The speech he SHOULD'VE made

My friends, my speech writers prepared a script for me which my advisors and party big wigs vetted and convention officials have posted on these handy teleprompters. But my friends, this is not a time for safe, party-approved rhetoric, this is a time for straight talk.

“You all know, I’ve been called a maverick, someone who marches to the beat of his own drum,” but let’s face it, I’ve agreed with President Bush far more than I’ve disagreed.

If I truly put country before party, I’d have asked someone like my fellow Vietnam veteran Chuck Hagel, Republican Senator from Nebraska. Chuck and I disagree on Iraq and on torture, and he’d genuinely be willing to tell me the what he thinks and stand up to our party and special interests. But I’m more interested in my own personal legacy than in actually advancing real reforms.

I really wanted to pick my friend Joe Lieberman, the Independent Senator from Connecticut. I like him, we agree on things and get along well, so I know he’d be a good working partner. But after all, he used to be a member of the Democrat party, among other things.

I thought for sure that Governor Frist of Florida or Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania. Both could garner a few more electoral votes than Nebraska, Alaska or Connecticut. But lets face it, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, GOPAC and Republican strategists decided to stick me with this former local TV Anchorwoman and beauty pageant runner up.

You gotta admit, it was a stroke of genius. Should Liberals attack her, we'll get to cry "sexist" and make them look like a bunch of hypocrites. Even though we’ve opposed equal rights for women and equal pay for equal work, if we win, we’ll get to lay claim to breaking that glass ceiling for women, not those pesky Democrats.

Sure, for years, Republicans have argued that women should stay home with their kids instead of pursuing a high profile career, but it’s the Democrats who’ll look sexist or even “elitist” if they question her for putting her five kids through a national campaign.

It’s a win-win. She advocated abstinence-only sex education and cut funding for programs offering shelter to homeless unwed mothers, but she and her pregnant 17 year old daughter are heroes for not having abortions.

Sure, she may have improperly pressured then-Public Safety Commissioner to fire her ex-brother-in-law, an Alaskan state trooper, who had been in the middle of a custody dispute with her sister- but that just shows that she can stand up to men and she gets things done. It doesn’t mean she won’t help me fight corruption and reform government. Maybe I’ll put her in charge of hiring and firing U.S. Attorneys, so that the Attorney General won’t have to be bothered.

Let me be straight with you my friends, if elected I probably wouldn’t be so bad. I’d probably be much less of an extremist than George Bush. My advisors are just trying to activate our party’s base of extreme right wingers so that they’ll get out the vote. Once I’m elected, I’ll probably be more like an H.W. Bush or maybe even a lovable dottering grandpa type like Reagan- everyone loves Reagan.

So you won’t even have to worry about “Caribou Barbie” unless I die or am incapacitated somehow while in office.

My friends, what we really need to worry about is insuring the old Reagan ideals of trickle-down economics, less regulation of corporations and massive tax cuts for the extremely rich. We can’t let these dreams die.

Sure, more Americans are out of work than have been at any time in the last five years, but remember, a rising tide lifts all boats. If the levy breaks, then it raised cars and houses too. I want to protect middle-class Americans like my wife Cindy and myself. If the Democrats win, people like us may have to cut back to only four or five houses instead of seven or eight!

And let’s not be confused: These are perilous times, not just for America, but for freedom itself. Freedom to own and carry your own 39mm Kalashnikov automatic assault rifle. Freedom for importers, and food and drug producers from burdensome government oversight. Freedom for hedge fund managers, banks, mortgage lenders, credit card companies and financial speculators from oppressive government regulations.

Most of all it’s going to take someone of unusual strength and character, to continue to wage the world wide war on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

My friends, only I have the experience it will take to keep on torturing people, to racially profile and to harass elderly women at airport security checks.

The only way you can be safe is if you continue to let this government have the freedom to spy on it’s own citizens, and investigate and compile private data on them. If you don’t vote for Sarah Palin and me this November, the enemies of these freedoms will win.

And that’s not just empty rhetoric, that’s change you CAN believe in.

Sad for representative government in Iowa

What a shame. Schultz won, and won big.

He had the money- thanks to a lobbying group- to out advertise Freidrichsen big time. How tragic for Hoffman, that the voters in our district would choose idealogical extremism rather than honest and reasonable public servant-hood.

As a Christian, I want Christian voters to wake up and realize that the far right brand of religiosity that King and Schultz represent is one of pure legalism like the Pharisees, not the grace, mercy, forgiveness, love, and compassion of Jesus Himself.

Right-wing religion isn't about Jesus and His teachings, it's about fear, anger, and the desire to control society- not about helping others or first changing yourself. Stop abortions, stop gay marriage, stop immigration- We know what you hate, but what are you for?

Want to go back to the days of coat hanger abortions? Especially the girls who are victims of rape and incest.

Rather have the gay folks in freaky night clubs than mundane, monogamous domesticity?

Prefer those immigrants to be bringing all kinds of diseases, involved in crime, uneducated and wallowing in decrepit ghettos instead of working withing the system and contributing to, even though they're culturally different than you and me?

Okay then, make sure you put all of your energy into preventing anything you don't like from happening. Keep trying to make sure those you distrust are driven underground.

As a fiscal conservative, someone who opposes deficit spending and seeks accountability and reform in government- I wish that conservative voters would wake up and see that being beholden to ANY PAC, lobby, or interest group means that you have THEIR interests at heart, not your constituents. No matter how just and righteous their positions seem.

