Saturday, November 10, 2012

An Inconspicuous Absence

I haven't posted anything here in almost a year. There are a couple of excuses for the absence. Neither of them are very good. The second is that Google has changed blogspot a little and I have been having a hell of a time trying to sign on, let alone post anything. That excuse is only slightly less lame than the first excuse: Facebook.

Most of what I have posted in the past have been political rants. They were invariably very similar to many, many other blogs of political rants. Facebook allows me to rant in haiku style. A sentence or two along with a cute visual usually suffices. And all my "friends" get to read my opinion and like them or ignore them... here I was writing what amounted to columns and no one was reading them. I will continue ranting on Facebook. Even though the president just won reelection, there is still quite a bit to rant over. I will also continue to post photographs on so stop over there and check out the latest. As for here... time will tell. Twice a year hardly substantiates the rationale behind having a blog. How is this? If I have something to say that I think is worthwhile and entails more than a sentence or two, I will try to post it here, if I solve the second excuse...

Wednesday, January 18, 2012


In a poll conducted by ABC in July, 2006, 83% of Americans identified themselves as Christians. 13% indicated they have “no religion.” That leaves just 4% for all non-Christian religions combined—Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and others.

It was not specified what percentage of the 4% were Jewish. But clearly, I am in the minority. Whether or not that counts as being among the “Chosen Few” is another matter altogether.

While nearly 40% of all the Jews in the world reside in the United States, they only make up a little over 2% of the population.

I know I am a minority. Perhaps a minority within a minority. But it hasn’t hit home with such bludgeoning force as when I hear some of the Republican Presidential candidates speak. Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and especially Rick Santorum have continually referred to the America that the “founding fathers” created as based on Christianity. And, if they had their way, they would go on to define Christianity with the prefix, “fundamentalist.” This is just not true.

According to George Seldes’s The Great Quotations, (Secaucus, New Jersey Citadel Press, 1983), Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to Horatio Spafford in 1814, “In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer for their purposes.”

In “Notes on the State of Virginia,” Jefferson said, “There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites” (quoted by newspaper columnist William Edelen, Politics and Religious Illiteracy, Truth Seeker, Vol. 121, No. 3, p. 33).

And it goes on. A little research reveals that, despite attempts at revising history in the matter of George Washington’s faith, he never received communion and indeed, was merely accompanying his wife when he attended church services. In fact, it was General Washington, as chief of American Armies, who visited the first synagogue in the United States (in Truro, Rhode Island) and issued a written proclamation, protecting the right for the Jewish Congregation to worship freely and without persecution. (“To bigotry, no sanction, to persecution, no assistance… ”)

In 1785, when the Commonwealth of Virginia was considering passage of a bill "establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," James Madison wrote his famous "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments" in which he presented fifteen reasons why government should not be come involved in the support of any religion.

There were Jews in America before there were founding fathers… even before the Mayflower. Joachim (Chaim) Gans arrived in Roanoke Island, North Carolina in 1585, as part of Sir Walther Raleigh’s expedition. Reportedly, there were Jews on Colombus’ expedition to the New World. The first Jewish community was set up in New Amsterdam (what is now New York… surprise!) in 1654.

Former Senator Rick Santorum is particularly troublesome to me. His campaign espouses “Faith, Family and Freedom.” His platform statement begins by stating, “Rick Santorum believes that to have a strong national economy, we must have strong families. America’s government must recognize this and help create a positive pro-family environment for our families, our communities and our businesses.” Under the sub-head of Champion of Faith & Families, “During his time in elected office, Rick Santorum fought for the preservation of the traditional American family and for the protection of the most vulnerable in our society. Rick was the author of legislation outlawing the heinous act known as partial-birth abortion and he championed the fight to pass the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” and the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act.” He also authored legislation to advance adult stem cell research, so that ethical research could take place to fight debilitating diseases without the moral implications associated with embryonic stem cell research that destroys human life.”

"Please prevent me from taking control of myself."

Personally, I have issues with men dictating to women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. As much as I philosophically detest women like Phyllis Schafly, et. al., I do think she and her ilk are more qualified to speak of women’s rights and related decisions of what they can and cannot do with their bodies than I do a man—any man, including Rick Santorum.

What, precisely is the “traditional American Family?” Inadvertently, my mind always returns to a pivotal and socially accurate scene in the movie, “Annie Hall.” It shows the contrast between dinner at the Hall family table and that of the Singer’s. The Hall family’s dinner table is quiet—no talking, no noise other than the muted clatter of cutlery over each plate. The Singer family table, in their apartment under the roller coaster at Coney Island, is a cacophony of noise and activity—people screaming over one another, reaching over for serving plates, trying to be heard or at least seen.

A dirty comic and a clean comic.

And so it is with Jews and Gentiles. Lenny Bruce had related insight into why Jews are “dirty” comics and Christians are clean comics. The mores are not necessarily better or worse in one socio-religious group… they are different. One is, shall we say, more liberal than the other. Is a criterion of the traditional American family to “be fruitful and multiply?” Certainly, with dictates against birth control and abortion, one would think so. Evidently, having as many children as physiologically possible is also one of the criteria—physiologically possible, as in as long as the subjugated and called-upon wife’s uterus holds out. Having a gazillion children is not the exclusive domain of Christians. Orthodox Jews, for example, are encouraged to spread the religion through prolific procreation. But again, Jews—all Jews—make up a little more than 2% of the population. Their offspring are but a mere drop in the bucket. In the meantime, I haven't seen a TV reality show about a Jewish family with a dozen or so kids. I thought the Octo-Mom was bad (and, Lord knows, she is shamelessly bad), but the Duggars? 19 children. Or what is it they taunt America with? 19 and counting! Look at them, for Chrissake... patriotic lemmings.

