red fuzzy jesus

ANTI WAR (OF THE WORLDS)

I’ve always thought it was kind of silly when people boycott a movie because they don’t like an actor’s politics or disagreed with the ‘agenda’ of the film.  An actor is just playing a character.  A good movie is a good movie.  But this summer I’m going to boycott a movie I’ve wanted to see for a long time for perhaps an even stupider reason.  I refuse to go see War of the Worlds because Tom Cruise is an enormous tool.

Yes, I’ve seen the clips from the Oprah show.  He acted like a lunatic and I have no doubt pulling Katie Holmes from backstage was a publicity stunt.  Not only was he mad phony with his over-the-top affirmations but he was also brutally rough with poor Katie.  He grabbed her by the upper arms, thrashed her around a bit before literally shoving her on Oprah’s stage.  Oprah laughed along but her face turned to concern for a moment.  Why didn’t she say something?  She later described him as “gone,” whatever that means.   

[For a funny look at Tom "killing" Oprah, take a look here, courtesy of my friend Din.]

Then there was the access Hollywood interview with Billy Bush in which Cruise was smug and condescending.  He talks about wanting to save children from Psychology and all sorts of other voo-doo, science fiction, pseudo-religion crap and Billy has no idea what to do with it.  That show is supposed to be fluffy entertainment and Tom is psycho-serious with dire warnings.  Confucius says: one stops being entertaining when one thinks he is Ghandi.   

His reaction to the infamous squirting microphone prank solidified my opinion.  He could have been pissed and just walked away but he held the ‘reporter’s’ hand and wouldn’t let him leave and just kept repeating what a jerk the guy was.  Note to Tom, the people that get punked by Ashton Kucher and laugh about it with him find it helps their career.  Tom could have laughed or walked away looking like a victim.  Instead his diatribe was relentless and more humiliating than a little squirt in the face ever could be. 

Did you catch him on the Today Show?  What a jerk.  All Matt Lauer said was [paraphrased] ‘I know people that have used anti-depressants and said they helped.’  Tom then calls him “glib” and tells Matt he hasn’t done the research that the astute Dr. Cruise has done.  It’s one thing to disagree or want to get a point across.  It’s another thing entirely to, again, tout some weird anti-Psychology agenda when you’re supposed to be promoting a movie and to be down right insulting to the host for no reason.  What a douche bag.

I’m sure a lot of actors in Hollywood are rich assholes.  I’m sure a lot of them have fake relationships and treat underlings poorly.  But Tom is so upfront and nasty that I can no longer separate Tom Cruise the person from any of the characters he plays.  If Tom were facing down an alien in WOTW I would associate it too closely with that intense look he gave while proselytizing Billy Bush.  A lot of celebrities have big egos that could be credited for their fame in the first place.  But when you’re so self important that you elevate yourself to all knowing guru of a religion most people associate with Trekies, you’ve gone from ego maniac to just plain maniacal. 

Tom Cruise is famous because he’s good looking and has starred in lots of exciting movies.  His behavior lately makes him less attractive and the summer box office is a competitive field.  I hope the movie tanks.  I also hope poor Katie’s career recovers after she’s less advantageous to the sexually-vague Tom.  Remember his red hot love affair with Penelope Cruze?  That inexplicably fizzled after international promotion for Vanilla Sky ended.  Katie needs to politely decline Mr. Hyde’s proposal before she’s considered uncastable or one of her shoulders gets pulled out of socket.  There’s only so much movie promotion her poor little frame can take.   