Iowans for Tax Relief? No one likes paying taxes, but we all like decent roads, safe bridges, and competitive schools. Tax Relief is a red herring for Republicans to swindle voters out of paying attention to real issues and it always has been. ITR was an easy way to get some bucks for campaign. Lets say we want to deport all the illegal immigrants, prevent all the abortions, and deny all the homos spousal benefits- we have to have some revenue to pay to enforce all those socially conservative laws. What the Hell, let's go out on a limb and say that we are going to stay in Iraq for another hundred years. How ya gonna pay for it? Taxes are a necessary evil, my friend.

The keys are how you structure the tax burden and what you spend the revenue on. Republicans want to tax the working class the most and millionaires, billionaires and corporations the most and they want to spend the money on no-bid military contracts to corporations they hold stock in. Democrats prefer a progressive tax structure where the more you can afford, the more you're asked bare. And we want to spend it on silly, frivolous things like infrastructure, education, law enforcement, scientific research, and who knows, maybe even health care.

Even more sad than Schultz winning Hoffman's seat in the Iowa House is that the Democrats of Dist. 55 don't have their act together enough to even field a candidate to oppose Schultz this Fall. Come on team, wake up and get it together by 2010!!!

I didn't want to write about this in my actual column in the PRESS. I don't want to alienate too many of my readers, because I honor and appreciate their sensitivities to "traditional values," and I realize that to many of them King and Schultz are "favorite sons," and local boys done good. And in spite of how vehemently I've written here, I don't want to create any animosity or make any personal attack on Schultz. I'm sure he holds all of his beliefs as sincerely as I hold mine and I even imagine that he doesn't see the ITR or any other Committee or group with the experience that Clarence did, so he doesn't see anything wrong with taking their money. They're a means to an ends and the ends is just a means by which to fight for his "values." But I just had to vent, so I did it here. So here it is.

People accuse Liberals of being "elitist" snobs who think we're all better than everybody else. That's because we think things all the way through and don't oversimplify them into their most base black-and white forms. Here's what I mean; no one is "pro-abortion." I value life and love babies, but the fact is that when more restrictions are put on abortions, then abortion rates rise. The Bible may disallow homosexuality, but the Constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law, and Jesus cavorted with tax collectors and prostitutes, not religious and political leaders. And Latinos come here for jobs and a better way of life, not to dilute or undermine traditional white Anglo-Saxon Protestant society. We should investigate employers who offer them jobs at bellow minimum wage with no benefits under the table so they don't have to withhold FICA and Social Security taxes. If we don't reach out to them in their native Spanish language, we increase things like TB and other diseases among them, and increase their crime rates and decrease their literacy rates. That makes them more of a drag on our society, not less of one.

Thinking things through is not bad, and it's not snobby or elitist.

Sigh. Enough ranting. I need to finish yearbook pages, order supplies, maybe even write a real column or draw a cartoon. Isn't there anyone else in Western Iowa who can see how short-sighted our supposed representatives are?

Blue Elephants, Red Donkeys

Lets see if they’re really different or not;
Why Blue Elephants made the difference- by a Red Donkey
Charter Oak-Ute NEWSpaper Schleswig Leader, Thursday, November 16, 2006 Page 3

Last week a very dear Republican friend of mine sent me an E-mail: “So...Have you calmed down since the election is over and Rumsfeld is out? What is your reaction to the fact that a number of states have voted for protection of/clear definitions of marriage amendments?”
I don’t know... what’s calm? Political and news junkies like me get off on letting our blood pressure boil over pundits, party talking points and politicians. Other people watch football or bet on basketball.

I’m fine with defining marriage as one man and one woman as long as you don’t deny anyone equal treatment under the law. Of course I think that having to pass a law defining marriage as between one man and one woman is superfluous, it’s like passing a law to define the sky as blue, so it was obviously a flawed attempt by extreme right wingers to “activate their base” and get the gay-hating Christians to come out and vote.

Some of us are Christians, agree that the Bible pretty clearly prohibits homosexuality, and agree that marriage by definition is only for one man and one woman, yet we don’t have a huge irrational fear and hatred of gay people and we believe that they live under the same Constitution.

Should Rumsfeld have been removed from office sooner? Heavens yes? Would that have helped Republicans fare better in the election that was just held? Gee Wilikers? Who knows? Is it pretty convenient that since he’s getting the boot now, his replacement (who was pretty involved in the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980’s) will be confirmed by the current 209th Congress rather than the newly elected 210th with a Democratic majority in January? By Golly, you betchya!

You know what? Now is when the rubber really hits the road. It was pretty easy for the Democrats to win a majority. They didn’t have to run for anything. The Republicans were so steeped and soaked in scandal, corruption, hypocrisy, mistakes, extremism, and of course the muck of a miss managed war and a stubborn, Presidency.

Some Democrats would like to think that the voters sent President Bush and the Republicans a strong message, that they’re ready for change. But I don’t put much stock in alleged “mandates.” I don’t think that Liberals have any more mandate than Bush mistakenly claimed when he was barely reelected.

Democrats won because most Americans are centrists. They won because moderate Republicans jumped ship because they got tired of people who talked about compassionate conservatism but really aren’t either.

This election saw a new development. “Goldwater Democrats.” That’s right. Sound like an oxymoron? No more than “Reagan Democrats.”

