dwell beneath the skies
Let faith and hope with love arise.
Let beauty, truth and good be sung
Through every land by every tongue.

Can you think of what religion Sarkozy or Berlesconi are? I'm not even aware that they have any religion. I only recall that Tony Blair is vaguely christian because it came up in connection with Bush somehow.

Well, Sarkozy has said that Pope John Paul II was one of his role models - not that that tells us much. Berlusconi is presumably a Roman Catholic, like most of his countrymen. As you say, religion doesn't manifest itself in their public lives at all.

Tony Blair, on the other hand, is a practicing Roman Catholic. He was always known to be a devout Christian, but held off being inducted into the Catholic faith until after his resignation as Prime Minister because of the conflict of interest it would have caused with his ministerial responsibilities in connection with the official Protestant Church of England. (That was the official explanation given, anyway.)

Dan, I'm glad you titled this "Churches and other Voluntary Societies" - you have to volunteer to be an atheist, and - well - I'll let Christians talk about Christianity.... They know more about it than I do.

I was born a Jew. I was confirmed as one with a "brit milá", a circumcision. I had no choice over either event. Unless I renounce my identity in public - as in "I am not a Jew, etc., I am a ...." - I remain one, no matter how many bacon double cheeseburgers I consume or Christmas parties I go to.

Just mentioning that to point out the big blind spot in how you (and most Americans) view religion.

Ruvy,

Thanks for the effort, but I don't understand your point. Perhaps you will be kind enough to try again.

I have known quite a few secular Jews, who were born into religious families and raised as religious Jews. Indeed, I know some who keep Kosher for reasons of their Jewish heritage rather than for religious reasons. They want to and do retain their Jewish identity -- a heritage which transcends religion as I understand it -- regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof.

I was baptized as a Methodist, and raised as one until I decided that I was an Agnostic and should no longer consider or refer to myself as a Christian. For me to pretend to be a Christian would be dishonest. I do not see that as being the case with a secular Jew.

Dan

Ruvy,

To continue briefly with the point I was trying to make, you may have seen the recently revealed letter from Albert Einstein. In it,

the renowned scientist, who declined an invitation to become Israel's second president, rejected the idea that the Jews are God's chosen people.

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions," he said.

"And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people."

I remain one, no matter how many bacon double cheeseburgers I consume or Christmas parties I go to.

LOL, good one Ruvy

Dan,

My unitarian suggestion was pretty much in jest. Most christians look upon unitarians as kind of a joke, or at best a pretend religion.

Actually, I think blif is dreaming. It's going to be a long time before politics and religion go their separate ways in the U.S.

Most European countries have long since relegated religion to the back burner. The U.S. is perhaps the most seriously religious country in the christian world. For an atheist such as myself, it's a real pain in the ass.

While I'm not prepared to question any particular politician's faith, doubtless there are some who find it necessary to play the game and declare their steadfast devotion to their church and jesus h. christ even if most Sunday mornings they would much rather spend sleeping in, having a late breakfast and reading the comics.

B-tone

"My unitarian suggestion was pretty much in jest. Most christians look upon unitarians as kind of a joke, or at best a pretend religion."

Your right B-tone, but how did you know that being an atheist? I am being serious, it's not a put down. I just find in interesting.

"Most European countries have long since relegated religion to the back burner. The U.S. is perhaps the most seriously religious country in the christian world. For an atheist such as myself, it's a real pain in the ass."

I find this interesting for a few reasons. The first reason is that when I hear arguments like this, (that is us vs. them arguments) "Europe" always comes up as the standard. What about Asian countries? South American countries? Why is Europe the continent most often used to make this point?

Second, I'm curious as to what you mean by "seriously religious." I think the religion of Americana is the actual dominant religion in the United States. If you ask the average Christian in the United States vs., say, the average Christian in other parts of the world (yes, even Europe!), they'll say they're Americans first and Christians second. Clearly their (Americans) religious point of view has taken a back seat to their geographical conceit, whereas other religious people in other countries don't usually turn up the same responses. So I wonder if there shouldn't be more of a gripe with rabid patriotism, consumerism, and America's own specialized brand of religion (even American Muslims have a "watered down" version of their faith) and less of a gripe with the international body of religious people. Let's face it, if it wasn't for the Bush Administration and the large focus on religion coming out of the "Religious Right" in America, most of these discussions would probably not take place with such fervor.

Third, in my extensive observations on religion and politics in the United States, I have to say that Americans in politics tend to do more pandering then they tend to do more actual practical work. We all know that politicians will say whatever it takes to get elected and pandering to various religious groups helps win votes (just ask Bush Sr.). But what about the actual practical application of values? When it comes to discussing religion in politics, nobody wants to talk about Obama and Clinton and their discussions of morals and values during the presidential forum on faith, politics, and values. I haven't seen one article on that here, but I have seen articles rampant with speculation about Rev. Wright and all sorts of other unrelated nonsense. Religion will always be closely tied to politics because most candidates in America are going to be religious. Asking a candidate not to use his or her religious point of view is ridiculous and separation of church and state should not serve as a censorship initiative to mute all expressions of different faiths or cultures.

Those are three points that I haven't heard discussed in this ongoing dialogue about religion and politics. The fear-mongering is discussed, as is the general "annoyance" atheists must feel living in a country in which people are free to worship how they choose. But last time I checked the United States had no state religion and was fairly religiously free by most international standards. There are a lot of misnomers about religion floating around in these discussions, too many to count, but one thing that's certain is that fear, intolerance, and ignorance has taken a front seat yet again.