ON THE OFFENSE

These are scary times we are living in.  Every day another news item frightens me.  I thought attacks on funding for public broadcasting died in the mid 90s but sadly they have been resurrected.  A federal marriage amendment is gaining steam with now Democratic Senator Nelson of Nebraska supporting it and the amendment to ban flag burning is also closer to passage in Congress than ever before.  There are few indications Bush will nominate anyone but a religious zealot for the Supreme Court putting abortion rights in jeopardy.  The most undiplomatic man imaginable, John Bolton, may be confirmed to be our diplomat to the U.N.  Evolution is being challenged in public schools while teenagers are taught that condoms aren’t worth the effort.  Oil lobbyists are literally at the helm in federal environmental departments.  The National Academies are being defunded in order to fund the rather uninformed war in Iraq.  (If ever there was a concrete example or war winning over wisdom there it is.)  Everywhere you look the wall of separation between church and state is tumbling down.  The Reverend in Chief, George W. Bush, addressed the Southern Baptist Convention this week saying, "Southern Baptists are practicing compassion by defending the family and the sacred institution of marriage," and "Congress should pass legislation to ensure that federally-funded religious charities can be open about their faith." (cite)  This mislabeled ‘defense’ is not just part of an effort to stymie advancements for gays and lesbians but a comprehensive dismantling of decades worth of law protecting all unmarried people including singles and divorcees. 

What’s a person to do who believes in art or education or the humanities?  Is there an outlet left for those that think we shouldn’t go to war without a solid coalition of allies or a plan for what to do after winning?  What do you do if you think the best way to protect religious liberty is to keep the federal government out of it?  The post-November plan has been one of defense.  The best anyone could hope to do is drag their feet, block legislation and nominees procedurally, and hope to weather the damage till another election cycle passes.  I think the unspoken part of that plan is to stand back to allow overreaching and then say, ‘don’t blame us, we’re not in charge,’ in 2006.  That’s not an altogether bad idea.  The President’s approval ratings are as low as his father’s, 42%!  Clinton never dipped that low.  59% of America now doesn’t support the war in Iraq.  W’s private accounts for social security are D.O.A.  And, as recently noted by the New York Times, the principal organization behind the FMA, the Family Research Council, has only staffed the office devoted to its passage with 2 people.  Even they don’t think it has a snowball’s chance.  The FMA is kept around in theory only as a way to whip up the faithful and easily frightened. 

The agenda of obstruction and distance is yielding some positive outcomes but it needs to be enthused with some offensive work as well.  Rather than always playing defense on, say, state marriage amendments, progressives should be putting forth their own ideas.  Rather than saying no, no, no, no, no, to the President’s agenda, progressives could do a better job proffering their own. 

For too long now we’ve been satisfied with crumbs.  A federal appeals court justice strikes down the ban on partial birth abortion and we cheer because someone saved us from the legislature while nearly abandoning hope for success in that body.  We applaud some bill getting through liberal Maryland that allows hospital visitation rights for same sex couples while we shrink from the hostile climate making such a bill necessary.

This weekend marks the umpteenth annual Pride celebration here in New York City.  I never saw much purpose in a Pride celebration.  To me it was a bunch of flamboyantly dressed people parading in their underwear supplying ammunition to those that hate.  But, if Pride is an asseveration of individuality then I’m all for it.  Not since the McCarthy era has individualism been so under attack.  Ensuing the assumptions of righteousness our government attacks the ability of families to make private end-of-life medical decisions, presents one and only one ‘moral’ option for teens in sex ed, seeks to limit Art and expression, rails against the right to choose, punishes what we see on TV, and dictates what relationships are worthy of state recognition.  If a parade can celebrate the freedom to be you and me then strap on those feathers and march, Bruce, march!      

For too many months the attitude has been one of timidity.  Too many think they can’t push an alternative because some are so big and so popular.  Wake up.  If only 42% approve of the job Bush is doing then 58% don’t.  I stand amazed at the audacity of some of these efforts including FCC regulation tightening, PBS defunding, and civil liberties rollbacks.  But I also think some are getting so much these days because they’re brazen enough to demand it.  Petitions and internal mailings are nice but there’s a budgetary shortfall at places like People for the American Way because it’s easier to forward a petition than pry open one’s wallet.  Kooky ideology that grants personhood to zygotes stands in the way of medical advancements.  One promise of such research shows up as spinal regeneration in mice.  But if pro-cure people ever want that research to benefit humans, they need to re-grow spines themselves.   