Growing up in Arizona, I came to see Goldwater, our senior Senator for most of my life as sort of a patron saint. When the shrimp hit the fan with Watergate, he went to Nixon and told him to step down. Goldwater was angry that Nixon had been lying to him.

Now mind you, I disagree on his stand on states-rights in opposition to civil rights, especially integrating schools and of course there was the idea he had about using “strategic” nukes in Vietnam. Nobody’s perfect. But time and time again, I find myself agreeing with him on many things that I used to be able to find common ground on with my Republican friends- things like deficit reduction, government reform and smaller, streamlined government. Not to mention keeping the Government out of your private life.

Democrats won this recent election because, like Goldwater, American voters don’t like lies and secrets and have no patience for ineptitude- not because Americans suddenly all became progressives. Many of the Democrats who won consider themselves fiscal and social conservatives. Some are Iraq veterans who felt abandoned or betrayed.

What the Democrats had better do now is deliver. House Speaker elect, Pelosi promised the most uncorrupted, moral and reformed Congress ever. Its easy to be the “reform” party when you’re on the outside. If they let power corrupt them then they’ll deserve to get kicked out just like their predecessors.

We can only hope that the Democrats will finally put the brakes on the out of control spending habits of Bush and the Republicans.

We can only hope that they’ll REFORM (not raise) taxes in a way that benefits the middle class, not corporations and the super rich. But only time will tell.

Gay Marriage- among other topics

I recently had an interesting volley of emails with a friends. Thought I'd share them here:
Cool Stuff. Here is the first one from my friend who's a Lutheran Middle School teacher:

One of the best things to happen to me was that I've had to teach
Civics for a couple of years now. I rather enjoy it. We just finished a rather long simulation dealing with the Constitution. Check out the Interact Simulation Website to see what I'm talking about. Way cool. Anyway. They had a good time learning about parliamentary procedure if nothing else. I think for such a long time I focused on the History side of things that I never really dealt with the mechanics of government. Now I'm rather enjoying
myself in what I'm learning. I'm no expert by any means. I must say I learned a lot from you. Thanks for the insights that you provide.

We have a principal now whose a bit on the freaky conservative side. I admit that I'm not too crazy about gay marriage business and all but I'm also quite sure that there will be Democrats in Heaven. My principal, who's also the 5th grade social studies teacher, has made statements to the effect that being a Christian and a Democratic party member are next to impossible. NOT!! I have made it quite clear in my Civics class that that is not the
case. My mantra is "If you don't know how the Constitution works, you will be at the mercy of those that do." AND...I refuse to use my influential position as a teacher to make little Republican clones--or any party clones for that matter.

Well, I better go. Dinners ready. Thanks again for your insights.


And here is my first reply to him:

As good as all the history shows on History Channel and Discovery Channel are (that ne Dogfights on Friday nights is SO cool) I think that one of the best that I'd show to kids if I was still teaching HIstory is History Detectives on PBS.
They show the actual reseach process based on doccuments and evidence. Don't get me wrong, I agree that there are certain names, dates and battles that kids need- absolutely, but I've always felt that understanding, analysis and application are more useful and valuable than mere knowledge at least that's my perspective on Bloom's taxonomy.

I always tried to help kids see the dynamic tensions, the balances of divergent interests. That may be safe when you're talking about the Whiskey Rebellion or Federalism and Anti-Federalism but even when you get into Manifest Destiny or Reconstruction, if there are colleagues or parents who are wing-nuts, they can freak. Am I wrong that scrutiny and using critical thinking skills are good things? Non partisan things?

Unfortunately there are people who don't believe we should teach, they send their kids to a parochial school to be indoctrinated, not to learn how to think for themselves.

"It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen."
~George Orwell, 1984;


Whats funny is, you know how when you're a kid and somebody farts, you say "whoever smelt it, dealt it!"? What's funny is that the firt people to accuse others of revisionist history are the people who either have swallowed some propaganda or don't know enough about history (or government) so they're victoms of revisionist history themselves.

I still LOVE your mantra.

And another from my friend:

Hello again,

More food for thought.

Personally I cannot condone the homosexual lifestyle. It is immoral. Yet these are people who desperately need to hear the Gospel message. Hate the sin but love the sinner.

Just thought I'd say that so that up front. Now let's move into the political realm. I like your analogy of defining marriage to calling the sky blue. However, can one not also argue that a Christian in a democratic society has the glorious opportunity to help further the Gospel's spread by voting on issues such as this? Churches throughout the country (at least in some states where the marriage amendments were on the ballot) worked the issue of marriage into Bible studies and sermons out of growing concern that the institution was under "attack". True, I concede to the fact that parties would use this as a means to further their own agendas. Alas, this is politics. But couldn't it also be the Holy Spirit nudging people to witness through their votes, or across their dinner tables with their families as they discuss the issue? Granted, there are some real goofballs out there that have some serious hate issues, but what if out of perhaps hundreds of conversations about marriage amendments that a handful of marriages were strengthened and maybe some members of the gay community were given perhaps a moment of pause to consider the possibility of repentance and begin a journey that could ultimately bring them closer to our Lord? If that were the case for at least one person, then I guess I'd be happy to call this controversy over marriage a success. God has blessed us with the gift of democracy, wouldn't it be foolish and even sinful not use that gift to ultimately spread the Gospel?