I for one, as a mere Canadian outsider, would like to see more emphasis put on values and morals that matter to the individual and less of painting of Christianity and other religious traditions by one stereotypic brush. But hey, it's your party!

I find this interesting for a few reasons. The first reason is that when I hear arguments like this, (that is us vs. them arguments) "Europe" always comes up as the standard. What about Asian countries? South American countries? Why is Europe the continent most often used to make this point?

Probably because the standards of Western civilization are usually regarded (by their inhabitants, anyway) as the default standards; and Europe has been 'Western' for longer than anywhere else and therefore has 'seniority'.

Plus, though the demographics are changing rapidly these days, most of us (Americans) have our roots in Europe, not Asia or Latin America, so naturally we look across the Atlantic for purposes of comparison or reference.

Jordan raises a lot of interesting questions. Doc answers one regarding the European conceit (if you will) as a measuring stick. I think also that the U.S. is largely made up of people of European stock - perhaps less so now than in the past, but most of us still look back to Europe for our origins. Also, most of our religious heritage comes through Europe. Actually, if one considers, much of so called Latin America actually has its roots in Europe (as does Canada, of course.)

Many black Americans have roots ultimately leading
back to Africa, but those cultural and religious heritages were many and varied depending upon specifically where their particular ancestors came from. Like it or not, much of their known heritage comes out of their ancestors' experience under slavery, which in turn has its origins from the European connection of the slave holders.

Asian influences are hardly felt in the U.S. It is true that there are a growing number of Asians in the U.S., but while some retain the religion and traditions of their native country, many have in fact adopted much of American culture including religion. At any rate, Japan and South Korea have become over the last several decades quite secular with religion more and more taking a back seat as it has in much of Europe. Have I sufficiently beaten this horse to death?

I don't think there is any question that Americans place the importance of their religion at or near the top. I don't particularly agree with Jordan's statement regarding religious Americans putting their country first. How does the line go? - "God fearin' Americans." "God and country." "One nation under god" Enough said on that one.

I'm not sure what to say regarding Jordan's 3rd question. I think within it there is a tendancy to equate morality with religion. Are you, Jordan, suggesting that while politicians may profess to be good christians, that they are not so in practice?

There is the question raised by Dan's post regarding consistency between adherence to religious dogma and political pandering. But by what standard does one determine the relative morality of any given politician - or anyone for that matter. I don't think that this was exactly your point, but I do take some umbrage at the suggestion that only people of faith have a moral compass.

As to my or any atheist's "annoyance" regarding religion, our attitude toward religion is far more than mere peevishness. We believe as we believe and in that we find religion, all its trappings, and the negative influence it has had throughout most of human history as mind numbingly wasteful and tragic on an unfathomable scale. If that counts as an annoyance, then so be it.

B-tone

Just mentioning that to point out the big blind spot in how you (and most Americans) view religion.

Americans, including many American Jews, view religion as a mere voluntary society. That's okay, so long as they stay within the States, and don't try to impose that standard elsewhere.

This is not true elsewhere in the world, and is a big cultural blind spot Americans have.

Obama is the perfect example of how the American mentality works - he was raised as a Christian by momma, raised as a Moslem by daddy, and chose to be a Christian in the States. He put on different religions as one puts on or takes off a coat. It all gets rather meaningless, in my humble opinion.

In other parts of the world, this is just not the way things are done. I always viewed myself, and was raised to view myself, through the Middle Eastern lens of my heritage and nationality, long before thoughts of moving to Israel ever even entered my head. Until I renounce my ancient identity - given me through my mother's ancient identity, I retain it.

The term is tribal identity, Dan.

I'm not arguing the substantive points of your article, just reminding you of the big huge blind spot within it.

By the way, Einstein remained a Jew, no matter what his beliefs were.

Dan - you say you were bought up a Methodist, well I actually had a pretty good experience in a Methodist church when I was in my early teens.

At that time in my life my mother had stopped going to church for a while and there was no catholic church within several miles of my house. My grandmother on my fathers side attended the local Methodist church and back then I still wanted to go to church on Sundays.

I went with grandma for a while and on that one Sunday a month when the Methodist church did communion as I was headed up the road with her...she asked me if I was going to receive communion and I told her I couldn't because I hadn't been to confession. She told me that in her church if you had something to confess you spoke directly to god. What a concept! I thought it was the coolest thing ever. And they sang songs in english in the Methodist church! I could actually understand the words!

I think this was the start of the downfall of catholicism for me and religion in general. But it really was the first time I realized that there were significant differences in some of the christian religions. I had always suspected it...why else would the priests and nuns tell us that we weren't allowed to attend services in a different church.

About 15 years ago my family and I decided that we would try church again. One of my neighbors attended a church of christ, so we headed that way. It was a nice service and we continued to go for a while. Then my brother asked me to be godfather to his son. After spending the day in a catholic church again, the first time in a very long time, I wasn't able to go to the CofC anymore. Something inside me made it feel very wrong to be in that church. I can't explain it other than to say, I guess all those teachings from 11 years of catholic school and untold numbers of Sundays in the pews, made it impossible to go to a church that wasn't a catholic church. Then again, it coulda been what mom said to me that day I went in the navy....

