Politics and Religion

I was outraged.

I was reading my morning Tribune when, towards the end of the front section, in the "Nation" section, I saw this little gem. Here's the LA Times version: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-me-allsaints7nov07,1,597130.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

Now, what I found outrageous is that the IRS would single out this liberal church to investigate. If, in an election say, a church said you need to vote for this specific candidate - hypothetical situaion, mind you - would they be investigated? Would a super-conservative preacher who, say, may be on TV be investigated?

It would seem we have a double standard here. Speak out FOR the ruling party, you're good. Speak out AGAINST it, lose tax exempt status. If I didn't know better, I'd say we're headed toward a state religion. Churches in the "preferred" religion get tax exempt status. Those who speak out against the state, lose it.

I have a copy of the constitution that I carry around. Don't panic. The only reason I have it is because someone gave it to me. But it says something about how a state religion will not be established. First amendment. Bill of Rights.

So is it against the constitution for churches to be political? I'd say they pretty much always have been. I have been known to say that there should be a strict division between church and politics and I should not hear political speeches from the pulpit.

But to be fair that is mostly because what I hear from the pulpit I don't agree with. If I was in this church, I may not be so quick to judge the politics coming down from above. I probably would shout an "amen!" while he was talking.

I don't like to hear Christians espousing Republican dogma. But I don't like to hear it from non-Christians either. It is important for all in America to be allowed to speak, including our clergy. We have a long history - good and bad - of churches taking political stands. In the South, churches often took opposite stands. White churches condoned and justified racism. Black churches were the core of the civil rights movement. Jewish synagogues decry the Palestinians. Mosques take stands against Israel.

It comes down to free speech. If we have it in this country, it goes for the clergy too. If I'm allowed to be liberal in a red state, I should be allowed to be conservative in my church.

Much as I hate to admit that.

Is Capitalism Evil?

I've been toying with this idea for months now. Way back about a year or so ago, one of my Christian Leftist newsletters sent a quick blurb about how capitalism is based on lies. At the time I thought it was a pretty wild thought - one that took what I have felt about our society about a mile to the left. But there's always new evidence isn't there?

Here's the premise. For capitalism to be successful, people need to buy stuff. But if people have the basic necessities, why buy more? Well, that's what advertising and marketing is for. To convince you that you need to buy what you don't need. Think about it. I'm sitting in my huge home, with 2 nice cars in the garage, with a wide screen HD TV/dvd/home theater downstairs, on my home computer, surrounded by basses and musical equipment. How much of that do I need? Well, actually none of it. Why did I buy it? Because I "needed" it (well some of it. Some I just wanted). And who creates this need/want in me? The companies who make money by selling it. Am I happy and fulfilled because I have any of it. Not at all. I don't find happiness or fulfillment from the stuff I have. I find it in my love for my wife and family. In my love for music. In doing a good job at work. In having the respect of those I respect. In having God in my life.

But that's not what those companies who sell things tell me. How can they? If that was all there was, who would need to buy all those "necessities" like athletic shoes and iPods? And remember it is not enough just to buy stuff once. We must keep buying year after year. We need a new car, because the old one isn't up-to-date any more. And software keeps needing more/better/faster computers. And computers need peripherals and digital cameras and high speed internet. You NEED to be on the Internet and reading this blog.

What inspired me today to write this was an article that I read, in all places, in Network World, a computer business rag I get at work. You can find the article here: http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2005/101005backspin.html. I haven't seen this movie nor have I read the book. But what he is talking about is that if people acted like corporations do, they'd be labelled psychotic. Think about that. Companies act the way they do because they're crazy. And here's one more thing to think about. A guy on the train heard me ranting one day about how people are, at heart, evil. He said his dad was a psychologist and his theory was that all people's struggles came down to one thing. Their battle with the evil inside them.

So, corporations are psychotic. If we take that theory the next step, one could say they have lost the battle with the evil inside them. Therefore, corporations are evil. And capitalism, which is founded on the premise that corporations are the key to any society, is therefore also evil.

Now I am saying this a little bit tongue-in-cheek. I know societies have tried other paths. Monarchies were never that benevolent. Communism never did help the workers. Socialism always compromised and corrupted. Fascism was all about control and power and collapsed into repression and evildoing.

