I WON'T JOIN ANY CLUB THAT WILL HAVE ME

At Hastings School of Law in San Francisco, no campus group can exclude a student who

wishes to join. You don't believe in global warming, but want to join the environmental club?

You are welcome. You are opposed to the equal rights amendment, but want to join the

feminist law society on campus? Y'all come. No officially sanctioned club may discriminate

against any other student. You can see what's coming, can't you? A group of "Christian"

students want to be an official Hastings Club. Being a recognized campus group would entitle

them to a small subsidy, preferential treatment when trying to reserve an on-campus meeting

space, access to bulletin boards, etc. One problem, this group wants to exclude from

membership anyone who is gay, supports gay rights, or doesn't condemn premarital sex.

The school said "thanks, but no thanks" and denied the "Christians" official recognition.

Hastings is a state supported school. The California Constitution bans any form of

discrimination based on sexual orientation. It also requires separation of church and state

as does the U.S. Constitution. If Hastings were to accept this "Christian" group, taxpayers

would be endorsing prejudice and discrimination. Tax money would go to support a religious

group. The "Christians" claim Hastings policy has hurt them, even though they admit their

membership doubled after their application for Hastings Club status was turned down.

The "Christians" want it both ways. They want the advantages of being an on-campus

group; but they don't want to abide by the rules the school established for officially recognized

clubs. They cry foul and they claim Hastings is discriminating against them; but the reality

is they wish to discriminate, but don't want to pay the price. They can still be a group. They

can still hold meetings. They can pass out flyers and hold socials and prayer meetings. They

can associate with each other anytime they wish. No one, including Hastings, is denying them

their rights. They can exclude anyone they wish from their gatherings. What they cannot do

is discriminate and also expect official recognition. Taxpayers cannot be asked to subsidize

policies which are unconstitutional.

I have no idea how the oral arguments will play out. I can guess the positions of the

regressive Catholic block on the court. I truly don't see the conflict here. No one is making

the "Christians" form a club or denying them that ability. If they want one, they have to be

open, tolerant, even loving towards those who might want to join but disagree with them.

Years ago, the Olympic Club in San Francisco got into trouble because it didn't admit

women. Part of the club's golf course sat on city property and the city wanted the policy

changed. They were also sued because members could deduct their membership fees as

business expenses even though women were excluded from all the "business" being discussed.

Members argued they had the right to associate with whomever they wished and had the

right to exclude women. Ultimately, they lost. They did have the right to have a club and

they did have the right to exclude women; but they couldn't deduct their fees nor could their

golf course continue to occupy city land. In the end, they admitted women and no longer

treat their fees as business expenses. The club thrives and even had its first adult women's

basketball league a few years ago.

There is nothing wrong with a policy of non-discrimination. The Hasting's policy is

neutral. No club may discriminate against any other student. All comers have to be welcome.

It is not aimed at any one religion or philosophy. That this case stems from a "Christian"

group who wants to engage in prejudice and bigotry is an irony which will be lost on no one.

How did a philosophy of total love and care turn into one of prejudice and

discrimination? Why is it every other group at Hastings can open their membership to all

comers except the "Christians"? What perverted permutations occurred in the last 2000

years, to turn a philosophy of tolerance and forgiveness, committed to the least of your

brothers and sisters, into a political force for hatred and exclusion? "Christians" can only

meet with like-minded folks? How well would that approach have worked in the early

Church? Can you imagine Paul refusing to meet with anyone who didn't share his vision

and approach? What would have happened to the spread of early Christianity if membership

were limited to only those who bought into it hook, line, and sinker? Peter tried it. He

tried to force Gentile Christians to be circumcised and obey Jewish dietary laws and he was

overridden at the Council of Jerusalem. Christianity was open to all, not just those who

followed Jewish custom.

I hope the Supreme Court rules in Hasting's favor. To side with the "Christians" would

force California taxpayers to subsidize discrimination and would have the state ignoring

its own laws to accommodate a religious group. I wish I were confident the court will not

reward this group. Church and state need to be kept separate because religious or sectarian

disputes can tear a nation to shreds. Anyone been to Iraq or Afghanistan lately? What do you

think? I welcome your comments and rebuttals. Please send them to lionoftheleft@gmail.com

Note: Sometimes more than one blog is posted at a time; so be sure to check the previous

blogs to make sure that you have not missed any of the "Lion of the Left" postings.