Ruvy,

By the way, Einstein remained a Jew, no matter what his beliefs were.

But but but that was the point I was trying to make in comments #26 and 27.

A Jew can cease to be religious and become secular and remain a Jew; a Christian can't do that.

Dan

Dan,

I can't help thinking that Dr. Seuss must have written that verse for the Unitarian Church. It sounds like something the Who's wake up singing the day after the Grinch stole Christmas.

Cindy D,

Nope, it was written by the author(s) of I'd like to buy the world a Coke, and live in harmony . . .

Dan

Just another jingle...

Clav,

Yeah, but at least I can hum it.

Dan

I give it about a 5; ya can't dance to it.

The verse that Dan quoted from the Unitarians also sounds like it could come at the end of an Alvin and the Chipmunks movie. I can hear their little helium induced voices as I type.

As to Ruvy's depiction of Obama's religious choices: I'm not sure if he meant the description to be an indictment of Obama particularly, but obviously, Obama's history regarding his religious upbringing were not of his choosing, but rather, his parent's.

Obama's experience is certainly not typical of most Americans. The majority of Americans raised in a church from infancy or toddlerhood tend to stay in that or a very similar church for life. Youngsters are inured into a particular faith very early and generally don't stray far from the fold. Those who make significant changes in their religious choices are far more in the minority than Ruvy would have you believe.

The level of involvement, the place that religion takes in people's lives vary widely, not only here in the States, but elsewhere as well. I imagine that there are a number of secular Jews living in Israel.

There are a large number of very devout christians in the U.S. as witness the proliferation of mega-churches and the fact that in both large cities and in most every small town in the country churches can be found on virtually every street corner - except those taken by Starbucks - and that seemingly almost every small store front in older commercial areas, or second tier strip centers have small churches pop up almost on a daily basis.

Empty storage facilities are made into churches; empty churches are often turned into storage facilities. They should double up in some of those places so that you could store your excess junk in one room and praise the lord for allowing you to accumulate that junk in another. Throw in a Starbucks and you'd have a great package all under one roof.

B-tone

I thought Starbucks IS a religion, B-tone???

Down here we have hundreds of storefront churches; usually catering to Caribbean people, predominately Haitians.

We have a mega-church here in downtown Fresno that actually runs its own Starbucks-style coffee shop. Pretty good, too.

Can one receive absolution from a barista? "I want a grande lowfat mocha latte' and forgiveness of my sins.
--- To go.

B-tone

Dan, as one of the few Catholics who frequent the Politics boards, I want to compliment you on this article. I think you did a very good and neutral job of describing a religion of which you aren't a member.

Thanks, Baronius

I appreciate your comment very much.

Dan

What a coincidence. I was just looking over Martin Luther's 95 Theses, and came across these items:

32. They will be condemned eternally, together with their teachers, who believe themselves sure of their salvation because they have a grande latte.

42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend the buying of espresso to be compared in any way to works of mercy.

43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better work than buying frapuccinos.

45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in need of caffeine, and passes him by, and gives [his money] for muffins, purchases not the indulgences of the pope, but the indignation of God.

46. Christians are to be taught that unless they have more than they need, they are bound to keep back what is necessary for their own families, and by no means to squander it on Starbucks double shots.

I find the discussions about European origins most compelling because I come from an area that has a very significant Asian population. In fact, many parts of Metro Vancouver feature Asian majorities, so the question of the Asian religious communities really does come into play with local politics and agendas. Plus Canada is, traditionally, less the melting pot that the United States is and more the mosaic. The cultural differences are interesting in that respect, as more Asian religious culture is featured in our society (Khalsa Day, I think it's called, is a HUGE deal in this area) and the notion of "religion and state" is a very minor one where I live. I think the heavy emphasis on religious pluralism helps infuse the religious discussion with more intelligence and tolerance, actually. That's not say that's a general rule or that Canada's religious dialogue operates on a better level than America's, but there are some significant differences with the idea of religion in our two societies. The idea of a Muslim President of the United States would be considered very troubling in America, for instance. Not sure that it would be as convoluted in Canada or other parts of the world.

"I don't particularly agree with Jordan's statement regarding religious Americans putting their country first."

I've culled this statistic from a recent survey found in the January 2008 issue of Sojourners magazine (I don't expect you to find the reference, of course) as presented through World Vision leaders, etc. It's tough to quantify the exactness of the survey, but the overall sense was based around the notion that when nationalistic values and Christian values intersect, most people still err on the side of their national identity. Key issues like this include the idea of creation care as relates to global warming, the war in Iraq, and stances on poverty. Many American Christians, according to World Vision, rate those issues significantly differently than Christians in the global community. More American Christians support the Iraq War, support denial of global warming's basic science and deny basis environmental care as a moral imperative, and rate poverty and care for the homeless in their own cities as being low priorities. Nationalistic ideals such as "protecting America's interests" and other notions of tribal loyalty come, for most American Christians, before the idea of loyalty to a broader human community and love of one's neighbour.

The World Vision leaders noted that a simple change in actual priority and not just lipservice would change the world. The distinctive tribal loyalty of patriots offer unbridled support to tribal policies that threaten war on other countries, something which is decidedly un-Christian, and certain behavioural distinctions which do not coincide with an actual declaration of faith and compassion to an international community. This is, instead, the religious point of view of Americana. "God" does factor in, but who is "God" in the American community. He or She seems to be a very different figure when contrasted to who believers in the rest of the world subscribe.

