The Blessings of Old Age, by Rodney R. Romney

September 19, 2004, Baptist Community Church in Arco, Idaho

This church and sanctuary will always hold special meaning for me. It was here in l945 that I, a sophomore in high school, stepped out into the aisle at the invitation of a visiting evangelist to give my heart to Jesus Christ and later to be baptized by the Rev. Gerald Dryden. It was here I preached my first sermon at the age of 16, and it was also here in 1960 that my ordination into the ministry was held. In this sanctuary exactly forty years ago Beverly and I were married. In this very room funerals and memorial services have been conducted for many beloved members of my family. I will always hold this place in sacred memory and reverence and be grateful for all that was given to me by the people of this church. Today is an opportunity for me to express my gratitude for this place and its people, for all you have meant to me in my years of ministry.

Today I want to talk about the blessings of old age. You may well ask if that is an oxymoron, a phrase that does not make sense. Old age, as Art Linkletter once said, is not for sissies. Often old age can be marked by severe losses of many kinds, as well as illnesses. So what indeed are the blessings that old age offers in a youth-oriented culture that prizes its youngest as its best?

These blessings are numerous, as I have discovered since my retirement four years ago and having now reached the age of 73. I confess that when I first retired after six years of teaching and forty years of ministry, I had the feeling I had been put on the shelf as one who is just taking up space while waiting to die. For a very short time I felt useless. But as I entered more fully into retirement, I began to experience a freedom and newness I had never felt before. So I want to talk today about the particular blessings that I believe old age can bring: a lack of competition, a gentle wisdom, a wider perspective and a more loving vision.

1. A Lack of Competition. Most of our professional years are spent competing with others for place, acceptance, and recognition. We enter this world asking three basic questions: who am I, what did I come here to do, and what's next? In trying to answer those questions we often compete with others and do our best to stay ahead and keep up with whatever norms society may impose upon us.

But in old age, there is no longer any need to do that. We have nothing to prove, nothing to defend, and nothing we need to achieve. For the first time in our lives we are free to live without competing with our fellow human creatures. We can settle in and discover more about ourselves, who we are, what we came here to do, as well as spend some time wondering about what's ahead. We don't have to prove ourselves any longer. We can be who we are, say what we feel, and let the chips falls where they may.

2. A Gentle Wisdom. Old people are often characterized as being cantankerous, set in their ways, and forgetful. That is occasionally true, but it need not be the case. You who are in the younger set can begin now to program yourselves to a different way when you reach what is often described as the golden years. The body may be in precarious shape when you become eighty or ninety, but the spirit within can be as full and vibrant as ever. We have more time to reflect, to look backward as well as forward. Rather than regretting all the things we used to do but can't do anymore, we can look for new things to do that fit our physical or mental limitations.

I have discovered a gentle kind of wisdom emerging in myself in this time of retirement. I have three prayers that were given to me as I wrestled one day with the question of what to do when there was no more job, no more assigned duties, no more routine. The prayers that emerged from that time were these: (a) O God, keep me vital, (b) O God, keep me useful, (c) O God, keep me filled with wonder.

Vitality requires that I exercise both my body and my mind each day, which I have tried to do by going regularly to a gym and by reading new books, trying out new ideas, and writing. Usefulness requires that I be willing to take on the tasks and assignments that come to me which I know absolutely are mine to do, and to let go of those which are not mine. Being filled with wonder requires that I read, ponder and pray daily about the meaning of life and open myself to the mystery and wonder of a God who loves all of us unconditionally.

As I have attempted to live out these three prayers, a new kind of wisdom seems to infill my heart each day. Although I have found myself growing increasing liberal in terms of theology, when it comes to spirituality I have found myself going deeper and reaching forward with wonder and gratitude at the expanding miracle of a God who loves all creation eternally. That leads me to the third point.

3. A Wider Perspective and Vision. Freed from the expectation of others and the demands of a job, we are ready to explore new vistas of thinking. As an elderly minister in a retirement home once said to me, "So what if I don't believe some of the things I used to. Nobody can fire me for it. I'm free now to think for myself." Old age makes us more dependent in some ways, it also offers us more independence.

We are all on a spiritual journey. Along that journey over the years our beliefs and questions of faith may change. It's not God who changes, but our understandings of God may change. No one has to believe exactly as we do, but as we are willing to be honest and share openly with one another, we may find ourselves viewing God from a different perspective. One thing that has expanded for me is the all-encompassing grace of God -- how broad and wide and deep it is, including everyone and shutting no one out. Where I once thought God loved only the Christians and those who interpreted the Bible correctly and lived by its precepts, I now see God's arms stretched wider than I previously imagined, including everyone, even those we would shut out.

I am and will always be a follower of Jesus. Jesus gives me the clearest picture of God I have. But I have now come to see that the followers of other religions are also loved and accepted by God. I repeat what I said earlier, no one has to believe exactly as I do, but I think we should be willing to be honest with each other and not judge or condemn those who think differently.

Frederick Buechner in one of his books wrote: "Eight-year-olds like eighty-year-olds, have lots of things they'd love to do but can't because they know they're not up to them, so they learn to play instead. Eighty-year-olds might do well to take notice. They can play at being eight-year-olds, for instance. Stiff knees and hearing aids, memory loss and poor eyesight are no fun. But there are those who marvelously survive them by somehow managing to see them, as among other things and in spite of all, a little funny."

So here's my final word of advice to the aging (which actually includes all of us, because we are all aging): don't lose your sense of humor. Be willing to take life a little less seriously and have a good time. This life is not all we have. There's a great adventure ahead of us, one that we have called Death. But Death is not really the end. It's a new beginning to a better life than this one, where we will be reunited with all the loved ones we have lost, where all our questions will be answered, all our hurts and sorrows will be healed, and the great mystery of life will be explained.

I like what the poet May Sarton has said about aging: "Old age is not an illness; it is a timeless ascent. As power diminishes, we grow toward more light." We never really die. Jesus said it best: "Unless a seed falls into the earth and dies, it cannot bring forth wheat." The seeds in all of us must go through a series of deaths before they can flourish into a new expression of its eternal life.

I close with a few of my favorite scriptures from the teachings of Jesus. These words constantly challenge me, and would, I believe, change our world, if we would only follow them.

You have heard it said that you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you.

You have heard it said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I tell you not to resist an evil person. Whoever strikes you on the right cheek turn to him the other also.

Greater love has no one than this, that a person lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I have commanded you. Love one another as I have loved you.

It is the same for everyone, no matter what age has been reached. Love is who we are, and love is what we came here to do. So let's get busy and do it!

Interesting new articles at PeacePolitical News (formerly Ecumenical News) -- see continually updated list, with my favorite articles marked with a [+]. Look now at http://www.peacepolitical.com/ :-))

Niccolo Machiavelli's Politics ... And Life Lessons Learned ...

by David Enroth (SkySpiritElohim) and Tom Turnipseed
(quoting Niccolo Machiavellis)

Karl Rove, political strategist for George W. Bush,
had a mentor, Lee Atwater, who served in his role for
George H.W. Bush. Before Lee Atwater died at an early
age from a brain tumor, he apologized to those he had
savaged with his political strategies inspired by
Niccolo
Machiavelli.

One of those persons was Tom Turnipseed:

"ROLE MODELS"

Thanks to the late Lee Atwater, my electroshock
treatments for adolescent depression 35 years ago have
received the most media attention in the political
arena since Senator Thomas Eagleton was replaced on
the Democratic ticket in 1972 because he had had a
"nervous breakdown".

I was a target in Atwater's attempts to establish
himself as a gun slinging political operative who
exploited any perceived vulnerability in his opponent.

When I was a Democratic nominee for Congress in 1980
in South Carolina, Atwater was the consultant for my
opponent, a Republican incumbent.

Atwater's antics included phony polls by "independent
pollsters" to "inform" white flight suburbanites I was
a member of the NAACP, because my Congressman opponent
was afraid to publicly say so, and last minute letters
from Strom Thurmond warning voters that I would disarm
America and turn it over to the liberals and
Communists. I ran a respectable campaign, but lost.

Since then, Atwater cultivated his macho image with
the national media by telling about how he had planted
a story with reporters covering the 1980 Congressional
race. The story was that I had been "hooked up to
jumper cables" when I was "mentally ill" as a student.
I saw the story in Esquire, the New York Times, the
Atlanta Constitution and on NBC-TV and PBS. Lee seemed
to delight in making fun of a suicidal sixteen year
old who was treated for depression with electroshock
treatments. Perhaps it enhanced his take-no-prisoners
media persona.