Now, I will say that I would not likely favor ANY national amendment to define marriage because I feel that, based on the separation of powers under the federal system, it is the states that have the power to make laws concerning marriage, NOT the central government. Allowing the federal government to step in here would probably not be wise or a good use of our national government's time and treasure. However, if society elevates the gay lifestyle to the same status as say the African or Hispanic community, making this a civil rights issue, well, I guess then, as a civil rights issue, perhaps this is how the question will
have to be settled someday.

Forgive me if I don't sound clear, I'm trying to articulate my views as I write here. It's helping me to better understand my own position. You know, I recall teaching a unit in my U.S. history class about the labor unions. I recall how some early unions fought for political and economic reform by attempting to radically change the political landscape in order to accomplish their goals. Populism? Yet then you look at folks like Samuel Gompers and the collective bargaining process. They ended up playing the system better. Kind of like practicing your basketball layups rather than trying to drastically change the overall rules of basketball to fit your playing style. Okay, maybe I'm stretching this a little, but couldn't America's Christians take a cue from this? Try to be better Christians and share the gospel
BETTER instead of getting the government to do it. If the Grace of God were made more readily accessible through the witness of believers to nonbelievers, maybe we wouldn't have such a problem with issues like gay marriage. Maybe if the love of Christ was more readily evident through works of service and sincere praise, hearts would be turned Christ BEFORE people could be suckered into counterfeit feelings of love offered through such things as
homosexuality, pornography, and materialism. Let us be firm in our doctrine but also loving in how we treat others and strive for a better balance between Law and Gospel.

Well, I'm tapped out. Chew on this for a while and fire back when you have time.

Hope your family is well.



And another response from me:

Just so we're up front- I'm not gay, nor have I ever played a gay person on TV. (just trying to lighten the tone a little) Seriously, the older I get, the more I read and study Scripture, and the more I learn about the process that theologians, including early church fathers use to interpret scriptures, two hot-button issues become clearer to me: 1) that no matter how you try to dice it, God has prohibited homosexuality and 2) He probably did not intend for us to exclude people from roles of responsibility because of their gender as much as we have.

Hows that sound? Conservative on one issue and Liberal on another? Maybe.

I seem to want to talk about Luther's Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms. My understanding of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution leads me to believe that even though my religion considers homosexuality a sin, it would still be unfair in the eyes of the civil law to deny a monogomous homosexual long-time companion from providing for their partner financially or legally in ways that a traditional married spouse could.

I know a Republican law maker who has killed anti-gay marriage legislation in committee because if it came up to a vote, he knew he'd have to vote for it. The solution some progressive Christian leaders like Tony Campolo have suggested is similar to what's been done in Europe; civil authorities issue civil union agreements, and churches conduct marriages, but neither institution may do the other. As it is the Roman Catholic Church does not recognize Lutheran marriages, so if one district/synod of the American Episcopal Church blesses gay unions, the LCMS certainly shouldn't be cumpulsed to recognize that union. If marriage is from God, either as a full blown sacrament as the Catholics believe or as a metaphor for Christ's relationship to His Church as we do- why should we cede the ordination of marriages to any temporal, civil authority anyway? Doesn't that profane the institution? Teddy Roosevelt, not a particularly devout Presbyterian, didn't want "In God We Trust" on our currency because he believed it was blasphemous!

I guess I'm more comfortable as a Democrat, even when there are Democrats who do, accept, or believe things that make my skin crawl, is because Democrats are pragmatic and practical, they believe in detente' and compromise because they know that we live in a broken world and we have to make the best of it. What I have observed over the last 36 years is that because the Republican party chooses positions that are inflexible, they promote hypocricy. Wittness Gambling Bill Bennett, thieving Ralph Reed, drug-poppin' Hatian hooker employing Rush Limbaugh, and most recently pediphile Mark Foley, and Meth using gay hating gay guy Rev. Ted Haggard.

Love the sinner, hate the sin. Yeah, maybe the Holy Spirit may convict someone in their heart because our pastors and politicians are all up in arms about a wedge issue like gay marriage. Or... people who are struggling feel persecuted, hated and alienated. They're like Luther who practices self-flagilation because they look up at the cruel, unempathetic Christ as a heartless, angry judge, instead of as the approachable, patient, compassionate, yet hold you responsible and don't indulge your selfish sinful nature Father that He really is? Are we driving people out of the Church and making it less likely that they will hear the Word and come to repentance? What's the most effective means to influence our society? By voting? By legislating? Maybe, there's certainly room for that and I'd even agree that it is our duty. But so is by being salt and light, by being Jesus' arms and legs, in our relationships. "A Christian Nation begins at home" is one of my mantras. Walk the walk yourself, rather than screaming and shouting at others when they don't.

Unfortunately it is a sticky, complicated mess. It involves theology, civil rights, and biology too. Is society "elevating" homosexuality to the level of race? Is it a choice? A decision? Some conservatives are libertarians and even if they hate gays, they don't believe the government shoud interfere. Is it a disorder? Like a desease? If so, maybe we should regulate it like smoking, alohol, and drugs. If it is, surely we can't be more judgemental of them than we are of aloholics, adicts, or other people with disablilities. Thank God that through the Grace of our Lord, Heaven will be filled with drunks, smokers, pot-heads, adulterers, people who kuss and have looked at porn or cheated on a math quiz.... Yeah, see, I guess it gets down to how if I've even looked at a woman with lust in my heart I just as well pluck my eye out, huh? Or... if it's not a choice or a disorder, is it a genetic trait- can they help it? Would a black man choose to be black in a racist society? And if they can't help it, they what do we do with that, especially in the light of what the Bible says? Some scientists believe that biology suggests that sexual preference is not something one can help. Can't change genes. Not fair? Blame Adam & Eve? Blame Satan? Blame God?