B-Tone, my third point referred to the discussion of so-called religious issues in America. I think your final paragraph references this quite nicely in that it reflects the attitude exemplified in the debate by both sides. American Christians and international Christians tend to only see the good and desire to surround themselves in information and material that supports their previously established point of view. They'll read C.S. Lewis, N.T. Wright, etc. and think Christians have it all together. American atheists will, on the other hand, seek to reinforce their viewpoints by asserting themselves with information and material that supports their views. They'll read Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Dan Dennett, Sam Harris, etc. Both groups learn nothing more than what they want and, as such, their tinted glasses demonstrate their worldview. But who is actually being tolerant and compassionate in establishing their worldview? The Christians who hate everyone who isn't a Christian? The atheists who despise religion and all its "harmful" facets? Who is aiming to make the better world? Neither. The religious discourse in this light is astonishingly ignorant and, while I'm not suggesting B-Tone or anyone else here subscribes to my aforementioned assertion, I have rarely seen any other option for discourse in these types of discussions.

Where is the common ground? Where are the areas we can all agree on to progress in society? Where is the emphasis on the discussions of faith, values, and politics? Nowhere to be found, I'm afraid. What we're left with to discuss is the same divisive rhetoric we've always had. In my opinion, that's a crying shame.

Jordan,

On your last point concerning the lack of meaningful discourse: I find that is pretty much a human condition, not limited to religious and non-religious groups. In that sense, we humans are tribal, but the "tribe" of which we speak is often more an abstraction than a reality. Those who claim to put America first, those who defend our country "right or wrong" are often those who find no charity in their hearts for their fellow tribesmen (and women.) Rather, they are defending an idea, or perhaps more accurately, an ideal - usually one conjured up in their own minds.

I would also suggest that this lack of discourse is most accutely present in the current situation between Islamic extremists and much of the west. There is, as you say, no common ground.

There has been a certain amount of ecumenism amongst various religious groups over the last several years, but even that is now being challenged by many fundamentalists including many protestant sects and the Catholic church as well. Many are now claiming that their congregations must adhere closely to their particular set of doctrines and no other to insure ascension into paradise.

It is true that many atheists are loathe to confer with their religious opponents, but that is not true in all cases. There are a number of atheist and/or agnostic organizations which have long been attempting to achieve a dialogue with the religious establishment. Many of these efforts have been rebuffed over the years owing to the fears on the religious side that such intermingling, if you will, could result in tainting one's position god wise through the evils of temptation and doubt. Many religious sects make no accommodations for doubt. Obviously, atheists harbour no such fears.

B-tone

Duane,

I have long suspected that Starbucks was a front for the Lutheran Church - probably the Missouri Synod. That they established headquarters in Seattle was no more than a ruse.

It is Luther's theses that is part and parcel to the barista's training manual - their bible, if you will. It's all becoming painfully clear now.
Do I dare enter a Starbucks now and order a frappuccino? Or might I find myself tacked to the door?

B-tone

"There are a number of atheist and/or agnostic organizations which have long been attempting to achieve a dialogue with the religious establishment. Many of these efforts have been rebuffed over the years owing to the fears on the religious side that such intermingling, if you will, could result in tainting one's position god wise through the evils of temptation and doubt. Many religious sects make no accommodations for doubt. Obviously, atheists harbour no such fears."

Well now you've got me curious. Which atheist and/or agnostic organizations have been attempting this dialogue with the religious establishment?

From my experience, talking to somebody who thinks you're "delusional" because of your beliefs or discussing issues with somebody who openly thinks of you as less intelligent because of a conviction isn't exactly an open door to respectful communication. In that respect, it's a lot more complicated to get to the actual issue. Atheists, secular humanists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, agnostics, and others can agree on larger social points, but it eventually does come down to the human condition you describe. There are safeguards to that, however, and I for one am not merely content to simply defer to "oh well, it's a human thing." I'd much rather push for something better than divisive rhetoric and intolerance.

As for the notion of "Islamic extremists," we often dehumanize these individuals and I think that is to our error. The Bush Administration does this, as do many Americans, and it is at great peril that ignorance is displayed towards the motives of "extremists" and other "fundamentalists." It becomes a black and white world, a good vs. evil conflict on a grand theological scale, and we "moderates" (ha!) represent opposition to those "extremists and fundies." I have to say that this is one of the gravest errors in judgment taking place right now in the Western world.

There is always common ground. They ("extremists") act for a reason, we act for a reason. They think they're "right," we think we're "right." The common ground lies in basic humanism. Most people who are labeled extremists act in a fashion so as to uphold their values, while us (the Western world) are very likely "extremists" to them. While treating our "enemies" like human beings may not end conflict or solve problems, it is a far cry from the mistake of dehumanizing entire people groups, labeling individuals based on perspective, and creating an ideological war instead.

Again, there is always common ground. The "human thing" in this case may be that most of us are simply too ignorant, lazy, impatient, intolerant, or stupid to look for it.

"The common ground lies in basic humanism."

That common ground doesn't exist with fanatics who think that humanism and secularism are tools of the devil. Religious extremists are anti-humanists. The basic ideas of humanism are what threaten them the most. You aren't going to win them over on that basis. They'll just destroy you.