So what do I advocate? Well, I think the only way we will ever see a society that is not evil is when Jesus returns. The first Christians practiced a shared society where the common good benefitted all. It quickly crumbled as people's own personalities and sins got in the way. But I believe when we are re-formed and re-created in the new world of Jesus Christ, we will find that society that is fair and just and loving.

Until then, we are just a world filled with people who, at the heart, are sinful. And corporations will help magnify and make that sin more efficient. And capitalism will continue to focus on one and only one god - money. And billions will continue to suffer while I sit in my comfortable chair in my warm house with my full stomach typing on my computer.

My heart aches.

Irony is not dead

I saw the news yesterday. GW Bush is now urging us to conserve fuel. Yeah, that's right. George W Bush says we should drive less. Plan our trips. Travel less. A crisis is at hand, caused by the storms in the Gulf. Of Mexico, that is. Now isn't that ironic? The Texas oil man whose idea of an energy policy was finding more oil to feed the American habit.

Now I find this hilarious. That this man - the same man who wants to dig in the last wildernesses on earth to find more oil - would ask us to conserve after 5 years of conspicuous consumption. That's just funny. Does he think that people will actually do this? If so he's even more of an idiot that I already suspected.

Michelle - my wife - on the other hand is infuriated. When we were talking about it last night, she called GW a "prick". If you know Michelle, you would understand the full impact of that statement. She doesn't swear. She may become angry, but she doesn't use language like that - no, not even with me (wish I could say that).

Her beef seems to be exactly what I find funny. The LAST thing this president could actually advocate was conservation. This guy wants to preside over the largest increase of oil consumption in the history of the earth. His idea of an "energy policy" is to find more places to dig. Reduce use? Drive more fuel efficient cars? Public transportation? Not for this guy. "America needs more oil" seems to be his mantra.

And now he wants us all to conserve. It woulda really threw me had I not seen today's headlines. You know, the one where the EPA increased the amount of pollution a company can spew before they actually have to tell anyone.

Now THAT'S the GWBush I know!

"Intelligent" Design

Since Darwin released his "Origin of the Species", Christians have been crying out in protest of what it contained. It is against God. It is against the Bible.

I think they miss the point.

Since the dawn of time (whether that was 13,000 years ago as some Christians believe, or billions of years ago as others - both Christian and no-Christian believe), Man has been trying to figure things out. How did we come into being? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Why are some stars bright and some dim? What is this thing called "gravity"? What is this/that/the other made of? How does my transistor radio work? What happens if I pull this? Man is a curious creature.

Sometime long ago, someone invented the "scientific process" whereby there would be standards on how to figure things out. You would study through experimentation and observation and repetition how things work. You put together a theory based on evidence - or your own ideas - and then try to prove it was true. In this way we discovered that the Earth revolved around the Sun and gravity was a natural part of massive objects, and the Moon caused the tides, and disease was often caused by tiny little creatures called germs, and when you take a radioactive substance and get it to start reacting it blows up real good. We learned lots of good stuff.

There are lots of theories out there, many of which we can only prove based on circumstantial evidence. Such as sub-atomic particles. The Big Bang. The human genome. Some everyday things we take for granted as fact are only theories where we have no "smoking gun" evidence. Like the theory of relativity. How light works. And evolution.

See, I don't believe that scientists are evil. I don't believe that most scientists are out to disprove the existence of God. I don't even believe that most scientists are atheists. I think that there are Christians scientists and non-Christian scientists. And I think what they have in common is that they want to figure out stuff. They not only want to understand what God created, but they want to know how he did it!

And here is where Christians miss the point. And miss an amazing opportunity to witness to men and women of science. Christians invent a science called "Creation Science". It is based on the Bible. It is not based on facts as can be discovered through a scientific process. It is thoroughly discredited by scientists because the inventors of this "science" haven't done their science homework. Oh sure, they have done their Bible homework, but that doesn't provide evidence that can be validated by experimentation, observation, and repetition. And, when faced with evidence that their "science" doesn't add up, they say that it is God's way of testing our faith. I was listening to a comedy channel the other day. The comedian said that this was God messing with our heads (he didn't say it as nicely). I find it difficult to believe that God would just decide to mess with us just to "test our faith". At least not in this way.

