Wulfie's Wurld

Editorial: A Christian US?

I heard something on the radio a few days back that I'd like to discuss. A couple of moderate conservatives were discussing the subject that I found strange for several reasons. First, as a moderate conservative myself, I find it rare to find moderates of any flavor on the radio. Second, the station that broadcast this also broadcasts Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Brian Sussman and other radical non-moderates. Third, they broached a subject I happened to have been griping about for years and thought I was alone. I call it the polarization of America. I've also heard it called the "bi-polarization of America." They shed an interesting light on the subject.

The US of A is ostensibly a Christian nation. If we consider the fact that 85% of our country is Christian, and that at 224 million, these Christians number almost twice as many as the next country down on the list, we can see that both domestically and internationally, the Christian aspect is very important. I am not a Christian, but that's okay. I have the same rights as they have, and indeed, some of my best Christians are friends.

One of my Christian friends recently wrote to me how Paul placed Christian "Love" or "agape" above both faith and hope, and that faith and hope were subordinate to Love. Whether you agree with that assessment of Paul or not, I think it would be safe to say that Love is pretty important to Christians. "He that loveth not, knoweth not God, for God is love." 1 John 4:8 (I may not be a Christian, but I still know how to read.) In fact the nominal founder of Christianity had this to say: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you . . . " Matt 5:44

As they suggested on the radio program, Christian love is about loving the unlovable. Personally, I find that a bit much, but then, I'm not a Christian. I don't have to love the unlovable. Christians, apparently, do.

I follow a few political blogs and forums, and often listen to radio programs from both sides of the spectrum. For example, for every minute I spend with Sean Hannity, I spend a minute with Randi Rhodes, and vice versa. For every minute with Rush, I spend a minute with Al Franken. To do anything less is unconscionable. The trends I've heard from sides have led to my gripe mentioned above.

When one side speaks about the other, they do not consider that the other is someone who is well-educated, has a job and a family, obeys the law, has the same likes and dislikes as everyone else, and has examined the issues thoroughly. These are people I work with and are neighbors. These people are lovable.

But you don't hear that from the rhetoric of the radio shows and the political forums.

Instead you hear that the other side are evil, or anti-Christian (excuse me, but the last election was like 51% to 49%, not 85% to 15%), or . . . fill in your own invective. The one side is dehumanizing the other side. This is not political discourse as envisioned by our Founding Fathers. This is hate rhetoric. It's purpose is to win over "converts" by encourage hatred of the other side.

This is hatred of the lovables.

When I hear this type of ranting from one side or the other, what am I, a non-Christian, to think of their so-called religion? Do I really believe that they can love the unlovable, if they can't even love those who, for all intents and purposes, are like themselves? I find myself wondering which it is that is failing--the "Noble Experiment" we call Democracy, or Christianity?

Editorial: WMD

Suppose they found the WMD, even at this late date. Suppose there was a "Well whaddaya know, they were buried in Syria all this time!"? What would this mean? Here are some possibilities:

The media would be proven wrong. Duh! It's what they get for making assumptions based upon circumstantial evidence. They should never have stated "there are no WMD," only "WMD haven't been found" and "the White House reported there were no WMD." They can leap to conclusions on the editorial pages.

The White House would be proven to be flip-floppers. Duh again. "There's WMD." "There's no WMD." Is that like voting for WMD before you vote against it?

The Intelligence Community would be embarrassed. Again. Who the hell is giving them their marching orders? Some moron? Are they spending gazillions on satellites and not the few thousands on clerks and translators? Where the heck was the NSA and their phone taps during all this?

Saddam (on cell): Looks like the Infidels are about to invade. Let's move the WMD to Syria.

Flunky (on cell): Right-o. I'll get Boris, Natasha, and Abdul on it.

Abdul (on cell in Syria): You can keep them in my basement.

Or do we have that conversation still on file, still waiting to be translated. Or have they discarded it because it's now so old the value is gone. Wasn't that the problem prior to 9/11? Didn't we have all the pieces, yet not enough clerks to put the pieces together? Has that improved at all?