Dave

...as has been the case historically, the 'common ground' will be found in the marketplace - reject movements in Congress to 'punitively' restrict trade with Muslim states

(...a comma

I'm so embarrassed)

As for the notion of "Islamic extremists," we often dehumanize these individuals and I think that is to our error. The Bush Administration does this, as do many Americans, and it is at great peril that ignorance is displayed towards the motives of "extremists" and other "fundamentalists." It becomes a black and white world, a good vs. evil conflict on a grand theological scale, and we "moderates" (ha!) represent opposition to those "extremists and fundies." I have to say that this is one of the gravest errors in judgment taking place right now in the Western world.

Read The Looming Tower, Pulitzer Prize-winning book by Lawrence Wright, about Islamic extremeism.

you should be, troll

Had I been around centuries ago when the Christian Extremists -- those wonderful folks who went about torturing and burning at the stake those with whom they disagreed on theological matters -- I would probably have objected to them no less strenuously than I now object to the Islamic Extremists whose god and priests evidently tell them to do the same things. The technology has improved, but the humanity hasn't

It is very difficult to have mutually beneficial ecumenical discussions with people who are doing their rabid best to torture and kill you, particularly while they are doing that.

Christian Extremists no longer do that sort of thing frequently, and Islamic Extremists do. Perhaps this is due to the Starbucks - Lutheran connection; or maybe it is something else.

Dan

I can think of a few such organizations which have as a part of their agenda outreach programs designed to establish and/or maintain a dialogue with religious organizations:

The Atheist Alliance
The Brights
American Humanist Association
American Atheists
Council For Secular Humanism
The Humanist Institute

Keep in mind that atheists are, in the U.S. at any rate much in the minority. It is often atheists who are kept at bay, kept out of the loop. It is usually quite difficult, even futile to attempt a dialogue with believers, again owing largely to what I noted above regarding the fear of guilt by association. God is a loving god, but he nevertheless hates atheists, doubters, apostates and various malingerers.

There may well exist a "common ground" of humanity. However, as Dave and Clav both state or suggest, that commonality is totally obscured by extremists - not just Islamic extremists, but religious zealots of most any stamp. To entertain any thoughts of creating a dialogue with the infidel is tantamount to having doubts.

I do agree that the lack of communication, our demonizing of the enemy does establish a dangerous situation. However, it is a two way street. There has to be a willingness by all sides to sit down and attempt to identify and work through differences to have any hope of actually finding that common ground.

Bush and company has done nothing to establish any communication with the powers that be in the Muslim world (except of course with the Saudi royal family with whom the Bushes have a working partnership in oil production.)

I think for our part, Barack Obama may be just the man to attempt to break ground in that arena. His apparent willingness to sit down with whomever will do so is at least hopeful.

B-tone

Baritone,

You say, Barack Obama may be just the man to attempt to break ground in that arena.

I would suggest the following amendment:Barack Obama may be just the person currently running seriously for President of the U.S. to attempt to break ground in that arena.

So amended, I agree, subject to your own caveat, may be. As to the other candidates, Senator Clinton wouldn't have a prayer, and not only because of the low esteem in which women are held in that neck of the woods. McCain? I don't know and probably, neither does he. True, it is best to negotiate with other strong alternatives in mind, see, e.g., Hitler vs. Chamberlain et al; in that respect and perhaps due to his apparently intimate understanding of the Christian extremist mindset, possibly useful in understanding the Islamic extremist mindset, McCain might do OK.

Dan

I see religious people constantly trying to start up a dialogue with me. They knock on my door all the time, offering different pieces of reading material. I've actually accepted a few of these and attempted to read them, but most of them seem to do nothing for me other than to expedite a bowel movement. What can I say, I like to read while I sit...

Baritone,

One more point, on Agnostics vs Atheists.

As I understand the words, a Christian, as a minimum, has an absolute certainty that a god exists. An Atheist has a similarly absolute certainty that no god exists.

An Agnostic, as I use the word, simply does not know but tends to accept as probable the non existence of any god. To paraphrase Douglas Adams, it is possible (though quite unlikely) that somewhere in the known or unknown universe there may be an infinitely intelligent shade of purple which could qualify as a god.

Even though I am an Agnostic, I do not take chances. When sailing on a passage of several days, I shared a tot of rum with Neptune every morning and again every evening, in the hope that he would keep us safe. It seems to have worked pretty well.

Dan

Dan,

I don't know about McCain. As regards such things McCain seems more like a "shoot first" kinda guy. His first impulse seems to run with the Bush/Hawk mind set looking to the military for solutions.

If he gains the WH, I sincerely hope that's not the case. I'm not sure just how intimate McCain is with fundamentalists, nor how that might translate into being an effective negotiator with Islamic world.

Obama, on the other hand has lived and schooled amongst Muslims. Some fear that may make him soft in that area, but I feel that experience will simply aid in his putting their view in some understandable perspective. It may provide him with some insight in how to approach them with perhaps some skill and finesse rather than the bludgeoned approach of the Bushies.

B-tone

I see religious people constantly trying to start up a dialogue with me. They knock on my door all the time...

That's one advantage of living in a gated community. Our experience of all manner of hawkers of religious, political and commercial persuasions has been gratifyingly limited.

Baritone,

I'm not sure just how intimate McCain is with fundamentalists, nor how that might translate into being an effective negotiator with Islamic world.

Next time, I will get out my SATIRE stamp. There must be some HTML code for that.