I WISH I WAS IN THE LAND OF COTTON...

The governor of Virginia has chosen April to honor all those who fought for the Confederate

States of America. The governor of Virginia has decided his state will officially honor all

Virginians who took up arms against their country in an attempt to overthrow the legitimately

elected government. The governor of Virginia, in his remarks honoring those who would have

destroyed this nation, totally failed to mention the issue of slavery or how the Virginians

wanted to end this experiment in democracy; simply saying that the month-long homage

would be good for tourism.

The Confederate States of America declared war on the United States. They said it was

a "holy war" which God had ordained and God would insure their victory. What do you think

the reaction would have been if the governor had declared a month honoring Osama bin Laden?

His too is a "holy war" which is aimed at destroying this nation; and he too is convinced Allah

is on his side. Too outlandish you say? Crazy! The analogy doesn't work, you cry! Typical

Yankee bleeding heart liberal reaction, you opine!

I listened to former Bush advisor and adopted Southerner, Mary Matalin, try to defend

the Virginia resolution. She talked about Southern culture and courage. She waxed eloquently

about all the Civil War battles which occurred in Virginia. She saw no harm in honoring

traitors bent on destroying this nation. Then she dropped the big one: "Few Southerners

owned slaves and this was never a war about slavery anyway."

This revisionist history has been repeated and spouted practically since the war ended,

but particularly as civil rights and voting rights became popular topics and as acceptance of

African-Americans entered the mainstream of American culture. The Civil War was about

state's rights. It was not about slavery. Lincoln would have gladly let the South keep its

slaves to preserve the Union. Slavery was not the overriding issue which caused the war.

It is a way for those who love the Confederacy and want to fly a rebel flag and paint Southern

soldiers as patriots; to be able to get around the fact that if the Confederacy had been

successful, then hundreds of thousands of African-American slaves would still be in chains.

Yes, Lincoln would have allowed the South to have slavery to preserve the Union. He didn't

believe he had the constitutional authority to end it. However, in his inaugural address and

other speeches Lincoln opposed any expansion of slavery into new states. His opposition to

the expansion of slavery is what caused the South to declare war. They knew the institution

of slavery was doomed if they could not expand it. (They were so desperate to preserve and

expand slavery that there were plans proposed to conquer Cuba and have armed forces sent

to try to subdue a Latin American nation so as to expand slavery into those locations.)

The Confederate States of America and their supporters were traitors. They came closer

to destroying this nation than bin Laden or any other terrorist ever will. As a result of their

treason, 500,000 Americans died (2,900 died on September 11th; 2,800 died at Pearl Harbor).

How do you declare a month to honor those whose stated purpose was to end this nation?

What is it that the governor of Virginia finds is worth honoring in their efforts? Is he sorry

they lost? Is he honoring them for all the Yankees they killed? When you honor the

Confederacy and its cause, do you also honor those Confederate sympathizers who

assassinated President Lincoln?

Imagine being an African-American living in Virginia. Imagine picking up the morning

paper and reading how the governor wants to spend the month of April honoring those who

may have enslaved your relatives and wanted to preserve slavery in your home. How would

you feel? What subtle message does this send about the governor and his party's values

where you, a person of color, are concerned?

The governor of Virginia took an oath to preserve the Constitution. It is the same

Constitution the Confederate States of America wanted to destroy. How do you square that

circle?

Former Republican Senator Trent Lott from Mississippi suggested that this

country would have been better off if a segregationist, Strom Thurmond, had been elected

president in 1948. Republicans in South Carolina and other Southern states defend flying

the Confederate flag. The Republicans used the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act,

supported by Democrats, to scare white voters into changing parties and turning the South

into a solid Republican block. Republicans led the opposition to a national holiday honoring

Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and now a Republican governor wants to honor the traitors who

tried to destroy this nation in order to preserve a system of human subjugation.

I have suggested more than once that this nation would have been better off today if

the South had been allowed to secede. Imagine a United States without Texas, Mississippi,

or Alabama. It is said with tongue firmly inserted in cheek, but it is interesting to imagine.