Detente' (thank you Mr. Nixon & Mr. Kissenger for that one) Coexist. How do you put the toothpaste badk in the tube? All things, including society suffers from atrophy. And finally, don't be a control freak like the parent or principal who wants to produce clones instead of wanting to disciple children and equip the saints. Like it or not, we live in a pluralistic society. Many of the new Democratic Congressmen and Senators are pro guns, pro God, anti-gay marriage and anti abortion, but they're also anti-supply-side-economics or anti war.
This is a fallen world, and human, temporal law is about making it as fair and survivable as possible, not about making it right or godly or perfect- only the blood of Christ can do that. Too many "Christian Conservatives" today are confused about Law and Gospel. They think it's our job to prepare America for Christ's second comming, that we're somehow supposed to make this world obedient for God. That's not our job. Our job is to spread the word that we don't HAVE to work, we just have to accept His gracious gift because the work is done.

I'm sure plenty of Christian NAZIs thought that Deitrich Bonhoffer should go to Hell for lying to and dissenting against the God-instituted government in Germany. Thank God they would have been wrong, just as people who don't think that Christians can be Democrats may be well-meaning, but wrong. Or as John McLaughlin might say, "WRONG!"

Whew. Sorry to be so dang long-winded. I think, therefore I can't shut up.

Thanks for the forum and the fellowship.

The Radical Middle: Conclusion

Both Liberal John Locke and Conservative Thomas Hobbes were right about some things, and both were wrong about some things. Can't there be three sides to every issue?

Gun Control- One extreme says that there shouldn't be any. Anyone should be able to own any gun. The other extreme says that no one needs any guns in the 21st century anymore so no one should be allowed to own any. But somewhere in the middle we can talk about waiting periods and hunting weapons or home protection as opposed to instruments of murder and war.

Death penalty- One extreme says that not only should murder be punished by death, but so should rape and kidnapping. The other extreme says that it's barbaric, cruel and unusual. Surely, somewhere in between we can talk about DNA evidence and redemption and rehabilitation- yet restitution, consequence, and deterrence.

Stem Cells- One extreme says that we shouldn't play God, the other thinks that science has the solution to almost everything. Somehow, so long as we're not deliberately fertilizing eggs to create stem cell lines, if legal fertility treatments, produce cells that will be disposed of anyway, why not allow those to be used for research?

Gay marriage- One extreme stands outside of churches with posters that say "God hates fags." The other extreme would be blasé' about deviant behavior becoming more and more acceptable as just another lifestyle choice. Somewhere in the middle we can see that the constitution guarantees rights to everyone no matter how different from us, like it or not, so if marriage is so holy, then why should states issue marriage licenses? Let marriage be religious and civil unions be social.

Evolution- One extreme says that God created the earth in 6 24-hour calendar days as we know them, roughly 6,000 years ago. The theories of Charles Darwin threaten all Christian norms and not only should Intelligent Design be taught in public schools, but Darwinism should not. The other extreme is that we're all random stardust and everything we know is by random accident. Religion is a delusion and an opiate and not only is the whole concept of Intelligent Design laughable, but you can put your faith in any of the scientific theories in current textbooks, including Darwin's and there's no place for any religion in our schools.

Yikes, right? Seems like there would be no middle, but come on- obviously both of these are too absolutist. No scientific theory or discovery can shake my faith because "faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see (Hebrews 11:1)." Whereas science is studying, testing, and reporting those things that you CAN see. You can't measure, calibrate, quantify or qualify faith, prayer, love, devotion, belief or forgiveness. And the problem with science is that it depends entirely on what we can see, but the very act of observing something alters it's natural state- so we can never observe something the way it really is. It's like trying to see if the light turns off in the refrigerator when you close the door. The evidence suggests that the rock is billions of years old. Evidence may suggest that a candle has been burning for three hours, unless you lit it with a blow torch.

So where is the middle? Teach scientific method as a method and ALL scientific theories as theories. Teach critical thinking skills, then go ahead and present Intelligent Design as a theory, but attribute it to who advocates it and why and let students make their own judgments about it. But don't try covertly sneak religion into the science classroom. Teach religious doctrine and dogma at Church, at home or at parochial schools in Religion class.

And remember, the First amendment prohibits public school teachers from using their position to proselytize students, but it also protects every students right to freely speak about and practice their religion anywhere, including school. So, as long as the kids initiate it and the teacher facilitates discussion rather than advocating or promoting any one position, there's no reason that kids can't talk about their views on evolution or religion or anything else in any classroom.

Abortion, the war in Iraq, equal pay for women, affirmative action, a progressive tax code, the distribution of power and responsibility between the three branches of government, the balance of power and responsibility between states and the Federal government, participation in international treaties and organizations, illegal immigration, domestic spying, work safety, drug safety, TV ratings, boring budgets and appropriations… everything from infrastructure to Social Security can divide us and anyone can have a liberal positions on one or two issues and yet a very conservative positions on several other.

Not all Republicans are filthy rich and white males and not all Democrats are herb smoking New Agers who can't wait to spit on our soldiers when the come home. So both as Christians and as Americans, we should be slow to judge and quick to look for what we have in common with others, so that together we can move forward on the things we agree on instead of stereotyping each other and resenting each other because of what we disagree about.