I predict a Republican upset in November 2006 but that’s still too far from now for predictions to be meaningful.  I do know that the degree of that upset is dependent on the presence of an affirmative alternative and how aggressively that alternative is pushed.  Enough with the scurrying from Karl Rove’s stride trying not to get stomped.  Those that fight for individual liberty have the high ground of American tradition and it’s time we start acting like it.    

DEEPER, THROATIER

A couple week’s ago we finally got to know who Deep Throat is.  Mark Feldt, former FBI Deputy Director came forward and was labeled in the press as the man who helped bring down the Nixon administration.  Au contraire, the Nixon administration with all its cover-ups brought itself down.  He only helped by revealing their efforts.  If you’re not a Nixon loyalist clinging to a sense of betrayal then you probably see Feldt as a national hero.  The most powerful man in the free world was made to answer for himself thanks to some aggressive journalism and a patriotic informant.  Investigative reporting of that caliber is seldom seen these days and I think America needs to be deep throated again. 

Remember just before the war in Iraq?  Colin Powell’s U.N. presentation garnered lots of attention.  It had satellite photos showing stockpiles of weapons and manufacturing facilities.  The photos had triangles and circles and all sorts of useful information in diagram form.  What were those triangles pointing to?  A lesser reported story is that later Powell had to apologize to the U.N. for that presentation.  I want an energetic deep throat from the Bush administration.  Without one we may never know what happened in the lead up to the invasion. 

Remember all the criticism of the secret energy task force and the shady circumstances under which EPA head Christie Todd Whitman resigned?  Bush administration officials said that accusations environmental policy was made by oil executives were “ridiculous.”  This week, Philip Cooney, chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, resigned and… guess where he accepted a job.  Exxon Mobile of course!  This is the same guy who took a black Sharpie© and “edited” government reports on global warming in 2002 and 2003.   Accusations that oil industry executives are making environmental policy at the White House aren’t so ridiculous in light of the facts.  What other perks do oil execs get from the executive branch?  Maybe the pressure surrounding energy policy could be relieved with a hardy deep throat. 

It’s not just the Bush administration that could offer some deep throating.  There have to be some deep throaters in congressional staffs or activist organizations too.  In March during the Terri Shiavo controversy, advocates for keeping Terri ‘alive’ continuously said that her husband abused her, that he was estranged, that she was responsive.  The web site titled Fact Sheet: The Truth About Terri asserted, “Medical professionals believe that, with therapy, there is a good chance she could re-learn to swallow.”  They also said, “Other than her disability, Terri is in good health.”  On her condition, the ‘fact sheet’ claimed.  “She consistently responds to people who visit her with smiles, frowns or sullenness, depending on who the person is… Her eyes follow guests and objects around her room… She moves, laughs, cries and vocalizes emotions… She responds to questions and instructions… Terri attempts to form words and has been heard saying yes, no, Mommy, and, possibly, Help me."

These and other “facts” about Terri were repeated in congressional debate and informed the specially designed law that allowed federal courts to intervene.  Want facts?  The official autopsy released this week said she, “suffered massive and irreversible brain damage.”  There was no chance she could have recovered with therapy.  The medical examiner described her brain as "grossly abnormal and weighed only 1.35 pounds," less than half the size of a normal adult brain.  Most telling, Shiavo couldn’t have responded in the ways activists described because she was blind.  She had no optical nerves left.   The autopsy also found no evidence she was abused, an accusation repeated constantly by the parents’ lawyer.  Michael Shiavo should sue for libel.  And there should be some criticism in the press for all the men who practiced medicine from a distance with seminary degrees. 

Where is the deep throat in these organizations that will inform us on where they got their “facts?”  I’d like to know who the “medical professionals” are so they can explain what therapy recoups a blind woman with a half-shrunk brain.  Really, I’d like to know they just sit around a conference room and make stuff up.  And who is going to reveal that Congressional leaders wrote things into a bill they knew to be false as a craven attempt to stimulate the base.  There are way too many perky young staffers on the Hill for there to be so little deep throating.      