So Christians made a "science" out of religion. Then they turned around and made a "religion" out of science. They talk about "believing" in evolution. And call it "Darwinism". Scientists have not decided to invent their own religion with this. They are not creating a faith here. They have a theory and they have evidence to back it up. If someone someday proves that it is all a crock. That Man began when 2 alien species met on Earth one day and had a party - and there is verifiable evidence of that - then they'll start talking about the theory of alienation instead. They're not tied to evolution that tightly. It is just the current understanding.

Which brings us to "intelligent design". There are those who say that this is Creationism in a tuxedo. There are Christians who believe this is a way to bridge the gap. To say that, hey, maybe the Earth is billions of years old, but someone had to design it this perfectly. And know what? This isn't bad. I DO think that God created all of this and He had a plan. I also think that, if evolution is how we got here, God decided to do it that way. I don't see a contradiction between God and evolution. I think there was a design and I think God was the designer.

The problem is, now Christians want to make THIS a science. They have begun to dig up scientific evidence that it is true. And they dig up quotes from scientists that pretty much say that the only way this universe could be this perfect is that if someone designed it. They're wanting to PROVE that God did it.

Herein lies the rub. And I just got why I had a problem with this. To be Christian is to have faith. To have faith is to believe something is true without proof. To absolutely with all my heart believe that God is, and He sent his Son to die for our sins, and He left us with the Holy Spirit to help us through our lives to live a holy life. I believe that God created this universe. I have faith that he did it. I don't have to prove it. I shouldn't have to prove it.

Look, as Christians we should not be delving into science to "prove" our faith. We should, in fact, be preaching to the unsaved about faith, and not try to teach them religion as if it is a science. Faith is not science. Science is not faith. If we truly believe that God made the universe himself, we should believe it on faith, not on some theory someone comes up with to "prove" that science got it wrong.

Because you know what, science may not have it wrong. Remember, this is a pattern of observation, experimention, and repetition. Scientists don't want to prove that God didn't do it, necessarily. They want to know HOW he did it. And I don't believe God would punish us for the curiosity and intelligence he gave us. The Church didn't want to allow the Earth to revolve around the Sun either, but that doesn't change the fact.

Should Intelligent Design be taught in public schools? Of course not! Public school is not the place to learn about faith. Church, home - those are the places to learn about faith. Let schools teach science. Let us understand how wonderfully and fearfully we and this universe are made. Combine that with faith, and you get to see in full the majesty of God's creation and the intelligence with which he designed it.

Imagine if we were to let the scientists be and let them work through their experiments and theories and observations. Imagine what wonderful discoveries they would make and how that would delight our senses about how great God is. Then imagine if we invited these same scientists to experience the faith as we have it. Imagine their new delight in each discovery, knowing they are finding out just how God did it.

Human Race

Race. There's been a lot of talk of it lately. We can thank a vicious woman named Katrina for that. Americans have been accused once more of blatant racism because of our reaction and assistance to the disaster on the Gulf Coast.

I know there is still racism in America. Sometimes it is obvious. Most of the time, to my white anglo saxon protestant heterosexual married male eyes, I don't see it at all unless it is explicitly pointed out. And even then, I don't tend to believe it.

And I'm a little closer to it than most wasphmm's. I was married to a black woman. And I have a mixed-race son. I say mixed-race. Society would probably say black. He would probably say black. But I lived a little closer to the inside of black society. I lived in a black neighborhood. I had a rather large circle of black friends. I was given a peek.

I once said to a black friend that "I was black once", referring to the time I was married to a black woman. He kindly pointed out that no, I was never black. He was right. I never was. But I feel a special connection. I feel for their plight. I make it a point to befriend blacks at work. Or talk to them on the street. Michelle says that I act differently when I am in the city, and especially to those blacks I interact with. I'm not sure if that is good or bad. I'm sure it is true.

I went to Brent's high school last week. Went to all his classrooms. I took the opportunity to talk to his guidance counsellor because I am concerned about his future (I could write a book). As I was telling him I had a concern that Brent would have a rough time getting into a college with a 2.0 gpa, he said "2.0? He'd be the only white in school with a 2.0". Or something like that. (this was a white guidance counsellor) I pointed out that Brent's mom was black.