"It is good to grasp on to one and not let go of the other. The man who fears God will avoid all extremes."~ Ecclesiastes 7:18

____________________________________________
"The gospel is meant to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." ~Garrison Keillor

Too many sides to too many issues

Before President W. Bush I considered my self "post-partisan," a moderate, a "pro-life Democrat." I was disappointed in and felt betrayed by President Clinton's infidelity and dishonest. I always tried to see past party lines. I believe in hashing out issues and getting to hard compromises. I made every effort to try to help Republican friends see that Democrats and "Liberals" weren't all a bunch of pro-gay, pro-communist, evil, hedonistic atheists out to destroy our way of life. Now, I will freely admit that I am angry about the war, just as angry as many of my dearest friends and neighbors have been about abortion for years.

The thing is none of us (my self included) ought to be single-issue voters. The other thing is that there are scores of issues that are every bit as ugly, wrong, immoral and "un-Christian" that our society and both our parties need to wrestle with.

I hope that this column provokes readers to think and talk about some of them. One of the purposes of a newspaper (and of the internet, I guess) is to be a forum for the free expression and discussion of ideas. A couple people have emailed or signed my guestbook anonymously instead of writing letters to the editor for the NEWSpaper & LEADER to publish. Please write the paper, don't be afraid, your ideas are just as legitimate and certainly as passionately held as any of mine. I'm not always right and I hope I never intentionally put anyone else down.

Here is a note that some one left on my website's guestbook. I could write them back because they left a bogus email address.

"tina - Many Democratic officials warned of Saddam's weapon capabilities and stock piles of biological weaponery since 1998: Clinton, Albright, Pulousi, Gore, Kennedy, and more .... before Bush was even in the White House. If you are going to spout off as some sort of expert you should know your facts and not just talk out of frustration and anger. The last time I checked ... Congress basically handed the President a blank check in 2002 and backed him with full support. He did not do this alone. Your column is unclear as to intent other then another flaming liberal trying to burn everything around him. Beings as though you are a Lutheran I find this even more appalling. Do you really wish to support the killing of innocent unborn babies in the ballot box, because we have soldiers willing to fight to protect you and what you have to say? I would certainly hope the cost of fuel would not cause you to jump that direction. There are many issues to consider, and your angry column was irresponsible to your neighbors."

I know that the administration didn't go in without support. Heck, I was won over for a while. That only makes it worse. Because many of us (Republicans included) feel duped and used and yes, guilty. Tina is absolutely right, I shouldn't just write out of anger- that part did make me "flaming," although (except for the blank check that Congress gave Bush) I try really hard to include as many facts as I can any time I write about politics. I do not support the killing of innocent unborn babies, but I also don't support killing innocent live babies, youth, adults or elderly. I don't support cutting programs for the poor while maintaining and even increasing tax cuts for the super rich and for corporations. I wish I'd never supported a unilateral, pre-emptive, unprovoked invasion of a tiny, weak nation that had nothing to do with the terroist attack on us. I don't attack rape, torture, and denying basic human rights to anyone, even to terrorists.

Please forgive me whenever any of you feel that any of my columns are irresponsible. I want to be a good neighbor. But please, can I just tell you that I feel like your questioning my faith or impugning how "Chirstian" I am if you assume that I am totally pro-choice or somehow must want to see babies die because I vote for Democrats or criticize Republicans. Sin is sin and wrong is wrong, unfortunately there is no escaping it in this world, especially in politics.

In Boy Scouts I was taught, "God, Country, and Family- in that order." I believe that God created us with a nature that asks questions. I believe that our founding fathers designed our system of government so that we are not only allowed to scrutinize it and express our displeasure with it, but that it is our duty to do so. And I believe in supporting families, even the unborn members of those families, but I have not seen the current administration neglect support for middle class and poor families while flaunting faith and values for political expedience. If I were a Republican or a Fundamentalist Evangelical I would feel abused.

I'd like to leave you with some quotes from Republican leaders. Three of the four are some of my favorite politicians, no sarcasm intended, they really are (sorry to disappoint any of my fellow Democrats). My point in sharing them is that the bush administration may have won your votes by being "pro-life," but I contend that they've pursued policies that are cruel and abusive of life.

All of us, Democrat and Republican, Green Party and Libertarian, Lutheran, Fundamentalist Evangelical, Catholic, Methodist, whoever All of us need to stop accusing each other of being less-Christian, less-moral, less-right. We need to see past our differences so that we can be alert to how un-Christian, immoral, and wrong we can sometimes be.

"If we are viewed as a country that engages in torture ... any possible information we might be able to gain is far counterbalanced by (the negative) effect of public opinion... This battle we're in is about the things we stand for and believe in and practice. And that is an observance of human rights, no matter how terrible our adversaries may be." -- Senator John McCain (R-AZ)

"I think the administration is making a terrible mistake in opposing John McCain's amendment on detainees and torture." --Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE)

"I'm a strong supporter of Senator McCain's amendment. I don't think the White House should veto it." -- Former Secretary of State Colin Powell

"The United States can win the war on terrorism without sacrificing our values." --Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)

PS- Torture is NOT "Pro-Life"

The meeting will now come to order

Army Corps of Engineers General Henry Martyn Robert

"I have come to the conclusion that one worthless man is called a disgrace, that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a congress. And by God, I have had this Congress!" ~John Adams

During the 2004 election campaign, TV evangelists like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson basically said that if you didn’t George W. Bush, you couldn’t be Christian.