There’s a lot of journalism gold to be mined but no one has the courage to dig.  Maybe there are residual post 9-11 fears within the news media that equate skepticism to treason, criticism to bias.  Investigative journalism is left to the bloggers and Geraldo while most mainstream news sources wear very soft gloves.  The relatively scandal-free Bush White House is the product of a timid press corps, not a transparent administration.  It’s also due to a Justice Department that pursues anonymous sources.  Columnist John Dean points out that “The Bush administration prosecutes government officials who leak sensitive information, even when that information is not classified” and “The Bush administration also is prepared to send reporters to jail when they refuse to reveal their sources to a grand jury.” (cite)  Deep throaters beware!
 
In the 70s, two young reporters from the Washington Post made their careers because they had the courage to look behind the company line.  A higher up at the FBI saw it as his patriotic duty, not an act of regicide, to grease their wheels.  What’s the point of having a free press if it doesn’t call people out and hold them accountable?  There’s a place for rabid dogs that go after the truth and its address is 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.  We need to doggedly pursue fact.  We need anonymous sources to give it to us.  Put simply, we could all benefit from a noisy deep throat.       

CURIOUS GEORGE

I often cite George Will as a hero of mine. Technically he’s labeled as a conservative so we should be enemies.  Odd… more often than not I feel he speaks for me - only better.  While I may not agree with him on a point-by-point policy basis, I admire him immensely as an articulate and thoughtful writer.  His articles on the back page of Newsweek are a favorite of mine and this one titled The Oddness of Everything is not only fascinating, it says something I’ve been trying to say for months only with a great deal more subtlety and grace.  The thing I like most about George is, in spite of his knowledge and depth, he always writes as if he is hungry to learn.  This is a refreshing counter to the common shouting know-it-alls that fill modern discourse.  I normally don’t post other people’s articles this way but for this piece, I’ll gladly make an exception.   

[cut and pasted with respect but not permission] 
THE ODDNESS OF EVERYTHING
Invited by the University of Miami to address members of the class of 2005, the columnist repaid this courtesy by telling them that even though they surely had showered before donning their caps and gowns, each of them had about a trillion bacteria feeding on the 10 billion flakes of skin each of us sheds in a day. If each 2005 graduate were disassembled into his or her constituent atoms, each graduation gown would contain nothing but atomic dust. But as currently assembled, this star dust—really: we are all residues of the Big Bang—is living stuff, capable of sublime emotions like love, patriotism and delight in defeating Florida State.
The body of every Miami graduate has about 10 thousand trillion cells, each containing a strand of DNA that, uncoiled, would extend about six feet. If that person's DNA were spliced into a single strand, it would extend 20 million kilometers—enough to stretch from Miami to Los Angeles and back 2,270 times.
So says Bill Bryson, author of the delightful "A Short History of Nearly Everything." According to him, everyone now alive contains some Shakespeare. That is, some of the physical stuff he was made of. And Julius Caesar's stuff, and Genghis Khan's and Charlemagne's. And Charlemagne's cook's. There are trillions of trillions of atoms in each of us, so lots—probably billions—of atoms have been recycled in each of us from Beethoven. In that sense we all are, as Bryson says, reincarnations.
Indeed, each member of Miami's class of 2005 is related to every other member and to—facts must be faced—every graduate of Florida State. It took two parents to produce each of us, and four people to produce our parents. If we look back eight generations, to Lincoln's day, Bryson says that more than 250 people contributed to the creation of each of us. Look back to Shakespeare's day, and we are directly descended from 16,384 ancestors. Look back 64 generations, to the era of the Roman Empire, and we have a thousand trillion ancestors.
But wait. A thousand trillion people is thousands of times more than the number of human beings who have ever lived. So everyone is the product of a lot of incest—but incest at what Bryson calls "a genetically discreet remove." This extended single family—humanity—inhabits the little planet Earth, whose continents are wandering.
Bryson says Europe and North America are moving away from each other at about the speed that a fingernail grows—about two yards in a normal human lifetime. The African continent is creeping northward and someday will squeeze the Mediterranean Sea out of existence and will shove up a chain of mountains as high as the Himalayas extending from Paris to Calcutta.
The Earth is restless partly because its molten core retains heat amazingly well: it has lost only about 200 degrees in the 4 billion years since the planet coalesced. Not that we have come close to that core: Bryson says that if the planet were an apple, our underground exploration would not yet have broken the skin.
The sun around which Earth orbits is one of perhaps 400 billion stars in the Milky Way, which is a piddling galaxy next door to nothing much. There are perhaps 140 billion galaxies in the still-unfolding universe. If all the stars in the universe were only the size of the head of a pin, they still would fill Miami's Orange Bowl to overflowing more than 3 billion times.
We should by now be used to strange thoughts. It has been 100 years since June 1905, when Albert Einstein began publishing the scientific papers that taught us that gravity bends light, that space and time are warped, that matter and energy are interchangeable, that the mass of an object increases the faster it moves and that the experience of time is a function of speed.
But there is a not-at-all-strange reason that a Washington columnist would belabor Miami graduates with strange facts. It is this: The more they appreciate the complexity and improbability of everyday things—including themselves—the more they can understand the role that accidents, contingencies and luck have played in bringing the human story to its current chapter. And the more they understand the vast and mysterious indeterminacy of things, the more suited they will be to participate in writing the next chapter.
This is so because the greatest threat to civility—and ultimately to civilization—is an excess of certitude. The world is much menaced just now by people who think that the world and their duties in it are clear and simple. They are certain that they know what—who—created the universe and what this creator wants them to do to make our little speck in the universe perfect, even if extreme measures—even violence—are required.
America is currently awash in an unpleasant surplus of clanging, clashing certitudes. That is why there is a rhetorical bitterness absurdly disproportionate to our real differences. It has been well said that the spirit of liberty is the spirit of not being too sure that you are right. One way to immunize ourselves against misplaced certitude is to contemplate—even to savor—the unfathomable strangeness of everything, including ourselves.