I'm not at all sure what to make of that statement. Does it mean he is surprised a white boy has a "low" gpa? Does it mean that he expects only blacks to have 2.0's or worse? Was it racism? Was it insensitive? (I vote yes to both) I found it real confusing.

So now we are treated with stories of people's blatant racism. Barbara Bush who suggested that people in the Astrodome were so much better off than being poor in New Orleans. The politician in Baton Rouge who was overheard commenting that we now have taken care of the public housing problem. The tv caption of the black "looting" and the white "gathering". One thing is certain. The images of the poor and unfortunate in the Gulf area were almost all black.

Is it racism? Or is it classism? Is it because the skin is black? Or is it because these people have no money and therefore no power? Had it been poor whites in New Orleans who couldn't get out, would someone have done more to get them out? Frankly, I doubt it. But was there a disproportionately large percentage of blacks in New Orleans who were among the poorest? I'd say so. And that is where the racism is.

One more point. We Americans and the world at large seem to think that we hold the patent on racism. No. There's racism everywhere in the world. When London was hit with terrorist bombs most recently, the police opened up on brown people. Two Jamaican's were killed by police as suspects. They were not terrorists. Anti-semitism in Germany, Eastern Europe, and Russia. Israel and Palestine. India and Pakistan. Japan and China. Aborigines in Australia and Maoris in New Zealand. Africans in Europe. Just look at the way Europe is cut up into countries. Unlike America's "melting pot" culture where all live together (albeit not always happily), European countries are divided into "like" cultures. The French live in France. The Germans live in Germany. The Dutch live in Holland. No, racism is endemic throughout the world.

We in America COULD try to do something about it. I guess we do try. But to date, while there have been improvements in the plight of minorities, we have in a large part failed.

We've just been sweeping it under the carpet. We don't like to talk about it. And we don't like to admit it. And now it is thrust in our face.

It makes me angry. And sad.

Katrina

Like everybody else, I am obsessed with looking at the devastation from Katrina. New Orleans, a city I love and have great memories of, is underwater and very very far from recovery. The Mississippi Gulf coast is destroyed. Mobile is heavily damaged. I can't really get over it. I can hardly believe what I'm seeing.

I was listening to NPR and Daniel Schorr was giving one of his editorials. You may remember Schorr from CBS News back in the day. Now he is a senior correspondent on NPR. Anyway, he was relating recent talk about "intelligent design" (I'll post something about my thoughts on this someday) to the hurricane. Basically he was complaining about how God's creation could be considered "intelligent" when it caused so much destruction on innocent lives. You can listen here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4826756.

I do not agree with him here. Man built a city below sea level. Man built a series of levees to protect himself from nature (and therefore, God). Man built casinos on the Gulf coast. And houses on the shore. Man did all these things. God's creation just did what it does. Hurricanes happen. They always have. When there were far fewer people on the coast, far fewer people were affected. Now, we have large populations there. The creation didn't change. Man's attempt to manipulate it did.

And then there was the editorial from Molly Ivins, the liberal columnist from Austin, TX. She is not a Bush fan. At all. She writes blistering editorials about how wrong-headed his actions are. Pretty much all of them. I usually agree with her. Today, however, she decided to blame the destruction from Katrina on Bush. His environmental policies (which I agree are wrong-headed), his use of the National Guard for duty in Iraq, including equipment (which I agree is inconceivable that a war could be conducted in this way - more on war in a later post), his energy policies (which theoretically severely damaged the shorelines). All of these things resulted in this hurricane to cause the severity of damage. That article is here: http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/1/2005/1197

As I said, I usually agree with her and enjoy her sense of humor. And I can agree that Bush's policies in the areas noted are misguided. But I think she went too far here. Bush's policies didn't cause this. And another president in office - Democrat or Republican - could not have stopped this. This is nature being nature. God's creation doing what it does. Environment policy doesn't change that. Further, I think she does a disservice to all of us liberals out here. She gives ammunition to the rightist columnists and commentators about how wrong it is to use a natural disaster and tragedy to blast Bush.