Dan

B-Tone, a lot of those organizations do not develop dialogue in what could be called a "respectful tenor," to say the least. Take for instance The Brights. When you boast members like Richard Dawkins (who refers to religion as a delusion), Daniel Dennett (who states that we need to "break the spell" of religion), and Penn and Teller, the magicians, you're not on your way to opening up dialogue with religion. Having known of The Brights for quite a while now, I know of absolutely no cases in which they have attempted reasonable dialogue with religious groups for the sake of finding common ground. Admittedly, Dennett is probably the most respectful of the bunch.

"Keep in mind that atheists are, in the U.S. at any rate much in the minority. It is often atheists who are kept at bay, kept out of the loop. It is usually quite difficult, even futile to attempt a dialogue with believers, again owing largely to what I noted above regarding the fear of guilt by association. God is a loving god, but he nevertheless hates atheists, doubters, apostates and various malingerers."

The strawman created by atheists to describe God is a funny one. I wouldn't worship that God either, yet most atheists use theological language to carry out the debates and create their own version of God. Religious people and atheists then debate the strawmen as created by both sides (really an interpretation of God can only be a strawman, though) and the debate goes nowhere. "God Is Not Great" and "The God Delusion" don't really press believers into reasoned debate any more than books claiming "Hitchens Is An Alcoholic Asshole" and "Dawkins is a Racist Prick" would press atheists into reasoned discussion about their beliefs. So you have to know right off the bat that we're in for some trouble with that time of framework.

A question: how is it that atheists are "kept at bay" or kept "out of the loop?" This is such a broad statement that I'm having trouble understanding what you mean. With Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and others selling millions of books and landing on bestsellers lists and the "new atheist" thought pretty much dominating the internet world of religious discussion, I'm not sure that this "atheists are lurking in the shadows on the underbelly of society" ideology or approach is entirely fitting anymore.

"There has to be a willingness by all sides to sit down and attempt to identify and work through differences to have any hope of actually finding that common ground."

It takes more than a willingness, though. It takes a desire to have a respectful discourse, to not be "right-fighters," and to open up lines of communication in which we don't harbour resentment for the other or consider others as lesser beings than us based on beliefs, values, principles, and, yes, faith. Again, when you're meeting for a dialogue with somebody who thinks you're "delusional" and isn't afraid to say so, it immediately casts the discussion downward. Why is it so impossible to escape the rhetoric, the stereotypes, the generalizations, etc.? Because the desire to be right, better, smarter, fitter, happier, etc. trumps the desire for the greater good. A lot of atheists carry on as though if they could just convince the religious community of this one thing, they'd all stop being religious and we could get on with humanity's progress. Unfortunately or fortunately, that's a worldview that isn't shared. Calling everyone who disagrees with a particular worldview "fools" isn't helpful either. So we have to progress somehow, come out of our caves, and get on with it. The opposite of a Christian or religious person isn't an atheist, it's the indifferent individual who doesn't give a shit if there's a God or not.

"I think for our part, Barack Obama may be just the man to attempt to break ground in that arena. His apparent willingness to sit down with whomever will do so is at least hopeful."

Agreed. His experience and his willingness for diplomacy was shunned hugely by Bush when El Presidente was speaking to Israel today, so that demonstrates how idiotic the administration is at the moment. The whole "you can't negotiate with terrorists" thing sounds idiotic, ignorant, and tantamount to cowboy justice. Pissing off the whole world sure isn't helpful. Obama seems geared towards mobilizing communities of faith internationally and seems to know more about the world and its religions than most. His experience would be invaluable at this point in world history. If I was American, I'd vote for him.

I actually went out the other day and tried to find a no soliciting sign...they didn't have them at k-mart...

...there's been a large influx of them lately...solicitors, I mean, and they can really be a pain...I'm trying to play mariokart and they get my dogs all riled up! I end up crashing and get pissed...I open the door and it's never pretty!

I have to tell them, I already have the latest copy of watchtower, or yes, I have a copy of the "other testament of JC"...it really pisses 'em off if I ask if they've read the gospel of thomas or mary magdalene or phillip, or better yet,judas!!!...but that's the only way to make it fun for me too!

Is that gated community have an HOA too? I lived in an HOA community in AZ and it was worse than living in military housing...too many people in your business...no flag poles, no this kind of plant or that kind of plant...your grass is 2 mm to high, you need to cut it, you didn't get your trash can in by 6PM, next time we'll fine you and if you don't pay the fine we'll put a lein on your house...no thank you...never again!

Andy,

I once had a secretary who was a Jehovah's Witness. She was easily the best secretary I ever had, and a kind and thoughtful person as well. Her major flaw was that, when we first began working together, she would put a Watchtower or other tract on my desk every morning. After a few days of that, I politely told her that wasn't appropriate in the workplace, and that was the end of it.

She gave me one great tip, which I now pay forward: The very best way to keep the Witnesses away from your door is to put a "Bad Dog" or similar sign in your front yard. The church, she told me, actually tells them during their training to observe those signs no matter what.

I tried it, She was right. It works.

Pass it on.

When I first arrived in the US I took a short temp job in a lawyer's office. There was a sign on the office door that said 'No Solicitors'.

Which to me was extremely amusing, because in Britain a solicitor is a lawyer...