 

 

SACRED SECURITY

I’m in my mid twenties and hope to have a career someday or at least a comfortable income.   I plan to invest again.  I like to think of myself as responsible.  I also know things don’t always go as planned and I would prefer to swing with a net.  People in my age bracket have the most to lose when it comes to Social Security.  For that reason I wish the focus was less AARP and more MTV.   Twice a month the feds take a fat bite out of my paycheck and I wonder if that means something to my parents but nothing to me. 

Social Security is often referred to as the third rail of politics.  Like the electrified track along the subway, it will kill you on contact if you mess with it.  Put simply, old people vote.  It’s also a needling pain to arch-conservatives who don’t approve of the economic safety net created by FDR and reinforced since.  So it’s imperative as much as treacherous for a re-elected conservative President to try to reform it or, if you ascribe more sinister motives, dissolve it.  While the hyped crisis is overstated, most independent reviews suggest it needs attention.  I am as much a Bush-whacker as anyone out there.  But regardless of my opinion of the man in office I would like to think a part of me is still open minded enough to at least consider proposals by the other side. 

Kudos to Bush for addressing a controversial issue.  What the Democrats are doing to him on Social Security is the same thing the Republicans did to Hilary when she tried to reform the healthcare system.  In the early 90s reasonable minds could agree that some reformation was needed.  But the Republicans, then the minority party in Congress, wailed and wept about Hilary’s suggestions while offering no alternative.  More than a decade later, no solution was ever found and more people than ever are without health insurance, affordable prescriptions, or even access to a community clinic.  The minority party on the Hill now assails Bush for his efforts to ‘save’ Social Security but as per an opposition agenda, they remain annoyingly silent.  Are there really no options other than leaving it alone or is the lack of options a deficit in courage?    

One suggestion for reforming social security is means testing.  The argument goes that Bill Gates shouldn’t get the same payback as your poor grandmother who lives on bingo jackpots and food stamps.   Disregard for a moment the staggering amount billionaires like Gates have contributed to Social Security.  They don’t need a safety net.  But if benefits are graduated based on means Social Security then becomes stigmatized like welfare.  Rather than a guaranteed benefit it’s a handout for the poor or even lazy.  There’s a pride in not needing it, like welfare, gradual objections to funding it, like welfare, and the benefit gets diluted for the people that need it the most.         