I had described details of my struggle with depression
as a student in a widely covered media conference as
early as 1977 when I was an outspoken reformist in the
South Carolina State Senate. I feel good about myself
now, and often share with appropriate groups the full
story of my recovery to responsible adulthood as a
professional, political and civic leader, husband and
father.

Teenage depression and suicide are major problems in
America and I believe my life offers hope to young
people who are suffering with a constant fear of the
future. Lee Atwater's "jumper cable" remarks played on
the public's fear of mental illness but caused me to
develop an inner strength with greater determination
to be a positive role model for depressed young
people.

In the last few months of his life, Lee Atwater
apologized to me. In a letter dated June 28, 1990,
Lee wrote "it is very important to me that I let you
know that out of everything that has happened in my
career, one of the low points remains the so called
"jumper cable" episode." Faced with the ultimate
question of life, the state of his own consciousness
after biological death, Lee publicly proclaimed his
Christianity and sought reconciliation with his
enemies.
He also said in his letter to me that "my illness has
taught me something about the nature of humanity,
love, brotherhood and relationships that I never
understood, and probably never would have. So, from
that standpoint, there is some truth and good in
everything."

Atwater had been a self-described student of
Machiavellian politics whose ability to drive up the
"negatives" of an opponent was unparalleled in modern
American politics. He had an amazing ability to use
the media to manipulate racist and jingoistic symbols,
deceptions and distortions, i.e. Willie Horton.
Atwater's appeal to the primitive side of human
emotions - the traditional hatreds, fears, and
prejudices - should not be his legacy for American
politics.

Touched by the sincerity of his letter of apology and
subsequent phone conversations, I attended Lee
Atwater's funeral in Columbia, SC. Sitting across the
church from me was a young Republican political
consultant whom I recognized. I had recently seen him
on CNN boasting about how Republicans were going to
drive up the negatives on all the Democrats who voted
"against America" in opposing Bush's force resolution
and beat them in 1992. How sad.

I hope those young political consultants who would
emulate Atwater's tactics of driving up the negatives
of their opponents with the politics of fear, will
realize that Lee Atwater, confronting death, became,
through the grace of God, an advocate of the politics
of love and
reconciliation. Rather than remembering Lee Atwater as
one who polarized politics and exploited insecurity
and
prejudices to win elections, it would be great if we
could remember him as a positive role model -- when
faced with his own mortality he saw the truth of love
and reconciliation.

Tom Turnipseed, April 4, 1991
(Printed in The Washington Post)

Ten excerpts from Machiavelli's "doctrine"
"Politics has no relations to morals."

"For the great majority of mankind are satisfied
with appearances, as though they were realities, and
are often more influenced by the things that SEEM than
by those that ARE."

"The fact is that a man who wants to act virtuously in
every way necessarily comes to grief, among so many
who are not virtuous."

"He who usurps the government of any state should
execute all cruelties which he thinks material, at
once, that he may have no occasion to renew them
often."

"It may be said of men in general that they are
ungrateful and fickle, dissemblers, avoiders of
danger, and greedy for gain. So long as you shower
benefits upon them, they are all yours..."

"It is necessary that the prince should know how to
color his nature well, and how to be a hypocrite and
dissembler. For men are so simple, and yield so much
to immediate necessity, that the deceiver will never
lack dupes."

"You must know then, that there are two methods of
fighting, the one by law, the other by force: the
first method is that of men, the second is that of
beasts."

"Thus it is well to seem merciful, faithful,humane,
sincere, religious, and also to be so; but you must
have the mind so disposed that when it is needful to
be otherwise, you may be able to change to the
opposite qualities."

"You do not know the unfathomable cowardice of
humanity ... servile in the face of force, pitiless in
the face of weakness, implacable before blunders,
indulgent before crimes ... and patient to the point
of martyrdom before all the violence of bold
despotism."

"For OUR country, right or wrong"

Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527)



=====
Interesting new articles at PeacePolitical News (formerly Ecumenical News) -- see continually updated list, with my favorite articles marked with a [+]. Look now at www.Peacepolitical.com :-))

Video: The Religious Right Gone Wild

You may have already seen this video, but if you haven't please take a few minutes (~2) to do do. It is animated but contains some actual quotes, sych as "Bush is God's pick" by Pat Robertson, I think. Assorted other insanity -- which would be amusing if it weren't so sad and scary... Thanks to Sojourners.

Sojourners <sojourners@sojo.net> wrote:

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:00:44 GMT
From: "Sojourners"
To: "Rick Mitchell"
Subject: Video: The Religious Right Gone Wild

Dear Rick,

You know the saying that truth is stranger than fiction. When it comes to the Religious Right, we believe that truth is scarier than fiction.

Sojourners is outraged by claims that Christians can only vote for George W. Bush and that Bush is God's candidate. So we produced this animated Web video. Watch for yourself and see what several Religious Right leaders are actually saying.

Watch the video at: http://go.sojo.net/ct/opq6Klp1faDG/video

We also distributed a petition that has been signed by more than 25,000 people. It will appear as a full-page advertisement in The New York Times next week during the Republican convention - and in other local newspapers across America!

Every faithful citizen in America should know that they can choose to vote for any candidate - for reasons deeply rooted in their faith.

Let's tell America that the Religious Right doesn't speak for us. Let's take back our faith.

http://go.sojo.net/ct/opq6Klp1faDG/video

---

Since 1971, Sojourners exists a non-partisan, non-profit 501(c)3 organization.

To unsubscribe from all Sojourners mailings, reply to this email with "REMOVE" as the subject, or click here to choose which types of messages you prefer to receive.

Interesting new articles at PeacePolitical News (formerly Ecumenical News) -- see continually updated list, with my favorite articles marked with a [+]. Look now at http://www.peacepolitical.com/ :-))

Ben Bohren's latest "Get Your Breath"

Rev. Ben Bohren leads the Office of Church Relations for NBA, a benevolent association of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the church which provided me ordination as an ecumenical/interfaith minister back in 1995. Rev. Sherri Tipton, who forwarded this email, is also an ordained minister in that church -- and a personal friend. Thank you, Sherri, for forwarding this -- it represents the viewpoint of many ministers and members in the Disciples church and other faith congregations -- truly cause for rejoicing. -- Revrickm

GET YOUR BREATH #108
(Breathe out your stress; Breathe in the Peace of God)

Something has happened to me in the last month that never happened to me before in 38 years of ministry. I was called blasphemous by one person and labeled a heretic by another! Got your attention! It sure got mine! Some of my friends said I should feel good about this because there are some mighty fine heretics in the church's history. But, I have to tell you, it didn't feel very good at the time!

You see, I preached a sermon recently in one of my two home churches in southern California. The sermon was about God's wondrous grace. It was based on the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-24) and a recent book entitled, If Grace Is True.

Before I began this sermon I explained that all of us are on a spiritual journey -- even ministers. Along that journey, over the years, our beliefs and questions of faith may change. It's not that God changes, but our understandings of who God is may change.

I told them that I hoped to make them think in this sermon as I shared where my spiritual journey was moving. I explained they did not have to believe like I was coming to believe, but I hoped this would possibly allow them to view God from a different perspective.

Then, in the sermon, I talked about God's all encompassing grace -- how broad and wide and deep it is. I imaged how God's arms stretch out wider than most of us can imagine, expect, or maybe even accept.

After the sermon, one woman came to me with tears in her eyes saying that I had helped remove a terrible fear of God's wrath she had lived with all her life.

One man embraced me and said he had waited all his life to hear such words as I spoke.

Many, many people told me that they had come to believe something very similar about God's grace, but they thought they were completely alone.

Then came a man who was trembling and handed me a piece of paper with scripture references. He told me I was blasphemous of God's Word.

During the week, a letter was sent to me by another church member. He told me I had challenged everything he had ever believed and he was not about to change his beliefs now. Then he named me a heretic!

You see, for a few folk, I suggested that God's grace is too wide, too broad, too deep according to their beliefs and reading of the scriptures. Oh yes, they do believe in God's grace. Yes, they do believe that God's arms do stretch out, but I extended them too far!

For these Christians, my sermon suggested that God's stretch of love and forgiveness and grace just cannot go that far!

In many American Indian cultures, the wedding event includes a special 'blanket ceremony.' In this ceremony, the dominant person of the couple (some tribes are matriarchal and some are patriarchal), holds a large blanket out on the left side of the body -- the heart side of the body. The other person steps into that outstretched blanket and the blanket holder then draws the blanket closed, wrapping the person into the blanket. The image is that of drawing the person to the heart of the other -- drawing them together in a place of warmth and security and love. It's a very symbolic way of saying, "I take you into my heart."