Yes, our complex does have an HOA which is worse than useless. Not so much with the obsessive regulations (although those are stupid), but in the area of getting things done. We have an area of dirt outside our front door which is used as a poopery by the local feral cats, an issue which the HOA has yet to address after four years of complaints. We'd do something about it ourselves, except that the area can't be planted because it's full of roots from the shrub that used to grow there (preventing cats from leaving jobbies) before some genius decided to cut it down.

Four freaking years. It's like they're the government or something!

Doc,

Get one of those giant s q u i r t guns the kids have these days. You only need water, and some time, but it won't take long: every time a cat tries to use it, hit it with the water; won't hurt the cat, but they hate it, and will soon disappear.

If you can't spend the time waiting to ambush them, spread ground black pepper fairly heavily on the spot (remember to reapply after rain). Before long, they'll stop coming.

Promise.

BTW, I just learned that s q u i r t is a "banned word"...

Use no trespassing signs. Or, Please No Jehovah's Witnesses. Or, better yet, just tell them in person. They will respect your stand.

It was probably employed by one of our IP address-changing, spam-bombing friends once upon a time, and banning it was the only way to stop him/her/it/them.

Those guns are also fun! The problem is catching the cat in the act. We're not around during the day, which is when they seem to hang out. I have a spray bottle which, when I'm not using it to water the house plants, I s q u i r t at our male cat when he's doing something he shouldn't (like bugging our female cat). The Pavlovian conditioning is indeed quite effective - I now only have to show him the bottle and he'll stop whatever it is he's up to.

I did buy some cat repellent which I spray out there every so often. Our own two hate it and it smells horrible even to me, but there's one particular feral moggie who doesn't seem dissuaded. I guess he's just too hungry. I'll try the pepper, but I suspect he'll just ask for salt...

Clav -

You were talking about cats, right? Not Jehovah's Witnesses?

:-)

Works on both, actually...

Try holy water, mixed 2:1 with vinegar. Now THAT should work on both.

Dan

Even in Panama, Dan...:>)

Clav,

I haven't found it necessary to try it yet. Feral cats don't come around, possibly because they know that we have three cats and five dogs. The various proselytizing folks aren't much of a bother, either. A pickup truck full of them came by a couple of days ago, and my "no hablo Espanol" seemed to scare them away; either that or the dogs. I haven't yet used the expression common in Cartagena when approached by street salesmen, Estoy mondau or something like that. Anyway, I thanked them nicely for the copy of Watchtower, which I declined, and they went away, but not without putting a few minor ruts in our inclined gravel driveway. Then the driver thought to go into four wheel drive, and there was no further problem.

Actually, we live 420 meters off a road for which four wheel drive is necessary during the now-beginning rainy season, and the 420 meter access is a tad worse, so hardly anyone bothers us.

Dan

When I was a kid we lived in a house back off the road like that...up a little hill about a 100 yards or so, gravel and dirt driveway and when it rained it would get some outrageous ruts in it.

One Saturday morning, my little brother and i were up early, watching cartoons like we usually did back then and a big car pulled into our driveway. The car didn't have four wheel drive so it had to stop at the bottom of the driveway. Four very large ladies got out of the car and started slowly making there way up the driveway.

Back then I had two dogs, a full blood female German Shephard and her son, a shephard/St. Bernard mix. They were very friendly dogs and would never hurt a fly, but they were big and I I guess, some people might be a little...alarmed, at the sight of them. They hadn't been out to do there business yet and they were ready to go.

Being the punk kid that I was (am), I waited...patiently...until the large women were a little farther up the driveway. I started getting the dogs exited about going out and then I opened the door.

I've never seen four large people move that fast in my life!

It woke my pop up and he was a little pissed about all the noise, my brother and i were laughing uncontrollably, until I told him what had happened.

Yeah, I know it was a rotten thing to do...but I was like 15 at the time...

...it did seem to take care of the problem of our doorbell ringing at 7AM for quite a long time.

I am a real estate appraiser, and I hear all kinds of crazy stories regarding HOAs.

A fellow in a particular toney subdivision told me that he once received a fine from the association because he did not conform to the accepted pattern of cutting his grass at an angle to the street.

Imagine this: That a group of homeowners presumably brought up, discussed and ultimately passed, via parliamentary procedures, a rule pertaining to the pattern in which they and their neighbors cut their damn grass! This fellow discovered that it had even been discussed whether all the homes in a particular block should cut their yards at the same angle - say rising right to left or left to right - or if perhaps, to increase aesthetic interest that they should alternate. I guess that discussion was tabled for further review. What a crock!

B-tone

B-Tone:

Ours isn't quite that bad.

But they do have rules stipulating the colors, shades and patterns of umbrellas you're allowed to have on your patio. And we did receive a rather querulous letter once because we had the wrong type of shade on our porch light. They even instructed us as to the exact brand, style, price and the specific aisle at Home Depot where we could obtain the correct one.

I went to an HOA meeting when I lived in Surprise, AZ. There were probably 15 people in the room in a community with some ridiculous number of homes, probably 100's. Anyway, there was this one group of grumpy old ladies sitting at a table by themselves and one of them piped up with an idea. She said that the HOA needed to put together a group to go around the neighborhood and write tickets to houses that weren't in compliance with whatever rule.

I jumped up and said, no, that's not what we need, what we need is neighbors to act like neighbors. If you have a problem with something I'm doing then come knock on my door, that's what neighbors do!