In a nutshell, bad things happen to good people and bad people. And God gave us a choice in the way we live. We chose to build where we did, knowing that the calm Gulf can sometimes get violent. We have evidence. Don't think that God decided to punish those Gulf states for sins they committed. Don't think of Him as a cruel master who toys with us. God created the Earth for us to live on and he created it with all of it's characteristics (I'll do that blog someday, too). Those include dangerous, violent things. Earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tornados. God isn't necessarily unleashing these on unsuspecting people. Rather, he created the Earth with it's wonder and awesome power to create and destroy and now it is doing what it does.

I'm terrified and shocked and crushed by the impact of this disaster. I believe that God can only be good. I do not see a contradiction here.

Thou Shalt Not Kill

One of the reasons I decided to start a blog is because I had things to say about my faith and what I believe Jesus teaches us. From what I have been hearing on the radio, on TV, and in my church pew, what I believe does not line up with "mainstream" evangelical thought. So, here is my first "This I Believe".

A little background. I read the Bible just about every day. I usually read the gospels over and over (this time thru I added Acts) because as a pastor once said "that is Jesus in shoes". In addition, I read thru either the rest of the New Testament or, as is the case now, the Old Testament from Genesis to Malachi. Coincident to this post, I am currently at Exodus 20. For those of you keeping score at home, this is one of the places where the 10 commandments are spelled out. I'll focus in this case on Exodus 20.13, which in the old King James Version (just the way Jesus spoke) says, "Thou shalt not kill". I choose that version on purpose. When reading great passages in the bible (like here or the 23rd Psalm), nothing quite sounds like KJV. It is regal. Other translations (like English Standard Version I am reading now) read "You shall not commit murder".

Think about the difference between those 2 translations. One makes a straight forward clear statement that you shouldn't kill (one would assume He meant Man (capital M means women, too)). The other translation makes it a little more slippery. Murder. Does that mean I can't kill in anger? Or is that "manslaughter"? Is that First degree? Second degree? What if I am drunk and accidently hit someone in my car? What about self defense? What about capital punishment? What about war?

In one sense this translation makes it more clear that we shouldn't be killing Man, as opposed to say, the grass in front of my house. This helps us clarify what He meant here. Another, more detailed interpretation would mean we shouldn't kill anyone on purpose. Still further would say we wouldn't kill Man maliciously.

And therein lies the rub. With this word, murder, we can edge around things to justify actions such as capital punishment, or self-defense, or killing the man in bed with my wife, or revenge, or war. And that is precisely what I have been hearing from Christians on the radio, on tv, in the pulpit. I promised myself I wouldn't bring up Pat Robertson, but he is case-in-point. An avowed Evangelical Christian. On TV on one of the most popular Christian TV shows. Praying for goodness to all followers in Christ. Looking to make new disciples and converts. This guy goes on the air and justifies the assassination of Chevez, Venezuela's president. Apparently, for this Christian "assassination" and "murder" are not the same thing. This is an example of an extreme case. There are much more less extreme cases. My own pastor once interpreted this passage to say that there was "good" war, capital punishment was justified (altho abortion was not), and self-defense was ok.

Even if I took up the argument that "murder" can be applied to all of the cases above, I do not believe that is necessary to understand the Bible's take on "Thou shalt not kill". I find clarification in the New Testament. When I don't understand a passage in the OT, or one that doesn't make sense, I turn to see what Jesus said. As I said up front, I have read the 4 gospels numerous times and I have yet to find the passage where Jesus says, "well, murder is wrong, but you can kill your fellow man in these cases...." Instead let's look at Jesus' summation of the 10 commandments in Matt. 22:37-40. "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets. " Note he did not bother to interpret TSNK. Rather, he summed it all up as "love God, love your neighbor". I do not believe you can kill and love your neighbor at the same time. Remember too that he helped define "neighbor" by telling the story of the good Samaritan. Samaritans were the Palestinians of the day. They were hated, vilified, yet Jesus used them as an example for us all.

The Sermon on the Mount is also clear about how we should act on this earth. In Matt 5:21-26 he changes the TSNK commandment into an admonition to not be angry with one's brother. In Matt 5:43 he says "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy'. But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven" Or how about the Golden Rule, Matt 7:12 "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets."