I love the scene in the story of the Prodigal Son where the father goes out to greet his long lost child: "But when the son was still far off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion. He ran and put his arms around him and kissed him. Then the son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.' But the father said to his slaves, 'Quickly, bring out a robe -- the best one -- and put it on him; put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. And get the fatted calf and kill it and let us eat and celebrate; for this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found!'"

When I image the actions of the father toward his son using the American Indian 'blanket ceremony,' I truly can see the father holding that blanket out and the son stepping into it.

As the father closes the blanket around the son, I can hear those words, "I take you into my heart."

Here's the bottom line for me...maybe it is blasphemous and maybe I am a heretic, but somehow I am coming to believe that God reaches out that blanket more times, in more ways, and to more people than any of us can ever imagine. The words are so clear to me, "I take you into my heart."

Maybe that's going too far for some people, but then they don't call it 'AMAZING GRACE' for nothing!

Prayer: Gracious, grace-giving God, how can I ever understand your grace? Sometimes I hope beyond hope that such grace will be extended to me, but I am dad-burned sure it won't be extended to some others. They don't deserve it! Teach me, grace-filled One, that grace is never earned or deserved -- it is not a reward for right living, but rather it is blanket of love and forgiveness that draws me into right relationship with You. Draw me into that 'amazing grace' -- and let me hear your words, "I take you into my heart." Now, remind me that you can say those words to anyone you choose! Amen.

[And may we be willing to say those words to others -- to welcome, accept, affirm, love, respect, and be open to the truth and gifts of all God's children. Thank you, Ben, for your wonderful example and inspiration. Sherri called you a "loving, terrific, grace-filled man and model for us all." Far from being blasphemous or heretical, I believe your words represent the very heart of the Gospel message and unlimited love of Jesus."]

Understanding The Christian Roots of My Political Depression, by John Shelby Spong

September 8, 2004

The Republican Convention in New York City forced me to face the fact that my feelings about the Bush Administration have reached a visceral negativity, the intensity of which surprises even me. So I decided to search introspectively to identify its source. Is it simply runaway partisanship? That is certainly how it sounds to many who make that charge publicly, but that has not been my history. I did not react this way to other Republican presidents like Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford or Reagan. My feelings are quite specifically Bush related.

I first became aware of them in 1988 when George H. W. Bush's campaign employed the Willie Horton ad against Michael Dukakis. This dirty trick was successful and the insinuation entered the body politic that to be the governor of a multi-racial state where all were treated fairly meant that you favored freeing black criminals to commit murder. Lee Atwater, mentor of Karl Rove, devised that campaign. The Willie Horton episode said to me that these people believed that no dishonest tactic was to be avoided if it helped your candidate to victory.

The next manifestation of this mentality came in the South Carolina primary in George W. Bush's campaign in 2000, when the patriotism of John McCain was viciously attacked. It appeared that five years as a
prisoner of war in North Vietnam was not sufficient to prove one's loyalty to America. The third episode came when the operatives of this administration destroyed Georgia's Senator Max Cleland in 2002, by accusing him of being soft on national security, despite the fact that this veteran had lost three of his limbs in the service of his country. Each of these attacks brought defeat to its victims but they also brought defeat to truth and integrity.

In 2004 we have seen the pattern repeated. John Kerry, a veteran who served with honor and distinction in Vietnam was told in countless surrogate ads that his service was not worthy and that his three purple hearts and his Silver Star for heroism were cheaply won. For a candidate who ducked military service by securing a preferential appointment to the Texas National Guard, part of which was served in Alabama, this takes gall indeed.

Then Senator Zell Miller, his face contorted with anger, recited a litany of weapons systems that he said Senator Kerry had opposed. What he failed to say was that most of these military cuts were recommended by a Secretary of Defense named Richard Cheney in the first Bush Administration! The last time I looked, the Ten Commandments still included an injunction against bearing false witness.

Yes, other campaigns bend the truth but these tactics go beyond just bending, they assassinate character and suggest traitorous behavior. When that is combined with the fact that this party does this while proclaiming itself the party of religion, cultural values and faith-based initiatives is the final straw for me. I experience the religious right as a deeply racist enterprise that seeks to hide its intolerance under the rhetoric of super patriotism and "family values." For those who think that this is too strong a charge or too out of bounds politically, I invite you to look at the record.

It was George H. W. Bush who gave us Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court, calling him "the most qualified person in America." Thomas replaced Thurgood Marshall, who had been the legal hero to black Americans during the struggle over segregation. Clarence Thomas, the opponent of every governmental program that made his own life possible, is today an embarrassment to blacks in America. To appoint a black man to do the racist work against black people is demonic. Consistent with that pattern, this administration entered an amicus brief against the University of Michigan's Law School because in the quest for a representative student body that Law school used race as one factor in determining admissions. The strange 'Orwellian' rhetoric again was deceiving. "We want America to be a nation where race is not counted for anything and all are to be judged on merit alone." Those are fair sounding words until one factors in centuries of slavery and segregation, or the quality of public education in urban America which just happens to be predominantly black. Next one cannot help noticing the concerted Republican effort to limit black suffrage in many states like Florida where it has been most overt, and to deny the power of the ballot to all the citizens of Washington, D.C. Does anyone doubt that the people of Washington have no vote for any other reason than that they are overwhelmingly black?

Only when I touched these wells of resentment, did I discover how deeply personal my feelings are about the Bushes. I grew up in the southern, religious world they seek to exploit. I went to a church that combined piety with segregation, quoted the Bible to keep women in secondary positions, and encouraged me to hate both my enemies and other religions, especially Jews. It taught me that homosexual people choose their lifestyle because they are either mentally sick or morally depraved. I hear these same definitions echoed in the pious phrases of those who want to "defend marriage against the gay onslaught." Are the leaders of this party the only educated people who seem not to know that their attitudes about homosexuality are uninformed? People no more choose their sexual orientation than they choose to be left-handed! To play on both ignorance and fear for political gain is a page lifted right out of the racial struggle that shaped my region. Racism simply hides today under new pseudonyms.

I lived in Lynchburg, Virginia, before Jerry Falwell rose to national prominence. He was a race baiting segregationist to his core. Liberty Baptist College began as a segregation academy. Super patriot Falwell condemned Nelson Mandela as a 'communist' and praised the apartheid regime in South Africa as a 'bulwark for Christian civilization.' I have heard Pat Robertson attack the movement to give equality to women by referring to feminists as Lesbians who want to destroy the family, while quoting the Bible to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment. The homophobic rhetoric that spews so frequently out of the mouths of these "Jesus preaching" right-wingers has been mentioned time and again as factors that encourage hate crimes.

I am aware that the former Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama, famous for his attempt to place a three-ton monument of the Ten Commandments in his Montgomery courthouse to the delight of southern preachers, is on record as saying that "homosexuality is inherently evil."

I lived through the brutality that greeted the civil rights movement in the South during its early days. Congressman John Lewis of Atlanta can tell you what it means to be beaten into unconsciousness on a "freedom ride." I remember the names of Southerners who covered their hate-filled racism with the blanket of religion to enable them to win the governors' mansions in the deep South: John Patterson and George Wallace in Alabama, Ross Barnett in Mississippi, Orville Faubus in Arkansas, Mills Godwin in Virginia and Strom Thurmond in South Carolina. I know the religious dimensions of North Carolina that kept Jesse Helms in the Senate for five terms. Now we have learned that Strom Thurmond, who protected segregation in the Senate when he could not impose it by winning the presidency in 1948, also fathered a
daughter by an underage black girl. I know that Congressman Robert Barr of Georgia, who introduced the Defense of Marriage Act in 1988, has been married three times. I know that Pat Robertson's Congressman in Norfolk, Ed Schrock, courted religious votes while condemning homosexual people until he was outed as a gay man and was forced to resign his seat. I know that the bulk of the voters from the Religious Right today are the George Wallace voters of yesterday, who simply transformed their racial prejudices and called them "family values." That mentality is now present in this administration. It starts with the President, embraces the Attorney General John Ashcroft and spreads out in every direction.

I have known Southern mobs that have acted in violence against black people while couching that violence in the sweetness of Evangelical Christianity. I abhor that kind of religion. I resent more than I can express the fact that my Christ has been employed in the service of this mentality. My Christ, who refused to condemn the woman taken in the act of adultery; my Christ who embraced the lepers, the most feared social outcasts of his day; my Christ who implored us to see the face of God in the faces of "the least of these our brothers and sisters;" my Christ who opposed the prejudice being expressed against the racially impure Samaritans, is today being used politically to dehumanize others by those who play on base instincts.