Of course we could just scale back benefits.  But this seems like the worst idea out there.  With no end in sight for the dilemmatic choice between food and prescriptions many elderly face we can’t ask them to live on less.   The converse solution is raising the retirement age.  This seems more reasonable.  Today many people work into their 70s and remain active longer.  The eligibility age has been raised before so why not again?  The only problem with this idea is that the people who will most likely need help in their retirement are blue collar laborers.  Manual and corporal labor wares on the body and this demographic is not the one living and working longer.  Some people may be able to work till their 72 but the people most in need of help deserve to stop at 65. 

Then there are Bush’s private/personal accounts.  Workers may elect to have a portion of their Social Security taxes allocated to government regulated retirement funds.  It is audacious for Bush to suggest such an idea considering the stock market he has presided over.  That volatility in light of the corporate scandals and CEO gluttony make a guaranteed benefit sound more necessary.   U.S. Airways decided last year to stop paying pensions on employees who had already retired.  Those poor people thought they were responsible and planned for retirement and suddenly there’s no check in the mail.  What if they had invested the rest of their future in the market?

To be fair, participation in the private accounts is voluntary.  The Bush administration isn’t forcing anyone to take risks, just giving them the option.  Some people will gamble on the market and do ok.  Some people will buy lottery tickets.  But most will be able to keep their guaranteed benefit without having to wait to retire or suffer cutbacks.  The affluent and white collar are most likely to take the risk with an investment and they are the one’s who are least likely to need a safety net.  The result is a default means testing without the stigmatization of welfare.  That bite out of each check could be invested and people my age could be empowered through risk taking rather than hoping for a program’s survival. 

The partisan in me likes that Bush is taking a beating for prodding this most sacred of cows.  But the pragmatist likes options and that’s what Bush is offering.    It looks like Bush’s private accounts idea is going to fail.  But a greater failure may be doing nothing at all.  If you always stick to your guns you can never shake hands.  Voluntary investment may not be such a bad idea.  I’m sorry to say, it’s the only idea out there.   

FAITHLESS RHETORIC

When I look at this past year the outstanding lesson doesn’t come from a single event but a series of snippets both personal and political, cultural and unique.  I am just beginning to string these flashes into cohesive thought and questioning my revelations.  They involve how we as a people define ourselves and who I allow to label me.  It all started at the end of last November.  On the way home from class I stumbled upon a gathering in Washington Square Park.  It was an outdoor worship service by some Christian group, I believe campus Catholics, and it included music and some inspiring speeches.  I stayed through the hour’s long event and remained to chat with people afterwards.  Throughout I asked myself, aren’t these the people that just handed the election to Bush and oppose my beliefs?  Am I not in the camp of the enemy?  Somewhere between my heart and brainstem sounded an insistent NO!

My sister lives in the agricultural community of Dayton Virginia where she volunteers as an EMT.  Among the farms is one of the highest concentrations of Mennonites.  Often confused with the Amish, these families base their lives on farming and faith, ride in buggies, dress in plain clothing, and remain steadfastly insulated from most of the contemporary world.  Part of their rejection of modernity is a refusal of certain medical treatments.  I remember my sister explaining how, in gut wrenching frustration, she had to let a little boy and an older man pass because she was not allowed to use machines, such as defibrillators, certain medicines, and even some medical tools easily at her disposal.    While agonizing for the families involved she respected their wishes and withheld treatment. 

Last summer I acted in a show put on by a Christian theater company.  More than a few people commented that they were surprised I would be part of that.  I couldn’t understand why. 

This past week at COSI an elderly nun went from customer to customer asking for money.  With a thick Italian accent she repeated, “Help the poor?”  I’m usually immune to the constant pleadings for change in the city but in this case I gladly put the two singles I had in her bowl. 

Last semester the standout thinker was Marx.  This semester heavily featured Tocqueville.  Tocqueville observed that the value of religion lay in its ability to connect people to something larger than themselves and provide fulfillment not offered by earthly success.  Religion had been attacked during the French Revolution because of the clergy’s collusion with nobility and the forced obedience to each other it fostered.  But in America, religion had flourished because of its ability to remain universal and personal, not political, petty or partisan. 