There is nothing glorious, courageous, or romantic in the attempt of some Americans

to destroy this country and preserve an institution as morally bankrupt as slavery. Perhaps

the only thing worse in 2010 is to have a white, regressive, and tone-deaf politician trying

to honor the effort. What do you think? I welcome your comments and rebuttals. Please

send them to lionoftheleft@gmail.com

HAMID ALL THE DESTRUCTION

I told you so!! Go back and read what I wrote about President Obama's decision to send

more soldiers to Afghanistan. I was and am against it. I observed the government was corrupt;

but what's worse is that the people of Afghanistan have no confidence in their President, Hamid

Karzai. In fact, some Afghans have joined the Taliban because of how offensive Karzai's

administration is. I also pointed out the parallels between Afghanistan and our past experience

with Vietnam; in particular, a regime so corrupt that President Kennedy approved a coup to

remove one corrupt administration only to install another equally corrupt administration.

In a series of speeches, Karzai has accused the United States of trying to "dominate" his

country. He accuses U.S. and NATO officials of falsely charging him with trying to steal the

recent presidential elections in which more than one million bogus votes were identified, his

brother being the prime suspect. Karzai attacked the Obama administration, accusing it of

meddling in internal Afghan affairs; conveniently ignoring the fact that he recently attempted

to take over the nation's election commission by replacing the commissioners with his own

hand-picked apparatchiks.

In a speech to tribal elders, Karzai said no American military actions will proceed in their

areas without them being notified. Analysts believe Karzai was, in effect, giving them veto

power over U.S. troop movements which would totally defeat any justification for having

American troops in Afghanistan. The icing on the cake, however, was when Karzai invited

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Kabul for a state visit. Ahmadinejad delivered

an anti-American tirade accusing the U.S. of every crime possible against humanity.

Thomas Friedman, the New York Times resident Iraq war cheerleader, recently reacted

to Karzai's speeches by asking "...so this is why we've sacrificed the lives of thousands of U.S.

soldiers? This is why we have spent over $200 billion to pull Afghanistan out of the Dark

Ages?" Friedman says we cannot be successful in Afghanistan with Karzai in power and

ultimately he will break our hearts. I couldn't agree more.

The Obama administration has virtually no leverage over Karzai. Obama flew to Kabul

to meet with him and demand he clean up the corruption, stop the drug trafficking, and

improve the lives of his people. Karzai ignored him. Now the administration is debating

whether or not to rescind an invitation for him to come to Washington to demonstrate our

displeasure. How pathetic!

Obama has no exit strategy. He has no definition of victory. He listened to the generals,

as the Regressives demanded; and has become another Democratic president involved in an

unwinnable war. Once again, Cindy Sheehan's question continues to loom large, demanding

an answer: "Mister President, what is the noble cause that soldiers died for in Afghanistan?"

Karzai's worst fear is that if Afghanistan is reformed and rebuilt, if the people get truly

honest elections, if the violence is reduced and their lives improve; he and his brother and

their corrupt henchmen will be thrown out. The United States winning means he loses. A

freer Afghanistan implies his own political destruction; therefore, he consistently sabotages

each and every U.S. goal for reform.

And what about his brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai? Karzai's brother runs the city of

Kandahar, the spiritual home of the Taliban. Not only has he been on the payroll of the CIA

for years with little to show for it; he's also the face of corruption in Afghanistan. He is

connected to the opium trade, which brings in billions of illegal dollars that goes to fund and

rebuild the Taliban and al Qaeda in his district. To this he's turned a blind eye. No business,

legal or illegal, can be conducted without him taking a cut. U.S. forces are about to start a

campaign in Wali Karzai's Kandahar. If he is not replaced, you can imagine how successful

the campaign will ultimately be.

We have backed the wrong horse. Unfortunately, he is the horse we rode in on and the

water in this river is too deep and swift to have second thoughts at this stage of the game.

The only leverage Obama has left is to threaten to pull our troops out and bring them home.

For political reasons, that won't happen. American soldiers, once again, will be thrown into

harm's way, to be killed and wounded. American taxpayers will, once again, be expected to

stand back and look stupid while hundreds of billions of dollars are flushed down another

rat hole. And this I can promise you: Years from now we will be waxing philosophic about

how we allowed ourselves to be blindly tricked, once again, into another pointless military

quagmire. Pathetic!! What do you think? I welcome your comments and rebuttals. Please

send them to lionoftheleft@gmail.com

YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT?