David Halberstam, in his book on the Civil Rights movement entitled The Children, quotes Lyndon Johnson talking with Bill Moyers right after the Voting Rights Act of 1965 had passed by large margins in the Congress of the United States. This positive vote followed the arousing of the public's consciousness by the Abu Ghraib-like use of dogs and fire hoses on black citizens in Alabama. Klan groups, under the direct protection of Southern State Troopers and local police, had also attacked blacks with baseball bats and lead pipes in public places, which had been seen on national television. Moyers expected to find President Johnson jubilant over this legislative victory. Instead he found the President strangely silent. When Moyers enquired as to the reason, Johnson said rather prophetically, "Bill, I've just handed the South to the Republicans for fifty years, certainly for the rest of our life times."

That is surely correct. Bush's polls popped after his convention. It is now his election to lose. The combination of super patriotism with piety, used in the service of fear to elicit votes while suppressing equality works, but it is lethal for America and lethal for Christianity. It may be a winning formula but it has no integrity and it feels dreadful to this particular Christian.

-- John Shelby Spong

[This essay was posted September 8, 2004 on Spong's site, www.bishopspong.com, where interested persons can subscribe to read his essays for a fee of $34.95 per year. Comments by subscribers may be accessed free at a forum section of the site. This essay is unavailable elsewhere at this time. It was forwarded to me by email. -- Editor]

Interesting new articles at PeacePolitical News (formerly Ecumenical News) -- see continually updated list, with my favorite articles marked with a [+]. Look now at http://www.peacepolitical.com/ :-))

[+] A Turn to the (Religious) Right

by Dr. Robert Abele

If John Kerry has anything going for him that separates him from George W. Bush, it is the fact that he is not involved in the so-called 'religious right' of America. This is the name given by the media to a well-organized band of fanatic biblical fundamentalists who are hell-bent on turning our democracy over to (their concept of) God. In the highest leadership circles of this movement, there is open talk of the goal of obtaining a theocracy in the U.S. Part of their method in achieving this goal is to attempt to convince Americans, as they have convinced Mr. Bush, that the United States was founded to be a Christian nation. The frightening fact about this movement is not that it is being pushed by an extremist wing of 'religious' America, but that they have in fact to a large degree taken over the Republican Party, making it and its policies extremist. When their candidates become our elected officials, as in fact the current situation stands today, they have halfway achieved their goal,. An equally frightening and perplexing fact about this movement is that they call themselves 'Christian' but will stop at nothing to get their dogmatic ideology adopted as the universal law. The most bothersome thing about this movement it is that their theocratic end justifies any means necessary to its achievement, including lying and cheating, as we will see below.

This writing aims to make a first contribution to challenging this movement, first by rejecting the revisionist history advocated by this vocal minority to have their form of religious government accepted as the only one allegedly intended by the Founders of this great country. The focus of the first part of this article, then, will be the attempts of these Christian zealots to have people believe that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. Second, the main figures of this movement who serve in Congress, their positions and their proposed legislative agendas will be highlighted.

The preference of ideology to the pursuit of truth of the people who would make theocratic claims concerning the founding of our constitutional democracy is demonstrated in the method that is their favored one: find 'proof quotes' from the Founders to demonstrate their preconceived position. This method, however, demonstrates the logically fallacious and intellectually dishonest process of violently ripping quotations out of the context of their use. For example, let us take two quotations often used in this process. The first one is from George Washington, the second from Thomas Jefferson. The Washington quotation frequently used to demonstrate the 'religious right' point is this: "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." This quotation is frequently found on fundamentalist Christian web sites, without provision of citation. I searched forty-eight such sites before I found one that stated that the line allegedly uttered by Washington was from a speech he gave to the Dutch Reformed Synod in 1789. After extensive research, I was finally able to obtain a copy of this speech. I found three things in this research: first, it is not a speech; it is a letter Washington wrote. Second, it is an obscure letter, not easily found, and not certainly in the usual collections of his works. Third, it is only three paragraphs in length, and in it Washington never once utters such a line. In fact, there is nothing even close to this line in his speech, nor in any of the other speeches, letters, or writings of Washington I have read to date. This is not to argue, of course, that Washington never said such a thing. It is to argue that it is intellectually dishonest to throw such quotations around when one cannot site the source of it. Or worse, as in the Christian web site in which I found this speech, to forge the footnote!

The quotation from Jefferson is even more easily dispensed with when one puts it in its context. The quotation used by fundamentalist Christians is this: "I am a real Christian." While Jefferson certainly did pen those words, he was explicitly making reference in that very sentence to the ethics of Jesus, not the overtly religious overtones of the gospel. Just two sentences earlier in that same letter, he makes a direct reference to his own 'version' of the New Testament, in which he cut the ethical sayings of Jesus out of a Bible and placed them on blank pages of a book. Jefferson saw Jesus as a great ethical philosopher, but certainly did not understand him as in any way divine or even claiming divinity. On most Christian accounts, this excludes him from the 'chosen elect' of 'true believers.' Thus, Jefferson was claiming that he was 'a real Christian,' that is, one who follows the ethical teachings of Jesus, rather than those 'false Christians' who used their profession of faith in the divinity of Jesus to gain, increase, and consolidate their religious and/or political power. It takes an incredible twisting and turning of Jefferson's words, as use of this quotation does, to argue for the alleged 'Christianity' of this Founder of the country. At best, this method, then, is superficial; at worst, it is downright dishonest.

Second, this fundamentalist dogma that the United States was founded as a 'Christian nation' fails to delineate clearly two important issues: the activity or goal of founding a democratic form of government, and the fact that many of the Founders were believers in a deity. The textual evidence nowhere indicates that the purpose of their founding such a government was exclusively or even predominantly religious in nature. Nowhere is the division between these categories more clear than in Thomas Jefferson's intellectual hero, John Locke. Locke explicitly states in his Two Treatises of Government -- and it is clearly echoed in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence -- that the founding of a democratic commonwealth was for the purpose of ensuring our "lives, liberties, and properties." Nowhere does Locke say that the purpose of a democratic form of government was religious in nature. In fact, Locke states quite precisely in his "Letter Concerning Toleration [of religion]" that "the whole jurisdiction of the magistrate reaches only to 'civil concernments,'" and that the state "neither can nor ought in any manner to be extended to the salvation of souls." Moreover, the fact that Jefferson and other Founders appealed to God in their writings does not mean that we are a theocracy! All one need do is read Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution to make this point abundantly clear. This Article reads in part as follows: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." When fundamentalists attempt to make the Founders out to be Christian and therefore founders of either a religious or a Christian democracy, they do terrible damage to the fundamental aim of democracies of the eighteenth century: freedom of the individual. Even if this happened to be informed by their faith, it is only that: to be informed is not to be determined by or subservient to their faith. Their primary concern was with the 'natural law' of human reason and individual liberties. Divine revelation had nothing to do with their political aims. On the contrary, to a man they clearly believed that rationality was to be the guiding light of democracy, not appeals to the divine. Let us examine a statement from Thomas Jefferson in this regard: "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage to reason, than that of blindfolded fear" (Letter to his nephew, Peter Carr).

Third, and more to the point, although some of the Founders were Christian, many more were Deists. There is a fundamental difference between what Deists believe and the doctrines of mainstream Christianity. Deists maintain that a Divine Creator of the universe exists, but deny that he is personally interested in human history. Accepting no revelations, no persons as 'God incarnate,' the Deists reject the divinity of Jesus as well. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were indubitably Deists; they admitted to such many times in their writings. For just one of many examples, I will quote the 'real' Thomas Jefferson, far more accurately referred to as a Deist than a Christian. This should demonstrate the misleading nature of any attribution of Christianity to him: "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding." There are numerous such passages in the writings of Jefferson, if fundamentalist Christians would but just look before attempting to write their revisionist histories.

Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the former the author of the Declaration of Independence, the latter the author of the Constitution and the First Amendment to our Constitution protecting religious freedom, were both very alarmed at the possibility that some parties would attempt to foist their single-minded Christian religious beliefs on the majority. Both of them wrote and lobbied extensively for laws prohibiting this kind of interference from Christians in politics. For instance, Jefferson wrote in his "Act for Establishing Religious Freedom" in Virginia that "no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever." Madison, for his part, maintains in his "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments," his opposition to a Virginia bill to tax people to pay those who taught the doctrines of Christianity, that "the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world; the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation." Even more to the point, says Madison, "A just Government needs [religious clergy] not."