Finally, how about when Jesus himself was threatened. He was praying on the Mount of Olives and the Pharisee's men were coming for him. In Matt 26:51 one of those in his party (John says it was Peter) struck one of the guards with his sword and cut off his ear. Jesus says in 26:52 "Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. "

How do you treat an enemy according to Jesus? Love them, pray for them, treat them like a neighbor. TSNK. How to treat a neighbor? As you would want to be treated. TSNK. What does Jesus do when threatened with death? He not only surrenders to it, but admonishes those with him to give up the sword. What about disciples being threatened, since one could argue He had to be taken to fulfill prophesy. Matt 5:11, the last of the Beatitudes says "Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets before you." TSNK.

Death penalty? Forgive those who persecute you. Revenge? Self-defense? Turn the other cheek. War? Love your enemies. Protect your belongings? Give him your cloak also.

TSNK

I think clarification is clear. Jesus came to fulfill the Law, including the 10 Commandments. It doesn't matter what interpretation we give the term "kill" or "murder". Jesus spent his time here clarifying it for us.

TSNK, indeed.

No Common Ground?

I belong to a few email groups. For the most part, they are Christian Bass-playing groups. As with any US Christian group, you get a preponderance of politically conservative people on the lists. I get, being the Christian Leftist that I am, some Left-leaning newsletters. Sojourners posted one the other day that I loved. It is here: http://go.sojo.net/ct/01_fv7s1bzdE/.

Now I found nothing either Left-leaning or even particularly political about this article. In fact, the writer is just what he says he is. Leaning left on some issues, right on others. And this was an amazingly insightful way of seeing Jesus as the bridge between Right and Left so that we could find common ground.

So I posted this link to one of my Christian Bass email lists. And it was immediately squelched by the right-leaning moderator of the list. I was hurt at first, since I didn't mean to put political leanings on the list (which are forbidden), but then baffled. What could possibly be controversial about finding common ground between left and right? Wouldn't that actually help the country, and even the church. Isn't there some kind of common ground we could agree on. And actually, we do. I got a similar private response from another conservative friend. Both the same. Something to the affect of "it was asking me to agree with gay rights". Read the article. It isn't saying that at all. It doesn't take a stand.

Which leads me to wonder...do conservatives not want to find common ground with liberals? Is the mere mention of common ground between people a "liberal" stance? Is there no room at all for conversation between 2 sides?

This troubles me greatly. I do not agree with my conservative brethren most of the time. But there are things on which I can agree. And I can be friends with those who don't agree with me. And I can even listen to their point of view. I would WANT to find common ground. That seems the Christian thing to do.

Sometimes I just don't understand which bible Christians read.....

A new Blog

I decided to start a blog. I've been thinking about it for awhile now. I wanted a place where I could share my views on Christianity, on political issues, on war and peace, on what it means to be human, on movies. I have thoughts, see, and I figure I'd be better off getting them off my chest and really thinking them through than just holding them inside and getting incensed everytime I see an email, read the newspaper, or see George Bush on TV. So I've been thinking of starting a blog. Today I have.

Here's the story on what got me started. I got this email from a Christian friend. I know she means well, but it was one of those forwarded ones entitled something like "what the media doesn't want you to see about Iraq" and it had a bunch of smiling happy children and people just delighted that we were there to save them from themselves. In other words, it pissed me off. So I wrote a blistering email back complaining that pictures of people actually dying in an actual war may be more helpful in understanding what war really means than a bunch of smiling children being given candy by US soldiers. I complained further that I can't believe Christians just blindly followed the Republican party and don't read their New Testament and understand the message Jesus left us.

In other words, I was an ass. That was when I decided I needed a blog. That way instead of flaming good friends of mine when they don't quite agree, I can put down into words what I feel and give them a choice of whether to read my very intelligent and well-reasoned opinions.

Yeah, she was mad. I apologized. We're still friends.

So here is my blog. If you're interested at all in what I think, come back occasionally. I'll write when I feel the muse. Like now.

Come back for my views on guns. On war. On politics in America. On being a Leftist Christian in a Rightist country.

I probably won't write about abortion.

And as far as the nominee for Supreme Court is concerned, let me go on record right here that George W. Bush, our president, made a brilliant pick. I don't really know his views on issues, but that is the point. He is a smart, experienced, young, bland candidate that took out any steam in those who were itching for a fight. Heck, even the Christian Right isn't sure about him. Don't know what kind of justice he'll be, but it was a brilliant nominee.

And that's probably the last good words about George W you'll ever hear from me.

See ya soon....