Let me start with a confession. I don't understand Twitter and Obie and Facebook and

all the other social media where the apparent goal is to never let a moment of ones life go

unobserved. I say this with the knowledge my oldest brother who is into his sexy sixties,

recently started a Facebook page and Twitter account. I'm not a Luddite. I love gadgets,

smart phones, texting, and I particularly love P.C.'s. However, this new trend eludes me. I may

be opening myself to the charge of being a hypocrite, considering I spent a good portion of my

adult working life sharing my personal life with strangers. Five nights a week and on Sundays

I'd open up, telling everything from the birth of my children to a frightening day at IKEA.

However, in spite of my talkative past, possibly our culture has gone a bit too far. When some

future Gibbons writes his version of the Rise and Fall of the American Empire, this could be

cited as the straw that broke the camel's back.

The New York Times Dining Section for April 7th featured a front page story about

people posting pictures of every morsel of food they eat for all the world to see on the internet.

The article chronicles the likes of Javier Garcia, a neuroscientist at UC Irvine, who posted over

9,000 photos of every single thing he's eaten in the last five years. Mr. Garcia says posting

a picture of every single thing he eats helps him stay on his diet and not gain weight. Food

pictures on the internet have increased ten-fold in the last two years. Over six million have

been posted on the Flickr site called "I Ate This", its most active photo sharing group. Because

of over 300,000 pictures posted by more than 19,000 people, Flickr actually has to limit the

number of photos an individual can post per month.

The pictures range from cereal to suckling pig to arugula-feta salads. People quoted in

the article say they get more comments on their food pictures than on anything else they post

online. One woman met her future husband through her food postings. Others say food

photos help them connect to others in a unique way.

Psychiatrists say the unconscious mind equates food with love; so they're not surprised

people want to share what they eat. What they didn't comment on, and which mystifies me

completely, is why anyone would want to view an image of what I just ate.

I admit I am not an adventurous eater. Heaven to me is a Philly Cheesesteak from the

Cheesesteak Shop on Divisadero. Paradise is a steak and hash brown breakfast at Louie's

near the Cliffhouse accompanied by old-fashioned sourdough toast or corned beef hash from

the Tennessee Grill on Taravel. A burger from the Bullshead in West Portal or Bill's on

Clement can be a moment of ecstasy. When my wife makes her chili or Irish bread or

homemade chocolate chip cookies, it is as if time has stopped and I am thrilled. However,

at no time has it ever crossed my mind that there was another living person who's wish was

to observe all of these repasts as I was consuming them.

It gets worse! Camera manufacturers like SONY, Nikon, Olympus, and Fuji are now

marketing special "food" or "cuisine" modes for their cameras which range in price from

$200-$600. I'm not kidding. People will spend $600 to get a special lens to take pictures

of the food they are eating in order to post them on the internet for others to see. Have

Americans have officially jumped the shark?

One of the common themes running through the article is how these photos connect to

others. Showing people what you eat somehow reveals a great deal about the kind of person

you are. Perhaps this is the ultimate revelation. While everyone is on Twitter and Facebook,

MySpace and Shutterfly, Chowhound and Foodcandy, shouldn't they be out with friends

enjoying each other's company and sharing the experience of a good meal? Why is it we don't

sit out on the front porch anymore? Most of us don't know our neighbors and don't want

to know them. Since our social interactions are less frequent, are we seeking new ways to

connect? Are we so desperate to be heard, touched, and desired that we have to advertise

what we eat?

I won't be posting any pictures of a Triscuit covered in winecheese topped with a slice of

dry salami any time soon. While it's one of my favorite snacks, I haven't got a clue what it

says about me nor why anyone else would care. I will continue to write and call friends and

family. I will continue to connect and share with everyone, friends and foe alike. More than

ever I am so grateful for an amazing family and friends. However, tonight's meal of baked

ziti in a supposed tomato sauce will not be on any photo sight near you. It's your loss?