Fifth, the position as stated by those who subscribe to the 'Christian nation' dogma fails to make another critical distinction: that between religious belief and Christianity. There is no doubt that the Founders partook in the former practice; there is considerable doubt that this is the same practice as the latter. One will read precious few references to Jesus or Christ in most of the writings of the 'big name' Founders. Even where one does find these references, it is not at all in reference to the forming of the new democratic government. This indicates clearly that the Founders had something else in mind than creating a government based on or imbued with, religion, least of all the Christian version. Furthermore, assuming that the alleged Christianity of the Founders could be established with certitude, it does nothing at all to 'prove' that they therefore wanted to establish a Christian nation. To reach this conclusion would require a quantum leap in logic.

When all of these issues are considered, one is only left to conclude that the fundamentalist position on this issue is not fundamentally rooted in reason or in history, but rather in a vain desire to proselytize for a distinctively Christian revisionist history. When any group uses the banner of a political party in order to engage in dogmatic ideological assertions of an allegedly religious nature, that group in effect hijacks the political process only for the purpose of achieving their own narrow ends. When that happens, it must be challenged by the majority of citizens. In this case, it is important to challenge the people who espouse such positions, in the name of intellectual honesty, to do more reading and thinking, beyond what their Bible allegedly tells them.

However, we cannot stop our analysis of the 'religious right' here, because we must come back to today and examine their current activities. The 'Christian nation' movement that is gaining a very strong foothold in American politics today is not simply the run of the mill version of biblical fundamentalism. Rather, it is a movement designed specifically to attack the Constitution and the broad view of freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights (see the writings of religious right writers such as Gary North, R.J. Rushdoony, Greg Bahnsen, Gary DeMar, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Tim LaHaye, and others for first-hand statements to this effect). Their goal, at its most extreme, is a biblical theocracy. Theocracy in their case means that the principles of one single religion, in this case, Christianity and its notion of divinely ordained rule, are to be the governmentally recognized and supported interpretation of jurisprudential decisions and legislative proposals. The movement that is gaining strength in the right-wing of the Republican Party and thus in the U.S. Senate and House or Representatives, is every bit as ideologically entrenched, and every bit as dangerous to democracy, as fundamentalist Muslims who argue for a Mid-East Islamic theocracy. Consider the main players who belong to this movement, and who have the ear, as well as the support and confidence of, President Bush: Karl Rove, John Ashcroft, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Mitch McConnell, Rick Santorum, Bob Bennet, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Jon Kyle, George Allen, Antonin Scalia, and others, mentioned below. These politicians, and one Supreme Court Justice, are all supported by the movement for theocracy, if not financially, at least ideologically. The connection of all of these people to the radical Christian right has been documented by investigative journalists such as Rob Boston, Kimberly Blaker, and Frederick Clarkson, among others. Consider further that the Texas Republican Party Platform now reads: "The Republican Party of Texas affirms that the United States is a Christian nation." The movement is generally referred to in the media as 'the religious right,' but their main movers and organizers specifically include Pat Robertson's "700 Club," the Rutherford Institute, and The National Reform Association, among others. These headliner organizations state their missions forthrightly: "Jesus Christ is Lord in all aspects of life, including civil government." Or, as John Ashcroft has stated it on his swearing in as Attorney General: "We have no king but Jesus." The main movers behind this movement include Paul Weyrich, Gary North, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and others.

More specifically, this group of radical right Christians, through their well-funded representatives and senators, has sponsored "The Constitutional Restoration Act of 2004." It was introduced into both Houses of Congress this past February, and includes "the acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law by an official in his capacity of executing his office." The sponsors of the bill: Rep. Robert Aderholt (Alabama), Rep. Michael Pence (Indiana), Sen. Richard Shelby (Alabama), Sen. Zell Miller (Georgia), Sen. Sam Brownback (Kansas), and Sen. Lindsey Graham (South Carolina).

Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Alabama) is in the process of garnering support for a bill he hopes to sponsor next year, entitled "The Ten Commandments Defense Act." He states that the intent of the bill is to acknowledge that "The Supreme Court does not always have the final authority over the interpretation of the Constitution." Rather, the Bible is to be viewed as the last line of interpretation of the Constitution.

Judge Scalia, in an address to the Chicago Divinity School in 2002, said 'government' derives its moral authority from God. It is the minister of God with powers to'avenge' to 'execute wrath' including even 'wrath by the sword.' In an article in the magazine First Things, Scalia wrote: "Indeed, it seems to me that the more Christian a country is, the less likely it is to regard the death penalty as immoral."

These developments are alarming for many and obvious reasons, but I will limit myself to two of them here. First of all, the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence indicates quite clearly that these ideas are not included in the structure of the government the Founders established. Second, whenever one party attempts to have their rigid ideology adopted as the exclusive position of a nation, the freedom of citizens so central to democracy dies.

It is important to conclude with a key qualifier here. Not all people who consider themselves fundamentalist or evangelical Christians are consciously or by necessity supporting the movement toward theocracy. I am acquainted with many well-meaning fundamentalist Christians who would not have any part of this movement. However, they need to know what cause they are supporting when they vote for candidates who espouse 'religious right' causes such as those we have seen above.

There are many perils to our democracy today, many of them coming from within it: paperless voting machines, invasion of countries without pretext, and single-minded ideologies posing as monolithic truth, with the supporters galvanized around the notion that no truth exists apart from theirs, and who will go to any length to force that putative truth through the political process. Eternal vigilance against their eternal hostility is the responsibility of all who truly respect the democratic process. Such is the case with the 'Christian nation' hypothesis: it does not stand against the weight of history or reason, and must be rejected by all who can think critically.

(For more information on this subject, including the specifics concerning legislative actions mentioned above, there are two journalists who write extensively on it: Frederick Clarkston and Rob Boston. They each have a number of books and articles tracking the 'religious right.' For more, see the following sources: Frederick Clarkston, Eternal Hostility; Clarkston, What is Christian Reconstructionism?; Kimberly Blaker, ed., The Fundamentals of Extremism; Katherine Yurica, The Yurica Report; www.tompaine.com; Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore, The Godless Constitution; Leo Pfeffer, Church, State, and Freedom; and Rob Boston, Pat Robertson, the Most Dangerous Man in America?. See also the web sites for "Americans United for Separation of Church and State" and "People for the American Way." For information written by the main organizers of the religious right today: Henry A. Wallace, Democracy Reborn; www.christiangallery.com; Chuck Baldwin, Renew America; R.J. Rushdooney, Institutes of Biblical Law; Gary North, Christianity and Civilization; and James Kennedy, Character and Destiny: A Nation in Search of its Soul).

[Dr. Robert Abele is a professor of philosophy at Illinois Valley Community College, located near Chicago. He has written articles on political philosophy and also on ethics and warfare, and is now in the process of completing a book on ethics and the invasion of Iraq. He also has a new book entitled A User's Guide to the USA PATRIOT Act, published by University Press of America, due out in November. He can be reached at rabele@ivnet.com ].

© Copyright 2004 by YubaNet.com
Send your letters to the editor to news@yubanet.com.

"One Thousand and One," by William Rivers Pitt

Wednesday 08 September 2004

On the day Operation Iraqi Freedom suffered the 1,000th death of a United States soldier, some quick numbers are in order:

1,095 days since the attacks of September 11;

538 days since the invasion and occupation of Iraq;

1,001 American soldiers dead in Iraq;

1,132 total Coalition soldiers dead in Iraq;

More than 20,000 'medical evacuations' of American soldiers from Iraq;

More than 10,000 civilians dead in Iraq;

0 weapons of mass destruction;

0 democratic elections in Iraq;

0 connections between Iraq and the attacks of September 11;

0 captures of Osama bin Laden, in Iraq or anywhere else;

$1.7 trillion to be spent on Iraq in the next decade, according to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences report by the Committee on International Security Studies (CISS).

Jane Bright wrote to me in November of 2003 about the death of her son, one of the 1,001. "I must share with you," wrote Bright, "the obituary I wrote for my son, Sgt. Evan Ashcraft, who was killed July 24 near Mosul. I often think of the contributions my intelligent, sensitive wonderful son could have made. He could have been President of the United States. He could have been a doctor caring for children in a Third World Country. He had so much potential. He told us that when he came back from Iraq he wanted to help people. He said he had seen so much hatred and death that the only way to live his life was through aid to others. Look at what we've lost. The loss is not just mine, it's the world's loss. Evan will always be alive in my heart. He and all the other victims of this heinous action in Iraq must be more than mere numbers emerging from the Pentagon's daily tally.