You know what this also means? That President Bush was not a liar. That's a good thing. It means that he went to war with either faulty or no intelligence. That's a bad thing. That's incompetence on a grand scale. I guess we have to ask ourselves which we would rather have, a competent crook, or a naïve incompetent? If we're talking Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful war machine ever assembled in the history of the planet, I'd have to go with "neither."

Boy, I'm sure glad there are no WMD around to make things all murky and confused.

Editorial: Cartoon Riots

Apparently a discussion between a book publisher and newspaper publisher started this whole thing. The bookies said that people were afraid to do cartoons about Islam. The papies thought they'd experiment. They commissioned 12 cartoons and published them in September 2005. Four to five months later (can anyone say "quick on the draw?) Muslims all over the world began burning Danish flags and embassies. They may have even stopped importing Danish breakfast rolls, who knows? The cartoons depicted Muhammad, considered by Islam to be the last prophet of God.

Does anyone know what Muhammad looks like? I always kind of imagined him to be a guy with a beard and a turban. But then, the Ayatollah Khomeini and Osama bin Laden have beards and turbans. So do several million others. Will the one who really looks like the Prophet Muhammad please stand up? How do we know that the cartoon isn't really depicting Sean Connery as Achmed el-Raisuli from "The Wind and the Lion?"

Muslims don't like the Prophet Muhammad represented in pictures (as in paintings, sculptures, etc.) because they don't want him to be worshipped as some graven image. If now Muslims think that cartoons are some form of blasphemy, I'd have to ask . . . blasphemy against what? If the image of Muhammad, whatever he looks like, is now sacred, haven't you just gone against your own precepts? Are you taking logic lessons from the U.S. government or something?

Can anyone say "sense of humor?"

Can anyone say "get a grip?"

Not that these fundy Muslims will listen. We've been saying the same thing to Congress for years and they haven't listened.

Editorial: Sexual Preferences

I'll admit it. I prefer sex. I prefer having sex over just about any other activity, though not to the point of being the sole focus. And, all other things equal, I'll prefer the brainy one over the dumb one, the cheerful one over the grumpy one, and the pretty one over the one structurally challenged.

I cannot glibly say, however, that I prefer women over men.

You see, it's not a preference. It's hard-wired in me. For me, it's women or nothing. I can imagine me imagining having sex with even the dumb, grumpy, and less than attractive women. I cannot imagine having sex with a guy. The thought to me is disgusting and turns my stomach. And you know, the same thing applies to having sex with animals, children, guns, and other inanimate objects. Yuck and double-yuck. That's simply not how my genetic code has been wired.

I'm what you might call "normal," that is, my wiring schematic falls within two standard deviations of the norm.

Not everyone is normal. Some do not fall within those two standard deviations. They are abnormal. But the abnormal, the mutants, the deviants, and so on, are all part of nature. Natural, but not normal.

So how does that affect us normies? It shouldn't, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. If someone is too young to make an informed decision, or too incapacitated, or too ill-informed, the deviants need to keep their hands (or other body parts) off. It's that simple.

In the US, everyone, and that includes deviants, has the right to be treated equally under the law. If they hurt another because of their hard-wiring, we should come down hard upon them. If they do not hurt another, no matter what their wiring, we should not meddle. What goes on between someone and an amorous consenting vacuum cleaner in the privacy of their home is no business of mine. Nor is it the business of yours or the government's.

Now, in case you haven't sussed this out yet, that means that gays and lesbians, as long as their partners are consenting and informed adults, should have every single right and privilege as the rest of us. Why punish them for their hard-wiring and your tummy-turn attitude? Whom do they hurt? If you feel what they do is a sin, wouldn't that be between them and God? If you or your pastor or your dogma don't believe in marrying them, by all means don't. But leave the government out of this.

And if someone is hard-wired to be a child molester, so what? As long as they don't hurt any children, what do we care?