What do you think? I welcome your comments and rebuttals. Please send them to

lionoftheleft@gmail.com

JOSE CAN YOU SING?

Before you read any further, take out a piece of paper and write down the words to our

National Anthem. I'll wait...

How did you do? Did you miss any of the words? Did you find it hard to remember the

first verse? Did you have to stop to think about what to write?

The majority of Americans cannot call to mind something as basic to being an American

as the first verse of our National Anthem, the Star Spangled Banner. This, in spite of the fact

you cannot attend a sporting event or other public event without the song being played. The

poetry of Francis Scott Key eludes them.

Last week, Goshen College in Goshen, Indiana, opened their college baseball season with

a doubleheader against the Sierra Heights Saints. According to the New York Times, for the

first time in school history, the National Anthem was played before the game. A person might

ask themselves, why is that? Goshen is a college founded by Mennonites. Mennonites

descended from the same Christian roots as the Amish, but adopted and adapted to modern

convention unlike their Amish brethren. One thing, however, the Mennonite faith did not

compromise is a faith in pacifism based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. So, until last week,

games at Goshen started with a team huddle and nothing else.

Historically, school administrators and students believed the words to the U.S. National

Anthem glorified and celebrated war, a view which has caused unnecessary violence and the

deaths of millions of people. Goshen has about one thousand students, almost half of which

are not Mennonites. The non-Mennonite students began to press for the playing of the anthem

before games. The debate, going on for a number of years, culminated in a decision by the

college president to play the music but not the words. And...as a sort of concession, after

the anthem was played, those in attendance were asked to recite the Peace Prayer of

St. Francis of Assisi. Trust the Mennonites not to make compromises of this sort without a

significant dividend.

Non-Mennonite students cheered the decision and reminded other students that the flag,

the anthem, and the freedom they represent are what made this country great and are what

gives us the freedom to believe and pray to whomever we wish. Very nice, but there is a

problem with their logic: most Americans can't remember the words to their National

Anthem. The reason the tradition of playing it before sports events began was a response to

the rise of totalitarianism and communism in the Soviet Union. After September 11th, 2001,

the singing of God Bless America was added to major league baseball's Seventh Inning Stretch.

Apparently, Americans were not only amazed the flag was still standing, but also believe that

God was responsible.

As counterpoint to all the "feel-good" flag-waving and the mouthing of words we can't

remember, some passionately cry out that "patriotism" is the last refuge of scoundrels. They

say more harm has been done in the name of "patriotism" in this country than by almost any

other concept. "Patriotism" led to the Mexican War and the annexation of vast tracks of land

that once belonged to Mexico. It led to the genocide of the Native American people cloaked as

a love of country. It led to a bitter Civil War divided equally between those wanting both to

preserve and destroy our union. It led to the U.S. taking the last of Spain's overseas colonies.

Worse still, "patriotism" led to numerous laws restricting the very freedoms we at one

time worshipped: President John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, making

it a crime to criticize the government or the president because it could harm the country.

Japanese-Americans were put in camps because of the fear that some might possibly not be

loyal Americans. The 1950's brought the imposition of loyalty oaths, blacklists, and witch

hunts due to the "red scare". The Patriot Act (ironic name, don't you think?) was passed by

Congress just days after September 11th redefined every American citizen as a potential

terrorist. Telecom companies illegally spied on their customers, couching themselves as

patriotic Americans acting on President Bush's request. Americans who opposed the Vietnam

War, the Gore in the Gulf, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were attacked because of

their opinions and were branded as unpatriotic.

But who am I to talk? Simply a person that was told to leave the country because of my

criticism of the Bush Administration's lies. These lies were quickly exposed; but being right

doesn't improve people's view of how much you love your country.

Now, let's go back to the Mennonites at Goshen College. Despite a noble history of

weathering criticism, despite suffering persecution, despite threats of violence and actual

violence against them for their convictions about war and, in particular, wars of aggression

by any country, they had to compromise. They believe it is impossible to claim to be a

Christian, to follow Jesus's command to turn the other cheek, love your enemy, forgive an

infinite number of times, and then support the organized killing of human beings; but to

maintain good relations, they've given in.