His death is a crime against humanity and the fault lies with the war criminals who inhabit our White House. Please share his story so that he may come alive to your readers."Writer Bruce Mulkey spoke recently to Jane Bright, and wrote about his conversation in an essay titled 'Military Families Speak Out.' Bright said to him, "Several months ago when George Bush was performing his skit for the media in which he was looking under his desk and under chairs for weapons of mass destruction, I was horrified by the insensitivity of his performance. I thought to myself, here is the president of the United States making a joke out of a pre-emptive war and laughing about weapons of mass destruction, the basis for going to war, a war in which my dear son died, over 1,000 coalition troops have died and thousands of Iraqi civilians have died. How dare he!"

There are a lot of women like Jane Bright in America now.

Brooke Campbell lost her brother, Sergeant Ryan M. Campbell, in Iraq on April 29, 2004. In his last letter to her, Ryan wrote, "Just do me one big favor, OK? Don't vote for Bush. No. Just don't do it. I would not be happy with you."Ms. Campbell, in a subsequent letter to George W. Bush, wrote, "I last saw my loved one at the Kansas City airport, staring after me as I walked away. I could see April 29 written on his sad, sand-chapped and sunburned face. I could see that he desperately wanted to believe that if he died, it would be while 'doing good,' as you put it. He wanted us to be able to be proud of him. Mr. President, you gave me and my mother a folded flag instead of the beautiful boy who called us 'Moms' and 'Brookster.' But worse than that, you sold my little brother a bill of goods. Not only did you cheat him of a long meaningful life, but you cheated him of a meaningful death."

At some point, you simply run out of words.

1,000 dead soldiers in Iraq, no weapons of mass destruction, no connection to September 11, torture and rape of men, women and children at Abu Ghraib prison, the outing of a deep-cover CIA officer for political revenge, Rumsfeld ally Ahmad Chalabi spying for Iran, the Israeli spy in the Pentagon, all the dead civilians everywhere, the substantial failures of Bush et al. on September 11, the crater in the economy, a gutted health care system, the abandonment of the elderly, the evisceration of the environment, and a federal budget deficit that guarantees a bleak future for anyone planning to be alive sometime in the next ten years... At some point, you simply run out of words. Let us instead have a moment of silence for those 1,001 soldiers, and all the civilians who have joined them in the Iraqi dust.

[Thanks to Dennis Brumm for forwarding.]

Worship wear is a mixed bag almost everywhere now

by John J. Shaugnessy, the Indianapolis Star

While suits and dresses are still readily apparent in churches and synagogues, so, nowadays, are shorts, blue jeans, golf shirts and T-shirts -- a shift in style that's both generational and reflective of an increasingly casual American society.

The trend also reflects an increasing efforts of many denominations to provide more casual services to lure potential members and keep existing ones -- especially young people who want to be comfortable while attending services, religious leaders say.

As a child, Alice Hord prepared for church by putting on a pink dress, slipping on white flats and white gloves, adjusting her white hat and reaching for her white purse.

She entered a church where other women also were in heels, hats and dresses and men looked stately in their suits and ties.

"If you were going to church, you just dressed a certain way," recalls Hord, 63. "There was just an understanding of what was appropriate. We dress our best for him -- for Christ. The trends have changed."

"I think it's societal," says Rabbi Jon Adland. "You can dress fairly casual at almost any place today."

Americans are "in love with the casual," agrees Gil Rendle, a consultant for the Alban Institute, a Virginia-based interfaith organization that works with congregations nationally. But the author of "Leading the Multi-Generational Congregation" also says there are generational differences in the way people dress for worship services.

"In the older segment of our population, they have an expectation of putting their best before God," Rendle says. "They put on their best behavior and their best clothing."

In comparison, young people have an appreciation for energy and action in worship, he says.

"They come to participate," Rendle says. "They come as they are, wanting God to meet them so their participation will make them different by the time they leave."

At 18, Jessica Collins reflects that youthful approach. A United Methodist, she attends services every Sunday and sings in the choir. She also dresses casually.

"I'm comfortable with a jean skirt and a nice top," says the first-year college student. "We [young people] all try to dress up, but we try to keep it casual. I don't think it matters what we wear. There are more important things to think about when we're at church. We're there to worship God and be part of the community at the church."

Cultural differences also are a factor, according to Brent Bill, executive vice president of the Indianapolis Center for Congregations. He mentioned particularly the African Methodist Episcopal churches. "AME is the oldest African-American church, and part of their culture is to dress to the nines when they go to church."

Attorney Mark Perez says Latinos also make a conscious effort to dress better for church. "The men dress in long pants and a nice shirt," says Perez, 29, who is a Catholic. The women typically wear nice dresses or skirts."

A concern about appropriate dress is a constant for people of the Muslim faith, especially for Jumah, the Friday prayer, says Abdul-Rahim Ahmad.

"The instruction from the prophet Muhammad says Muslims should bathe and their garments should be clean," Ahmad says. "We should wear our best. Most do. Still, according to Quran [the sacred book of Islam], the best dress is a good heart, a good mind and your good intentions to serve God."

"Personally, I don't think it matters what people wear," says Bill, 53, a former pastor and a member of a Quaker congregation.

"If people are hungry for God and want to worship, I don't care how they come. I don't see any instance of Jesus saying, 'Come unto me all ye who are finely dressed.' It's, 'Come unto me all ye who are weary and I will give you rest.' "

Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company

[+] De La Salle coach Bob Ladouceur's roles as coach, teacher, and pupil

by Molly Yanity, Seattle Post-Intelligencer Reporter

This was written by David Enroth ("Sky")before the loss of De La Salle High School, Concord, CA to Bellevue (WA) High School (in the Seattle area). I am forwarding it for the insight into the life and personality of Coach Bob Ladouceur. -- Revrickm, Editor

David writes: "I have been reading this week about tonight's high school football game between Bellevue and De La Salle in the new home of the Seattle Seahawks. My attention to the story has been heightened because an old friend, Herb Mead, has arranged for this game to happen. De La Salle of Concord, California, has [had] an unbeaten streak of 151 games going back several years, and Bellevue has spent all of 2004 preparing for tonight's battle. Whatever happens, a lot of kids will have learned some invaluable lessons."

David continues: "The most interesting aspect of this story to me is De La Salle's magnificent coach, Bob Ladouceur. A book written about him, "When the Game Stands Tall," says it all. When people genuinely care for and love each other, the sky is the limit... = Sky"

Bob Ladouceur is the grandest of high school football coaches, yet his office is stuffed into a cubicle barely big enough for three people to stand. His accomplishments are the loudest exclamation in high school sports, yet his demeanor is quiet and calm. Ladouceur, the head football coach at De La Salle High School, is a cluster of contradictions. His success depends on that.

He speaks simply, but his message is complex.

He doesn't love football, yet he's a master of the game. He yearns to relax, but on his vacations, he packs videotapes of his team and its opponents. He knows he'll be remembered as a winner, but that seems insignificant to him.

Neil Hayes, a columnist for the Contra Costa Times, published "When the Game Stands Tall" in 2003. Hayes spent the 2002 season with Ladouceur and the Spartans chronicling the season while detailing the program's history.

"He's still a tortured soul. He still is, he's always searching," Hayes said of Ladouceur. "He's able to give people answers to sweeping life questions, but sometimes the person giving it doesn't always have the answers."

Feared and revered Ladouceur, 50, has taught religious studies and coached football at De La Salle, a private all-boys school run by the Christian Brothers, for 25 years.

His success is unparalleled -- 19 section championships, five national titles and a record of 287-14-1.

Ladouceur is revered, but also feared, among students and players. "If you do something bad on the field, he doesn't yell or anything. He'll just give you this look and make you feel horrible," senior quarterback Kevin Lopina said. "Even at school, like in an assembly, he'll walk by and everyone will get quiet."

Lopina, who secured a scholarship to Oregon State despite tearing ligaments in his knee as a junior, added, "A lot of people are scared of him when they first meet him. It took me about a year and a half and I still don't want to talk to him."

Senior linebacker Zac McNally said, "In my three years I think I've had a total conversation with him of, 'Yes,' 'No,' 'OK.'

But that might be a good thing." Current De La Salle players describe Ladouceur as quiet and intense, a brilliant perfectionist.

"We like him, don't get me wrong," McNally said. "But if you had a coach that you were really good buddies with, I don't think that'd work well."