I tend to believe the bumper sticker that’s out there that says "God is not a Republican...or a Democrat."

During the same 2004 campaign, the Republican National Committee asked churches to turn over their congregational membership lists. The RNC also actually postcards to voters in a few states with pictures of the Bible with the no smoking circle with a hash through it over it and another with two gay men getting married - warning that "liberal" politicians planned to ban the Bible and promote gay marriage.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican declared that Democrats who’d filibuster to slow down the confirmation of Federal judges nominated by President Bush are basically “against people of faith.”

James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, and Prison Fellowship's Chuck Colson (who served time in prison for his part in Watergate) are hosting "Justice Sunday," a TV program from a church in Kentucky. Their message that they want to get across is that they think that anyone who doesn’t support Bush's judicial nominees are hostile to "people of faith." Frist plans to join them by video.

Frist and some Senate Republicans are threatening to exercise what’s been nicknamed “the nuclear option.” They want to change Senate rules to no longer allow the opposition to filibuster.

To filibuster, simply is to speak in a legislative body without “yielding the floor” in an attempt to delay or prevent a vote. It was designed to delay a vote on controversial issues in order to protect strong minorities from being overrun by majorities.

Meetings can be heated affairs, and church meetings, as anyone who has attended them can tell you, are no exception. Twenty-five year old Army Engineer Henry Martyn Robert found this out while stationed in New Bedford, Massachusetts in 1862 when his church asked him to preside over church council meetings.

"One can scarcely have had much experience in deliberative meetings of Christians without realizing that the best of men, having wills of their own, are liable to attempt to carry out their own views without paying sufficient respect to the rights of their opponents." wrote Robert. He tried using different manuals on running meetings but everything seemed too complicated.

As trustee of the First Baptist Church in Bedford and as a member of the Board of Directors of the YMCA, Robert ran into lots of issues that could divide Christians: Should the pastor or the congregation approve new members? Should women be allowed to vote? Should the church move to a more respectable part of town?

Robert wrote a guide for all organizations. In 1876 “Robert’s Rules of Order” was published. Robert established a step by step system of guiding principles that ensured order while protecting and advancing democratic principles.

Rules of order ensure the right of the majority to decide, the right of the minority to be heard, the rights of individual members, the rights of absentees. If you follow the parliamentary procedures established by our founding fathers, a two- thirds majority vote is necessary whenever you limit or taking away the rights of the minority or of individual members or whenever you are changing something that has already been decided. Everyone has the right to be heard, to speak and debate.

I wonder what a Church Council meeting with Bill Frist, George W. Bush, Pat Robertson and James Dobson would be like. I wonder what General Henry Robert would say to them if he had to sit through it with them.

---

That's where I left it for the NEWSpaper, but you know me, I can't shut up, so here's what I cut out to make it shorter:

Frist and his “Conservative Christian” allies care only about control, not rights, and not balance. Their ambition is a one-party system. What’s worse, they’d love to make America into a Christian theocracy. They’ve invented the “culture wars,” taking advantage of social and doctrinal tensions in order to divide and conquer voters.

They assume that conservative Christians own religion in America. They demand that religious people vote only their way. They claim that "values voters" in America belong to them, and they have contempt for the faiths of those who disagree with their agenda.

I believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, my savior. I’m opposed to abortion on demand as a form of birth control, but I’m also opposed to clothes hanger abortions. I’m not a proponent of homosexual marriage, but I am opposed to any form of discrimination or denying anyone due process under the law. Poverty, war, taxes, corruption, education, health care, end-of life issues like what happened with the Terri Schaivo case are all things that Christians and Americans have different opinions about.

You can’t force people to believe in God or obey His commandments. You cannot make people Christian by an act of Congress.

Rev. Jim Wallis is the author of the best selling book ‘God’s Politics; why the right gets it wrong and the left doesn’t get it.’ In a recent column as editor of Sojourner’s magazine he had a balanced suggestion for Christians involved in politics, “We should bring our religious convictions about all moral issues to the public square - such as the uplifting of the poor, the protection of the environment, the ethics of war, or the tragic number of abortions in America - without attacking the sincerity of other people's faith, or demanding that we should win because we are religious. We must make moral arguments and mobilize effective movements for social change

Wedge issues may play big role

It seems that the Democrats now have a nominee apparent. There’s already a “short-list” of possible running-mates. Former Florida Governor and Senator Bob Grahm is someone who could bring vindication for the 2000 election if he can deliver his home state.

Missouri Congressman Richard Gephart would appeal to old-style blue-collar Democrats.

I think that retired General Wesley Clark could bring broad appeal to moderate and socially conservative swing votes since he opposes gay marriage and abortion. He’d also supply extra oomf to the Kerry challenge to President Bush’s Defense policies.

There is even buzz that Kerry might consider New York Senator Hillary Clinton. Many people think she’d rather run for President on her own sometime in the next couple of decades.

The most likely choice, of course is North Carolina Senator John Edwards.

I think that a more exciting question is, what will the issues be in the fall? Well, it would be nice if they’d be things like civil rights, defense, environment and energy, health care, homeland security, foreign policy, education, deficits and balanced budgets. Fat chance.

Expect President Bush to bring out two big wedges and a red herring. Tax reform is a perennial Republican attention diverter (red herring), sure we need it, but to Bush it means more supply-side tax cuts for corporations and the top 2% of super wealthy Americans.