We can debate the value and pragmatism of pacifism and we can debate how one puts

into practice their Christian faith. There is no debate, however, about the nature of the

National Anthem. It glorifies war, killing, and the view that defending or advancing your

country's values, including the evil of imperialism, justifies the use of force. Despite hearing

the song hundreds of times, most Americans can't remember all the words of the first verse;

so it's ludicrous to suggest that by simply playing the National Anthem before a baseball game

that a love of country will well up in the common heart of America.

Goshen College stood out as a place putting its beliefs into action. Their refusal to play

the anthem made people think. The college took the easy, white-bread kind of "love of

country" most Americans hold; and challenged it by simply not going along. Ideally, attending

a sporting event at Goshen might have caused a person to ask why the Mennonites weren't

playing the anthem before their games before this current change in policy. It might even

have caused a person to reflect on the Mennonite world view, so as to contrast and compare

them with our own. One thing for sure, the Mennonites are witness to a system of beliefs that

is truly patriotic because they honestly love their country enough to hold up a mirror for those

Americans whose only connection to any kind of primitive "patriotic" thought is right before

someone yells "play ball!"

I'm sorry to see the tradition end; but as a consolation, any game that starts with "Make

me a channel of your peace..." (The Peace Prayer) has something more to offer the average

sports fan than mere diversion and entertainment. The thoughtful among us will always find

a way. Thank you Goshen College!! What do you think? I welcome your comments and

rebuttals. Please send them to lionoftheleft@gmail.com

A DROPTOP CADILLAC

I have been asked why I am a Catholic numerous times in my life. Those who know me

have often asked why it is I choose to remain Catholic. For one, I was born and raised Catholic.

I attended Catholic schools from kindergarten through college. Catholicism and its rituals and

symbols are the glue around which my family came together at important moments (birth,

death, sickness, special meals, marriage, commiseration, and celebration). I disagree with

the Church on numerous issues; however, it is my Church and my witness and voice are

needed to call the Church to be its best. To me, there is a difference between dissension and

disaffection. The most powerful reason I remain Catholic, however, is because of all the people

in my life who inspired, challenged, loved, lived, and acted as they did because their Catholic

faith called them to live life to its fullest. I love these people and enjoy each and every

opportunity offered me to match the examples they set.

I bring this up because in the last year or so I keep reading stories of Americans who

have converted to Islam online. I do not understand this concept. I understand the drive to

evangelize and convert someone to get them to abandon whatever they believed and come over

to a different way of thinking and believing; but what I don't understand is the need of some

to treat people as if they were a convertible car waiting to drop its top. Personally, I don't

care what you believe. How an individual acts is where the rubber meets the road. You can be

atheistic, agnostic, theist, deist, naturalist, or any combination of these; but are you a loving,

caring person capable of selfless acts? Do you live an honorable life attempting to be honest

and forthright? Do you have empathy for the least of your brothers and sisters? If you do,

I don't care what you call yourself.

People did not follow Jesus or find him compelling, inspiring, and intriguing because of

what He said. They followed Him because of WHO He was. They had never met anyone who

lived as He did. Loving his enemies, sitting down with tax collectors, refusing to condemn

the adulterous woman, turning the other cheek, and preaching a new idea of non-violence.

He healed and served the people. It was because people encountered his radical new way

of living that they wanted to know who He was and why He was the way He was. They desired

to know what made Him tick.

It's the same story with the Buddha or Mohammed. Their lives attracted followers who

wanted to learn how to live like them and approach life as they did. They wanted to emulate

them. At that point, what they had to say helped guide those who sought answers. I feel

certain that if all Buddha or Jesus or Mohammed or Abraham or Moses did was preach, there

would have been no one interested in following them. My parent's values were real because

of how they lived, not because of how they told me I should live.

Over the last eighteen months, three of the kindest and wisest people I have met were

Buddhists. Their kindness, care, and humanity were a stark contrast to the majority of people

surrounding me. Their attitude and warmth made me want to talk to and listen to what they

said. I wanted to know what enabled them to be so serene and different. I wanted to know

their world view and their beliefs about life and death, trust and doubt, faith and hope.

With that in mind, someone goes online and reads a sermon or text written by a Muslim

cleric. They are intrigued or attracted to the words. They read more and find it compelling.