Lopina said the players befriend their position coaches and Ladouceur is like "the king." "Like God," McNally corrected.

They're teenagers and they're in the moment, lifting weights, pulling sleds during summer workouts and lugging large tires behind them after practice. They're learning life lessons but think they're getting ready for a game.

"There are a thousand things these kids do," Hayes said. "If you don't do them, you don't win. But winning isn't as important as those thousand things."

It's those things -- bonding with teammates, working side-by-side in a weight room or on a steamy field in midsummer -- that the teenagers recall when they grow into men.

Rick Cecil's son, Britt, was a Spartans quarterback who graduated in 2002. Cecil runs a Web site called the Spartanhood and still lingers around Owen Owens Field, watching Ladouceur's genius play out and observing the inspiration provided by a group of boys doing things that most can't fathom.

"I think he's a monk," Cecil said of Ladouceur. "He's just dedicated to what I see as his cause."

Ego takes a holiday
The Oakland Tribune named Ladouceur one of the Bay Area's 50 most important sports figures of the century. ESPN nominated him for a 2004 ESPY for coach of the year and USA Today has tagged him as the nation's best coach five times.

Still, there is no ego to be found in this small, stone-faced man. "I feel good about what I do and my abilities. I feel I have a real good feel for the game. The game always came natural to me in a lot of ways," Ladouceur said. "I know I'm an important element of what goes on here. I don't have to be told that, or I don't have to be rewarded for it. I just think it's part of who I am."

Ladouceur is a local. He graduated from San Jose State, where injuries derailed his playing career. He married his high school sweetheart and had been an assistant for one season before applying for the head coaching and teaching positions at De La Salle in 1978.

Ladouceur's first team went 6-3. It would be the worst record of his career. But everyone who knows Ladouceur (pronounced "Lad-is-sir") says it's not about the wins and losses, or ego. If it were, he would have left for the college game years ago.

"It blows you away -- the way (Ladouceur) teaches boys to be men," Hayes said. "He's so humane. He stays in the moment. It's never about him."

Patrick Walsh said he learned who he wanted to be from his high school football coach. "Outside of my parents, if you took them out of the question, 100 percent of the person I am is because of De La Salle," said Walsh, a 1993 De La Salle graduate.

Walsh, who holds the program's season rushing and touchdowns records and now coaches at Serra High in San Mateo, Calif., said he still stands in awe of Ladouceur. "It's ridiculous," he said. "I always have and I always will. His foundation, who he is, it's the foundation of the whole program.

To have a man so focused, so committed to family values -- I can only hope to be like him as a coach, a husband and as a future father."

Mortality, meet Ladouceur
Mortality met Ladouceur last New Year's Eve in the form of a heart attack. He underwent three hours of surgery to clear clogged arteries, only to return to the hospital with symptoms similar to the attack. But Ladouceur was ready if death wanted to take him.

"I never felt like, 'Gee, I got to make life changes.' I have always been doing what I wanted to be doing, what I'm supposed to be doing. I love my job. I love the school. I haven't left a lot of things unsaid or undone as far as my personal relationships," he said.

Hayes said the heart attack hasn't changed Ladouceur at all. "I've never met a man more introspective. He does not live an unanalyzed life. If there were any lessons
to be learned, he learned them years ago," Hayes said.


Ladouceur stood before current and former team members two weeks ago when 2004 graduate Terrance Kelly was shot and killed two days before he was to leave for the University of Oregon. Ladouceur didn't pretend to have any answers.

"I don't know what to tell you," Hayes reported Ladouceur saying at the school's chapel the day after Kelly's death. "We're just as confused and angry as you are."

Hayes had heard Ladouceur respond without answers before. "I heard a kid ask him a question and he said, 'That's an unanalyzed thought. Let me get back to you.' Most people would B.S. He needed to analyze it!" Hayes said. "That's what makes you fall in love -- he's still in the process, going through it along with everyone else."

Had the heart attack taken Ladouceur, he would have been remembered as the nation's most successful high school football coach. But that's not how he wants it.

"No. I mean, I'm sure I will be, but I think more importantly, I think I'll be more remembered for the good times I had with these kids and the coaches," Ladouceur said.

"We've had a lot of fun and interesting and genuinely humorous times out on that field. That's what I want them to remember most for sure. ... We worked hard, sure, and they pushed themselves to limits they previously felt they couldn't reach or go. But all in all, it was fun doing it, too. That is what you remember most."

Bush weds religion, politics to form fundamentalist world view

by David Domke, Seattle Post-Intelligencer

American presidents beginning with George Washington have included religious language in their public addresses. Claims of the United States as a divinely chosen nation and requests for God to bless U.S. decisions and actions have been commonplace. Scholars have labeled such discourse "civil religion," in which political leaders emphasize religious symbols and transcendent principles to engender a sense of unity and shared national identity.

George W. Bush is doing something altogether different.

Since the attacks of Sept. 11, the president and his administration have converged a religious fundamentalist worldview with a political agenda -- a distinctly partisan one, wrapped in the mantle of national interest but crafted by and for only those who share their outlook. It is a modern form of political fundamentalism -- that is, the adaptation of a self-proclaimed conservative Christian rectitude, by way of strategic language choices and communication approaches designed for a mass-media culture, into political policy.

Motivated by this ideology, the Bush administration has sought to control public discourse and to engender a climate of nationalism in which the public views presidential support as a patriotic duty and Congress (and the United Nations) is compelled to rubber-stamp administration policies.

The goal is a national mood of spiritual superiority under the guise of a just sovereignty. The ultimate irony is that in combating the Islamic extremists responsible for Sept. 11, the administration has crafted, pursued and engendered its own brand of political fundamentalism -- one that, while clearly tailored to a modern democracy, nonetheless functions ideologically in a manner similar to the version offered by the terrorists.

All of this has a facade of merely politics as usual. It is not. Unfortunately, as too often occurs with matters of religion, the mainstream news media have missed the story almost entirely, and thus so has much of the U.S. public.

Bush is the most publicly religious president since at least Woodrow Wilson. Ronald Reagan had great appeal to religious conservatives, but he was far less outspoken about religion -- a point noted in a June eulogy of the late president by Ron Reagan, who said his father did not "(wear) his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage," a comment many interpreted as a critique of the current president. Indeed, Bush speaks often about his "born-again" faith and regularly references a divine power in public statements, a practice that religion scholar Martin E. Marty has termed "God talk."

That the president -- any president -- is a person of religious faith is generally viewed by the U.S. public in favorable terms, the better to be grounded when facing momentous decisions. I share this view because I know how central the Christian faith is to my life and to many others I know and respect. Invocations of a higher power, when emphasizing inclusive and transcendent principles, seem to me to be legitimate and adroit rhetoric for a leader of 290 million people, the overwhelming majority of whom believe in God in some form. What is deeply troubling about Bush's religiosity, however, is that he consistently evinces a certainty that he knows God's will -- and he then acts upon this certainty in ways that affect billions of humans.

For example, in his address before Congress and a national television audience nine days after the terrorist attacks, Bush declared: "The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them." Similarly, in the 2003 State of the Union address, with the conflict in Iraq imminent, he declared: "Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." These are not requests for divine favor; they are declarations of divine wishes.

From this position, only short theological and rhetorical steps are required to justify U.S. actions. For instance, at a December 2003 news conference, Bush said: "I believe, firmly believe -- and you've heard me say this a lot, and I say it a lot because I truly believe it -- that freedom is the Almighty God's gift to every person, every man and woman who lives in this world. That's what I believe. And the arrest of Saddam Hussein changed the equation in Iraq. Justice was being delivered to a man who defied that gift from the Almighty to the people of Iraq."

Further, this view of divinely ordained policy infuses the public discourse of several administration leaders, irrespective of their particular religious outlook. I systematically examined hundreds of administration public communications -- by the President, John Ashcroft, Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld -- about the "war on terrorism" in the 20 months between Sept. 11, 2001, and the end of "major combat" in Iraq in spring 2003. This research showed that the administration's public communications contained four characteristics simultaneously rooted in religious fundamentalism while offering political capital:

· Simplistic, black-and-white conceptions of the political landscape, most notably good vs. evil and security vs. peril.

· Calls for immediate action on administration policies as a necessary part of the nation's "calling" and "mission" against terrorism.

· Declarations about the will of God for America and for the spread of U.S. conceptions of freedom and liberty.

· Claims that dissent from the administration is unpatriotic and a threat to the nation and globe.