How do they find time for music?

There was an old woman
who lived in a shoe
she had so many children
her uterus fell out

By the way, did I mention, my wife and I have no children?

The rewriting history to make the founding fathers fundamentalist Christians who envisioned the country they were creating to be a Christian one certainly should not be seen as racist. Indeed, of the 83% of Americans who claim to be Christian, there are many who are black and Hispanic. No, it seems, from all outward appearance, to be dogmatic exclusionism, if such a term exists. Certainly the term, “exceptionalism” exists, as former Senator Santorum uses it in the context of the country. Santorum, according to a piece on Slate in April, 2011, promotes “the belief that it (America) is a unique moral force in the world, promoting freedom and fighting evil…” His belief in American Exceptionalism is not an inference. He has stated it explicitly and has even used the term and concept in an exclusionary way when discussing the differences between him and President Obama. Evidently, the president does not share Santorum’s premise that America is exceptional and with that distinction must be the world’s bearer of morality and freedom. In essence, because of our place of power in the world, we have a responsibility to spread and maintain the Christian-based standard. It is important to state here that the term “Christian” that Santorum applies is not exactly the same as the poll used. The poll used “Christian” as a generic umbrella, under which Catholic, Baptist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Evangelicals, etc. And, despite the fact that the fundamentalists reject the notion that Mormons are Christians as see the sect as a “cult,” they are also included under the umbrella. Santorum and his ilk refer to Christianity in a much narrower, more subjective way. When he talks about faith and family, he does not call to attention the fact that he is a Roman Catholic. Indeed, he let’s others draw the conclusion that, in his heart, he is evangelical… that kind of Christian. It seems he doesn’t correct the misperception, either. From Huffington Post, January 11, 1012, “Rick Santorum may technically not call himself an evangelical but he is definitely one when it comes to social issues, so don't get too caught up in the title of ‘Roman Catholic,’” David Brody, chief political correspondent for Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network, wrote after the Iowa vote. “Santorum is an evangelical at heart.” Santorum’s stance on same-sex rights and marriage, birth control, abortion and teaching intelligent design” seem to blur the borders between Catholicism and Evangelicalism.

But, to get back to issue at hand: It is the Evangelical Christians who feel their God is a better God than other Christians’ God and certainly, better than the Jewish God. Their membership in the Judeo-Christian World is both tenuous and one of both convenience and selective benefit. At the core, Evangelicals believe first that they are exceptional and then the country their forefathers founded is exceptional. Ultimately, their validation is in their exclusivity.

I can simply not vote for Rick Santorum. I can support someone else, which goes without saying. But, the conversation has been raised, as have the implications. We know what America in general believes that all Muslims are terrorists. As for Jews, well, there are volumes written and spoken regarding anti-Semitism in America and the world. The crimes and the atrocities committed in the name of God are innumerable. And most of them have been justified, as they are today, in the name of “faith, family and freedom.”

* * *

And then, there is the other statistic. The big one. The one that started all the noise in the fall. The 1% and the 99%. The have’s and the have not’s. The millionaires and the rest of us.

“Corporations are people, my friends,” he said with that smarmy smile of his. Willard “Mitt” Romney. A man of the people… if the people you are referring to are filthy rich and have no idea what a gallon of gas costs or what house wine is.

President Barack Obama wrote a book called The Audacity of Hope. Romney is working on one simply called Audacity. The fact of the matter is, I do not begrudge Mitt for being stinking rich. Most presidents have been rich… or they got rich on the way to the office. I certainly don’t fault, say, Franklin Delano Roosevelt for being rich… because of what he did. In the same way, I cannot fault John, Robert or Edward M. Kennedy for their inherited wealth when all three brothers fought for equality and dignity for what used to be called the common man. Mitt Romney is out of touch and vows to remain so. This week, the topic of Mitt’s taxes came up. He said that he pays a tax rate of about 15%, which is a lot less than if it had been for earnings and wages and not investment dividends and gains. He also that he received money from speeches before announcing his candidacy for president last year, but “not very much.” Mitt considers $374,327.62 not very much money. AP reported, “That amount alone would place his income among the top 1% of all Americans… ”

And then there’s the man trying to wrest Mitt from his most-likely position: Newt Gingrich. Another man of the people. Yeah, right. Between the Tiffany’s account and Calista’s Greek Isle Cruise plot, Newt is bought and sold. Just ask Sheldon Adelson, eighth richest man in America and the bucks behind Newt’s Super PAC. He pretty much single handedly sported the bill for Newt’s anti-Mitt movie that, by the way, has been pretty badly reviewed. As an aside, I worked for Shelly Adelson when he was still a Democrat and couldn’t have card less about Israel. But that’s another story.

Watch the rich guy-- he's either going to pull out a .38 or his checkbook.

They, like Santorum, do not represent me. I guess I’ll stick with that “hopey-changey” stuff… for now.

Stand by the Man.