Then there are the “wedge” issues. Abortion and gay-marriage. They’re called wedges because they divide us. In stead of agreeing to disagree and live together or agreeing to hash it out until we come to a consensus or till one side compromises, wedge issues inflame passions and get people so worked up that they can’t think about anything else. Divide and conquer, just as good a political strategy as it is a military strategy.

Personally, I think that they’re both way to messy and way to personal for the Federal Government to mess with. You’d think that a true conservative who professes to less intrusive big-government would agree with me, but not Bush and the Religious Right. That’s ironic since these are both issues to truly be decided in the Bible, the Church and the heart, not with secular legislation.

You could call me socially conservative in so far as oppose both abortion and gay marriage, but the problem is, that much like the reconstruction of Iraq, I believe that the real battle is in people’s heart’s and minds.

I admit it, it pains and embarrasses me that Democrats keep a pro-choice plank in their party platform. The problem, as a matter of fact, is with Roe v. Wade. I think that the Supreme Court was really stretching to interpret the Constitution to include a right to abortion. Even is you squeeze the 4th, 9th, and 14th Amendments enough to say that the Constitution protects a “right to privacy,” what does that have to do with a human being, the baby? My point is, this is an issue for the Sates or Congress to hash out, not for the Court to have decided.

If only it was as simple as it should be. There are complications like rape, incest, and mortality of the mother. There are theological, ethical, and biological disagreements about the definition of a human life and when exactly it begins. Unfortunately, these are issues that there may never be concessions on. Congress and the FCC can’t even settle on a clear definition for decency and indecency on TV and radio, how can we hope that we’ll all agree on abortion as a nation?

It may be about to get worse. The newest issue- that could well become a wedge issue is human cloning. Last week South Korean scientists announced that they had successfully cloned a human being. They say that it is for harvesting stem cells for research and tissue production-not for reproduction.

There’s the wedge. Devout Mormon, Republican Senator Orin Hatch of Utah is a staunch opponent of abortion, but he is an adamant proponent of stem-cell research. Stem cells, taken from human embryos (babies) are thought to hold the keys to treating or curing such debilitating diseases as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.

Some people believe that cloning for the sake of producing stem cells should be permitted for the sake of genetic therapy, organ replacement, and research. Of course the embryos created are terminated so that they don’t go on to develop into full grown adults. So the question is, is that a form of abortion? Are clones human? Are they human lives? Do they have souls? Do they have rights?

I may not think that Abortion is a privacy issue, but don’t think that privacy won’t also be an issue between cell phones, e-mail, surveillance cameras, and National security. Big brother is here and we may need a Constitutional amendment providing the right to privacy before amendments on abortion or gay marriage get fought about.

Is gay marriage wrong? I for one can’t get passed that the Bible calls homosexuality a sin, but so is drunkenness and gluttony. Jesus said that if you so much as look at a woman lustfully, you’ve committed adultery. In His time that meant you were sentenced to being stoned to death. He said that if you hate someone it’s the same as committing murder. So being gay is wrong, but so is hating gays.

We’re stuck aren’t we? That’s why wedge issues are so effective in forcing would be moderates and progressives over the fence to the radically conservative side. It’s more comfortable.

The 14th Amendment does promise “equal protection under the law.” Does that mean that a monogamous gay partner should be allowed to visit their partner in the hospital or be covered by their partner’s insurance? I don’t know for sure, but it does make us straights look stupid for trying so hard to protect the sanctity of marriage when heterosexual celeb-bratt-ties have their Vegas marriages annulled after 24 hour because they were drunk.

One thing for sure, this doesn’t seem to be an issue that’s going to fade away.

Then, there’s still war. Americans die every day in Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with Al Queda and there’s no proof of any weapons of mass destruction. Former Bush administration officials say that he talked about invading Iraq as soon as he got into office and began implementing plans to do so within a week of September 11.

Then there is the mother-of-all-wedge-issues rearing its ugly head again. In 1971 a Viet Nam veteran, with Silver and Bronze Stars and three Purple Hearts sat before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to oppose the Vietnam War and asked the Senators something very controversial.

Commander John Kerry asked them, “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”

No military man or woman’s service to their country should ever be devalued, their lives and sacrifice is truly honorable and sacred- and I don’t think that Commander Kerry meant to say they died in vain. I believe that he questioned the policies and decisions of Presidents Johnson (a Democrat) and Nixon (a Republican) just as people today question Bush’s policy of “preemptive unilateralist.”

Carter served in the cold war on the first nuclear submarine. Ronald Reagan played a soldier frequently in Hollywood Movies. Bush Sr. served in WWII. Clinton got a deferment for college because he was accepted to be a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University in England (like West Point grad Wes Clark), of course he took a lot of heat from Republicans because he participated in protests against Vietnam.

Bush Jr. is thought to have joined the Air National Guard to avoid being drafted and sent to Vietnam, where men like Bob Kerry, John McCain, and John Kerry suffered and sacrificed.

I have two uncles who are great friends, but Vietnam is something they both choose not to talk about. One was a medic, another fled to Canada. Almost forty years later, it’s a wedge issue that still divides families, and divides America.

What we must learn to do is to agree to disagree. Wedge issues will always divide us, but they need not destroy us. Like it or not, compromise is an integral part of our democracy. As foul as they often are to endure unresolved or un-vanquished, these differences should be the price we pay for our unity and freedom, not the levers we use to wrest power from our political opponents.