In combination, these characteristics have transformed Bush's "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" policy to "Either you are with us, or you are against God." To the great misfortune of American democracy and the global public, such a view looks, sounds and feels remarkably similar to that of the terrorists it is fighting.

Indeed, one is hard-pressed to see how the perspective of Osama bin Laden, that he and his followers are delivering God's wishes for the United States (and others who share Western customs and policies), is much different from the perspective of George W. Bush, that the United States is delivering God's wishes to the Taliban or Iraq. Clearly, flying airplanes into buildings in order to kill innocent people is an
indefensible, immoral activity. So, too, some traditional allies told the Bush administration, is an unprovoked pre-emptive invasion of a sovereign nation.

In both instances, the aggression manifested in a form that was available to the leaders. Fundamentalism in the White House is a difference in degree, not kind, from fundamentalism exercised in dark, damp caves. Democracy is always the loser.

The ascendancy of the administration's political fundamentalism after Sept. 11 was facilitated by mainstream U.S. news coverage, which substantially echoed the administration's views. That became apparent when I analyzed how 20 leading and geographically diverse newspapers and the evening newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC covered each of Bush's national addresses (15 in 20 months, a remarkable pace) and the administration's push for key "war on terrorism" policies and goals in 2001 and 2002, including passage of the USA Patriot Act, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and congressional and U.N. resolutions regarding Iraq.

This analysis revealed that news media consistently amplified the words and ideas of the president and other administration leaders. They did that by echoing throughout their coverage similar claims made by multiple administration members, thereby having the administration's perspectives establish the terms of public discourse. For example, only two of more than 300 editorials that I analyzed in response to the president's national addresses criticized the administration's description of the campaign against terrorism as an epic struggle of good vs. evil. None questioned his explicit declarations of God's will.

With so many around the globe expressing a different view during these 20 months, by echoing these fundamentalist messages within these editorials, the press failed its readers.

To be clear, the U.S. news media did not emphasize the administration's messages to the same extent as the White House did during this time. Such an equation would imply that the commercial, independent news media merely served as mouthpieces, and that is not the case. Disagreement with the administration sometimes appeared in news stories--either as a presentation of different factual information or of divergent observations by other sources -- and in newspaper editorials. Coverage also included occasional strong criticisms of government policy, in particular in regard to the administration's diplomatic difficulties in early 2003.

The chief failure of members of the mainstream media, though, is that they did not adequately cover the deeply religious motivations to the administration's actions and, as a result, too rarely questioned the administration's religious-cum-political discourses. Once these fundamentalist discourses became consistently amplified -- but not analyzed -- in leading media outlets, the administration gained the rhetorical high ground, and that went far in determining policy decisions.

While Christian conservatives and hard-line neo-conservatives may see the developments after Sept. 11 in a positive light (after all, one might say that God and the United States have been given a larger piece of the planet with which to work), all Americans should be leery of any government that merges religiosity into political ends. Noble ideals such as freedom and liberty are clearly worth pursuing, but the administration promoted those concepts with its left hand while using its right hand to treat others -- including many U.S. citizens -- in an authoritarian, dismissive manner.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration appears to be the latest entry in a historical record that shows that beliefs and claims about divine leading are no guarantee that one will exercise power in a consistently liberating, egalitarian manner.

© 1998-2004 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

[From http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/. David Domke, a former journalist, is an associate professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Washington. His research focuses on the relationships among political leaders, news coverage and public opinion in the United States. He is the author of "God Willing? Political Fundamentalism in the White House, the 'War on Terror,' and the Echoing Press" (Pluto Press, 2004).]

[+] Pablo, Juan and Richard: A True Story of What Fathers Do

by Jack Kammer

This could be dangerous, I thought. This is Los Angeles, early June 1992. And, besides, it's getting dark.

Stranded and alone, hauling a heavy suitcase along Washington Boulevard east of Lincoln Avenue, unable to find a phone that made sense or a taxi dispatcher interested in my fare, I was running late for my plane at LAX. I decided that this was a chance I needed, no, wanted to take. I approached three young Hispanic men standing outside their car in a fast food parking lot.

But first a little background.

I had just spent four days in the mountains above Palm Springs at a conference of men who wanted to give the nation new hope for old and growing problems. We were a few of the big fish in the small pond that some have called the men's movement. We agreed that what the nation most urgently needs right now is a massive infusion of strong, noble, loving, nurturing, healthy masculine energy to counteract America's malaise, impotence and social pathologies. We talked a lot about the importance of fathers, both as an archetypal metaphor and as a practical reality.

Back in the fast food parking lot I warily approached the three young, black-haired, brown-skinned men. "How ya doing?" I said calmly and evenly. "I'm trying to get to LAX and I'm running late. The cabs and the phones aren't cooperating. How much money would you need to take me?"

They looked at each other. One of them in a white T-shirt said to the one who must have been the driver, "Go for it, man."

The driver hesitated. I said, "Name a price that makes it worth your while."

He looked straight at me. "Ten bucks," he said.

"I'll give you twenty."

"Let's do it, man," said the T-shirted youth. The driver nodded and popped the trunk. "You wanna put your suitcase here?"

"No, thanks," I answered straight back. The image of being forced empty-handed out of the car was clear in my mind. "I'd rather keep it with me."

"That's cool," the T-shirt said.

So there I was, entrusting my life to what I hoped to be "positive male energy." I was thinking we should go west to Lincoln Avenue. We headed east. Now what?

But then we turned south and soon we were on a freeway. I knew it could have been stupid, but I took out my wallet, removed a twenty and said to the driver, "Here, I want to pay you now."

The driver took it with a simple "thanks."

"So here I am, guys," I said. "I sure hope you're going to take care of me."

T-shirt, sitting in the back seat with me, my suitcase between us, smiled knowingly and said, "It's okay, man. We're good guys."

I nodded and shrugged, "I sure hope so, because if you're not, I'm in big trouble, aren't I?"

They all laughed and then T-shirt spoke up. "So where you from?"

"Baltimore," I answered.

"Oh, man, it's nice back east. That's what they say. Green and everything."

I smiled and nodded, "Yeah. And back east, L.A. is our idea of heaven."

"Naah, it's rough here, man. It's hard." T-shirt was clearly going to be the spokesman.

Every issue we men's movement guys had talked about during our conference in the mountains was in this car. It was time for a reality check. "How old are you guys?" I asked.

They were sixteen and seventeen. They were all in school and had part-time jobs. T shirt and the driver worked in a restaurant. The quiet young man riding shotgun didn't say.

"Tell me about the gangs. Are there gangs at your school?"

"There's gangs everywhere, man. Everywhere. It's crazy."

"Are you guys in a gang?" I asked.

"No way, man."

"Why not?" I wondered.

"Because there's no hope in it. You just get a bullet in your head."

"Yeah, but what hope is there for you outside the gang?"

"I don't know. I just want to get a future. Do something."

"What's the difference between you guys and the guys in the gangs?"

"I don't know, man. We just don't want to do it."

"Yeah, but why not? What's the difference?" I gently pressed.

"I don't know, man. I don't know. We're just lucky I guess."

I let the question sit for a moment, then started up. "What about fathers? Do you have a father at home?" I asked the youth in the back seat with me.

"Yeah. I do."

"How about you?" I asked the driver.

"Yeah, I got a dad."

"Living with you?"

"Yeah."

And the shotgun rider volunteered, "I got a dad, too."

"How about the guys in the gangs? Do they have fathers living with them?"

"No way, man. None of them do."

"So maybe fathers make a difference?" I suggested.

"Absolutely, man. Absolutely."

"Why?" I probed. "What difference does a father make?"

"He's always behind you, man, pushing you. Keeping you in line."

"Yeah. Telling you what's what," driver and shotgun agreed.

And I was taken safely right where I needed to go. The driver even asked what terminal I wanted. On time. Without a hitch.

I met eighteen amazing men at the conference in the mountains. I am eternally grateful for their wisdom and their urge to heal the nation.

But the most amazing men I met on my trip were the three youngest ones, Pablo, Juan and Richard -- amazing because in spite of everything they were trying to be good.

And the men to whom I am most grateful are the men I never met. The men to whom I am most grateful are their fathers.

It was their fathers who got me to the airport. It was their fathers who kept me safe.

["What Fathers Do" is reprinted from Full-Time Dads May/June 1995 issue with permission of the author. Copyright © 1992 by Jack Kammer. Jack Kammer is also the author of Good Will Toward Men (St. Martin's Press, 1994) and If Men Have All the Power How Come Women Make the Rules? Full-Time Dads is published 6 times a year. Subscription information is available from FTDMAG@aol.com.]