I got these really ugly looks, but I also got that discussion tabled. For all I know they bought it up later and it's policy now, but I know I'll never live in another HOA community again.

As with so many things, HOAs do have their good points. While they often go overboard, HOAs along with restrictions and convenants setting out what is and isn't allowable within the confines of the sub-division or project in question do provide safeguards and recourse.

When you purchase real estate, you are not technically buying the land, but rather you acquire what is referred to as a "bundle of rights" which lay out just what you can and can't do with and to it while under your ownership. Almost any piece of land will likely have with it some kind of restrictions set by zoning regulations, utility easements, limits to mineral rights, etc. Restrictive covenants that often come with subdivision or condo living are pretty much par for the course.

The problem often lay with those of small mind and heart when they get into positions of power within those associations. It in effect becomes their little fiefdom wherein they can bully and even terrorize members who don't toe the line. It's crap, but it just adds to the already enormous pile that we are obliged to slog through every damn day.

B-tone

I would rather die than live with an HOA. I once rented a condo for 6 months. I was told that I couldn't have a bird feeder because the birds would poop on the landscaping. I looked at the three scrawny misshapen bushes they called the "landscaping" and wondered if the bird poop might not provide some needed nutrition.

My life would be a living hell if I had to live that close to stupid people. I don't tend to be as successful at easy going as I wish I could be. Perhaps I overdid the "easygoing" thing in my youth.

Jordan:

I attended one of James Randi's Amazing Meetings (skeptics) a few years back and I found Teller to be very polite, not rude or objectionable at all. Penn though, was one of the rudest bastards and really pissed me off. He made a very base remark about people who would believe in a god, that was uncalled for and unprovoked.

Andy: Take care, that can lead to hemorrhoids--the reading thing. Not reading, in general of course, depending on whose work you are reading. But, you know, well, ahem, enough said.

I live with a perpetual smirk inside anyway however my first and last HOA meeting nearly killed me. I had a difficult time trying to keep the laughter in. I think parliamentary procedure is funny anyway. All those motions being made for inconsequential things and seconded... I keep expecting the Grand Poop-ha to jump up with the secret shake, flailing arms and crow caws at any minute.

There were stay at home moms who thought that we cared whether their children had a fort that was 8ft or 12ft and whether they had canvas tops or wood covers (they got emotional). I thought, "wow, they REALLY need to go to work". We had a weirdo who thought that it was impressive that he patrolled the neighborhood at random times (for the element of surprise)sometimes 2am, 3:30am or midnight. Everyone (but this attractive retiree who looked astonished and me) stood up and give him a standing ovation. I imagined myself standing up to display an "L" sign (for looser) created with my fingers and placed on my forehead. They would have stoned me. His big accomplishment was catching some teens in one of the pools in the development, after hours. The kicker was this Black gentleman who stood up and made a Martin Luther King-esque speech, arms raised to the heavens and all. By then my shoulders were shaking uncontrollably from trying to hold it in but I couldn't excuse myself because all of my energy was going towards containing the laughter. The brother actually used the word "FREEDOM!!". They clapped for him but I think it was because of White guilt(smirk). I think they were hoping he wouldn't switch from fence heights to race matters or something. It was all so entertaining. The only thing is I had no one to share the moment with. The entire room was intense. :o)

I do desperately want to attend another one but I have to mature a little. I think I would break up just walking into that room.

Andy,

Lord Chesterfield is reported (I don't really believe it, but that's what was reported) once to have replied to a particularly objectionable correspondent:

Sir: I am sitting in the smallest room in the house, and have your letter before.

Soon, it will be behind me.


Dan

Lord Chesterfield (and the age in which he lived) was known for his turns of phrase and clever bons mots.

In more modern times, Winston Churchill was also a clever wordsmith.

It's quite true, Dan.

Chesterfield also wrote to his son regarding sex: "The posture is ridiculous, the pleasure momentary, and the expense damnable".

Clav,

One of Churchill's that I particularly like was directed at Lady Astor (you know, the one who derided the British "cowards" at Anzio), when she commented that he was drunk:

Yes, Madam. I am drunk. I am very, very drunk. And you, Madam, are ugly, very, very ugly. But tomorrow, I shall be sober.

Dan

Biffle,

Unfortunately, Lord Chesterfield's son did not much profit from his father's letters and turned out to be rather a buffoon.

He once fell asleep at a dinner when his father was entertaining friends, and wound up with his face in his desert.

I will refrain (or then I guess I won't) from commenting that he got his just deserts.

Dan

LOL Zedd. That story is very funny and at the same time makes my skin crawl.

What is it? People don't have enough power ,or what?

I have always discussed rules with my niece and nephew with the following (um) suggestion (hehe)-- if they ever get into a position where they are able to make some rules, they should look at whatever rules are already there and eliminate as many as they make.

We need rule eliminators. I have had my fill of rule makers.

Cindy,

Amen!

Dan

We need rule eliminators. I have had my fill of rule makers.

Same here. Let's start with rescinding most of the United States Code and dismantling most of the bureaucracy that implements it.

Clav,

Now wait just a minute! How about the attorneys? And what about their children? Are they to go without food? IPODs? We must think of the Children!

Actually, dismantling most of the U.S. Code would probably be considered the full employment act of 2008 for attorneys.

Dan

...and for many more years into the future.

Can you imagine the legal wrangling that would be engendered as everyone moved to protect their particular oxen from being gored?