Maybe they even correspond with the author. Then, one day, they are so moved that they

convert to Islam...What? It makes no sense! There is no logic to the transformation.

Conversion invokes a change of heart, "metanoia" in Greek; and a change of heart does not

occur by reading words on a page.

No one should be in the business of trying to convert anyone else into anything. We

should be living our lives in such a way that people are amazed. Our lives should cause people

to wonder. Mother Teresa didn't attract young women to join with her by preaching. They

saw her ministering to the poorest of the poor in the sewers of Calcutta when no one else

cared. They saw how happiness and joy filled her life and their hearts reached out with desire

to have what she had.

The only groups of people who actively work to convert others, especially through

preaching, are fundamentalists. They are right and everyone else is wrong. To them, what

you believe is more important than how you live. Christian fundamentalists preach if you

haven't accepted Jesus as your savior, you will not be saved. It doesn't matter how good you

are, how loving you act, how committed you are to people; if you don't believe what they

believe, your life is of no value and you are bound for a certain future of hellfire. For them,

there is only one way to salvation. They are the modern Pharisees.

Fundamentalism is designed for those who want to check their brain and pick up their

crayons as they enter the church door. Fundamentalism paints the world in black and white.

There are no shadings, no grays. Fundamentalism tells you the answer; and as long as you

accept it, your actions are a secondary matter. People who "convert" online are looking for

someone to give them easy answers to questions like: How did I get here? Where am I going?

What is my purpose in life? What happens after I die? They are looking for someone to

provide the answers. If you accept someone else's answers to these questions, you've given up

your greatest gift from God, your power of reason. Many of those who willingly drank down

the Koolaid at Jonestown found it scarier to reject Jim Jones' answers than to go on living.

People who convert online face the same dilemma. Once they buy into the sermons and

answers, they find a comfort level of assurance which forces them to accede to the demands

of the person they now follow even if that means recruiting others or carrying out acts of

violence. No request or requirement is too outrageous.

The fact remains that most Americans are religiously illiterate. They believe the way

they do because of parents, grandparents, culture, or accommodation. They have never

personally wondered about life or love or reached out to know God. This is a nation of

cultural "Christians" for whom it is easier to go along than to struggle for the truth; and since

they have no solid spiritual foundation, they become dissatisfied or disillusioned with their

lives. When times turn bad, they then seek new answers and give over more of their power

and influence to whoever will offer them comfort; not a pretty picture, pointless and hopeless.

I am a Catholic because it makes sense to me. The rituals and sacraments connect me

with others and enable me to try to live the best life I can. I want to cope with life's good days

and bad days. I desire to live as honestly and honorably as the people who I admire and love.

I want to have life and live life to its fullest. At the end of the day, the ripples I leave behind

matter more than any doctrine I believe or assent to. Perhaps we should be working on how

to live full, joyful lives for ourselves rather than hoping to find salvation online. In any case,

turning people into "convertibles" doesn't hold much appeal to me. A good automobile is

a good automobile. Whether or not the top folds down is totally superficial in God's eyes.

What do you think? I welcome your comments and rebuttals. Please send them to

lionoftheleft@gmail.com

IF YOU BUILD IT THEY WILL COME

The government of Israel has decided it does not have to make peace with the Palestinians.

They have made a political calculation that no matter what they do, no matter what policies

they institute; the United States will go along. They have decided against a two-state solution

to the Palestinian problem; and so far their calculations appear to be correct.

Vice President Biden had just arrived in Israel to make nice, only to be greeted with the

announcement that Israel intends to build 1600 housing units in East Jerusalem. Secretary

of State Hillary Clinton called the announcement "an insult". Palestinian President Abbas

refused to participate, even indirectly, with any peace talks. All the work by Mideast envoy

George Mitchell to bring the two sides together has gone up in smoke. The Israeli strategy

is quite simple. They will build thousands of housing units in East Jerusalem, the West Bank,

and the occupied territories. Jewish families will move in, effectively annexing the land for

the Palestinians. So, whatever two-state solution might be reached in the future, these lands

will be, by necessity, off the negotiating table. The Palestinian demand that East Jerusalem

be the capital of their new state would be moot with tens of thousands of Israelis living on

the disputed land.

