[Dialogue] From a Florida (MN snowbird) Liberal Christian

[KroegerD@aol.com]

From: DManolis at aol.com 
 
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 6:28 PM
Subject: The philosophical Greek

For my like-minded friends--

(I'll also be sending this to some from the opposite side--who inundated me during the campaign with right-wing rhetoric.)

Well, it's two weeks post-election and time for me to make a philosophical statement that's been incubating since the election. The Manolis family has been quite disappointed in the election 
outcome, but we take some comfort in that Minnesota had the highest percentage of voters of any state in the country, and that the majority of those had the good sense to use their intellect and think about the future of our country, rather than vote based on religious belief, emotion, a single issue, or something coded as "moral values".  Even Edina, MN, that bastion of conservatism, went for Kerry.

Because some of my thoughts outlined below may suggest a criticism of religion, before I go any further I should state my own beliefs. I am a Christian, a product of several Christian traditions. My beliefs are consistent with my scientific training. I believe the Bible cannot be interpreted literally. I believe in a loving, accepting, forgiving three-in-one God who does not exclude humans from his/her love because of sexual orientation or even non-Christian religious belief. I believe I have deep moral values. I also believe I have a God-given intellect, intended to be used to think rationally about all aspects of decisionmaking;  not to abandon rationality to accept the simplest explanation, an emotional response, or sound-bite accusations. (I'm just thinking out loud here--wishing I had the intellect of my Greek philosopher ancestors, remembering that Socrates really struggled with moral 
values, piety, and the truth--he chose the Athenian jury's death sentence in maintaining his belief in truth and morality.) And I'm also recalling John Wesley, who I believe spoke of a "Quadrilateral" foundation for religious belief: Scripture, Tradition, Experience, and Reason.

Back to the election:  Not that John Kerry was the ideal candidate--there are no perfect candidates, as we're all human. Unfortunately, it appears that George Bush believes that he's super-human--that 
he's been chosen by God to lead our country in this time of crisis, and that he cannot admit to making a mistake (oh, maybe he "made a mistake in some of my appointments"--as he said in one of the debates). Perhaps admitting mistakes is evidence of not being a strong, steadfast leader, and even--God forbid--a form of flip-flopping. 

I guess I might be viewed cynical if I thought Bush's pious pronouncements were calculated to bring the 4 million Evangelicals who sat out the 2000 election into his camp, even though Karl Rove admitted this was his strategy. Or maybe viewed as too much a psychiatrist if I wondered if Bush was being arrogant and grandiose--or that his all-or-nothing, black and white, don't-confuse-me-with-the-facts style of thinking is typical of a "dry" alcoholic who never completed a treatment program? Unfortunately his campaign resonated with a seemingly uncritical voting majority which found the simplest message, couched in a religious and moral tone, most acceptable.

And I wonder if it is Christian to utilize exaggerations, half-truths, and outright lies in order to be elected--maybe not lies by the candidate himself, but certainly by his supporters, even some church groups who played on the fears of the unsophisticated.  (Our Florida neighbors had some shrill messages from the Republican party on their answering machine.) Perhaps "the end justifies the means"--but this belief comes from a profoundly anti-religious philosophy. Not to say the other side didn't use some of the same tactics--election shenanigans  have deep historical roots in our country.  But professing Christian beliefs like a badge of honor should elicit Christian acts and behavior.

Taking the long view of our nation's history, we have weathered many crises and many leaders less competent than George Bush, and we shall weather the next four years as well. Bush now has the responsibility for the next four years, and we shall see if some/all of his policies will come home to roost. He will be able to take credit for those that work, and will have to accept responsibility for those that don't--just as every other human being. We must hold him to that, and not let him displace the responsibility for failed policies to some outside evil force--the terrorists, or dare I even say the "Devil"? And we must continue to function as the loyal opposition, attempting to use rationality and science, rather than political expediency, in all levels of policymaking.

I could say a lot more, as I have thought about these things for months, but this is becoming too long.  I can't end before I add some words that have been rattling around my brain since the election, that I'd like to address to George Bush. They have been attributed to the first Republican president, who was elected 144 years ago:

     "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time!"---A. Lincoln


Deane Manolis 

-- 
Dick Kroeger