The most significant cultural trend of the past year is the serge of civically minded religious fundamentalism.  I have written much on it as it applies to specific issues.  Other cultural commentators, from the Onion to Harpers, have examined the development.  The Simpsons devoted three episodes of their season to focus on the phenomenon including a Super Bowl special which poked fun at the hypocrisy in the violent hegemony of the Passion.  Throughout it all we are told that the active participants in this movement are “people of faith.”  These “people of faith” won the election and opposition to judicial nominees is an attack on “people of faith.”  Abstinence education and anti-abortion efforts are the work of “people of faith.”  Virtually any issue can be cloistered in faith-based language.  “Faith,” “partisanship” and “patriotism” are treated as synonyms. 

An examination of this phrasing reveals that only those that ascribe to stringent conservative politics qualify as legitimate people of faith.  The Terri Shiavo controversy was oversimplified as people of faith, who value life, warring against a secular culture of death.  Those that don’t goosestep in rhythm are anti-faith, anti-family, anti-America and harbor a hatred of Christianity.  On ABC’s This Week, Pat Robertson explained that people hate him because they hate Jesus and secularists were intent on removing Christ from our culture.  Newsweek’s coverage of the stem cell debate in Congress was cast as faith vs. Science as if the two cannot coexist in a person’s belief system.  There’s just one problem.  These rhetorical dichotomies are all completely wrong. 

In light of the Shiavo ordeal I have to wonder if Mennonites working the dairy farms of central Virginia count as people of faith considering they trust the wisdom of God through nature rather than the innovations of man through mechanics.  When evening worship services at Churches are replaced with nationwide simulcasts hammering a change in procedural rules in Congress (“Justice Sunday”) I wonder if the current relationship between power and piety resembles Tocqueville’s pre-revolutionary France more than early America, saturated with devotion.  Somehow the keepers of guidance have been replaced with party activists creating a powerful political movement while leaving flocks spiritually emaciated.   

I don’t hate Christians.  They are not my enemy.  The service in the park attracted me because the communion and speeches spoke to the lack of spirituality and altruism in our increasingly self-interested techno culture.  I gave to the nun in COSI not because I agree with the ever-shrill punditry of the Pope but because I know that my money is going to alleviate suffering in the city when placed in the hands of that sweet lady.   I saw no contradiction in participating in a Christian based production because the script spoke to my pet issue of anti-materialism.  Each of these examples demonstrates ‘true’ Christianity – the love based teachings of Jesus that elevate humanity.  I despise the attacks on art and Science, not to mention the total disregard for the dignity of the individual that are the hallmarks of the religious right movement.  That doesn’t make me anti-faith.   

Faith flows from precepts of hope – fundamentalism, the bigotry of certitude.  It is because I am a person of faith that I oppose partisan politics as its substitution.  If there is an anti-Christian bias in the media it is evidenced by the way Jerry Falwell and co. are allowed to act as the sole spokespeople for the teachings of Christ.  If there is a spiritual vacuum in our time it is not fed by partisan politics.  If we amount to more than biological conglomerates locked in terrestrial conflicts then surely the higher calling cannot be found through electoral influence. 

I don’t view the world in terms of faith against non-faith and I cannot reward a political party with the task of championing the will of God.  More and more I view cultural conflicts not as liberal against conservative but as the pull of extremism against the forces of centrality and compromise.  For a demonstration, just read the venom sprayed by the leaders of the religious right against the 14 moderates that brokered an agreement on judicial filibusters.  There’s no denying the power of religious conservatives right now but in their rush to form the kingdom of Heaven in brick and mortar many miss the point of the faith they profess. 

Last week, presidential and congressional approval ratings dropped to their lowest points since 1993, largely blamed on the Shavio and judiciary struggles.  Also last week, somewhere in New York, a nun fed a homeless person.  This supposed faithless, godless, secular person’s prayer for America is that more people recognize the difference.