For more than a year, the Obama Administration has called for a total freeze on new

settlement construction. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has refused to freeze

settlements; offering instead a ten month partial moratorium on settlements in the West Bank

and now proposes new construction projects in East Jerusalem despite outrage by Secretary

Clinton and President Obama. He firmly announced that he will not back down.

President Obama is said to be "really angry". Secretary of State Clinton is said to be

"offended". And what is the result of all this anger and offense? Secretary Clinton gave a speech

to AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) in which she assured supporters of

Israel that America is still their strongest ally and will remain so. This little kerfluffle did

nothing to upset the diplomatic apple cart. The little show of "anger"and "offense" produced

nothing except that American officials were quick to go out of their way to assure everyone

the security issues that both Israel and America adhere to have not been damaged. A small

matter, like a married couple having a fight over who takes out the garbage, nothing more.

Strange, but sadly true.

So, the "Israeli calculation" is correct. There is nothing Israel can do which would cause

America to respond in a punitive manner. There is no penalty for slowly taking more and

more Palestinian land. They will suffer no negative consequences if peace talks do not resume.

The United States will continue to funnel billions of dollars in foreign aid to Israel and will

continue making loan guarantees so that Israel can purchase weapons and armaments. The

United States will do nothing no matter what provocation Israel decides to engage in.

Let's review Israel's political "calculation". The "Israeli calculation" is based on the not

so well known fact that the U.S. pro-Israel lobby is the most powerful lobby group in our

country. It's also a not so well known fact that no American politician can be elected to office

who is not pro-Israel. The sad fact is that no American president can survive in office if he

takes on the pro-Israel lobby. So, despite statistics showing that for every Israeli killed by

a terrorist rocket or bomb, over 600 Palestinians are killed; despite invasions of Lebanon

and Gaza, invasions which raised cries of serious human rights violations; despite Israel's

possession of nuclear weapons and their willful refusal to sign the nuclear non-proliferation

treaty (which our own law requires the United States to cut off aid to any nation refusing

to sign); despite all of this and despite expanding illegal settlements, taking Palestinian land,

and building a wall through Palestinian settlements; Israel has NEVER suffered a single

sanction or penalty. All this, plus American presidents have gone so far as to state that an

attack on Israel will be treated like an attack on the United States. We are inextricably

entangled in this foreign alliance.

The continuing plight of the Palestinians is one of the major recruiting tools used by

our enemies, including al Qaeda, in their war of terror. United States General David Petraeus

is on the record stating the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is a key element

of the violence in Arab and Muslim countries directed against the United States and we

cannot bring stability to the region if this problem is not solved. The lack of a two-state

solution is cited in Arab capitals as proof of the hypocrisy of American values. The lack of

any consequence for Israeli actions is proof in many people's eyes that the United States is

not an honest broker when it comes to the interests of Israel versus the Palestinians.

News reports say Netanyahu is between a rock and a hard place. They say he has to please

the regressive elements of his coalition while not alienating Israel's most important ally.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. Netanyahu knows no matter what he or his

government decides, it will not result in any substantive negative reaction from the United

States. He knows he can invade neighboring countries, invade Gaza, expand illegal settlements,

build in East Jerusalem, and nothing will happen. Unfortunately, the rest of the world knows

this too; and that knowledge fuels an anger and passion which will not abate and fuels

irrational behavior such as suicide bombings and terrorist activities.

Israel has every right to exist in peace. There is no justification for the killing of innocent

Israeli citizens. The United States has an obligation to ally with all democratic governments

and an obligation to assist Israel in resisting armed aggression against its territory. However,

the subservient role the United States assumes vis-a-vis Israel doesn't serve our long-term

national interests in the Arab world. And it certainly doesn't serve our interests in Iraq,

Afghanistan, or Pakistan.

Israel, knowing they are immune to sanctions and penalties, causes that nation to take

chances in the pursuit of policies contrary to our national interests. Worse still, it has lulled

them into a false sense of security that cannot continue indefinitely. Will the 1600 housing

units be built in East Jerusalem? Yes. Will settlements continue to expand in the West Bank?

Yes. Will Palestinian land continue to shrink? Yes. Will the United States do anything about

this? What do you think? I welcome your comments and rebuttals. Please send them to

lionoftheleft@gmail.com