Is America a Christian nation? What if one of our Presidents had been a Primitive Baptist from Tennessee? Should he have felt right about insisting that no citizen play musical instruments in church or hand out temperance society tracts?

Would Americans have approved of anyone who had insisted that we were, and should act like, a Primitive Baptist nation? A Baptist nation? A Protestant nation? A Christian nation?

Actually, in the greater scope and scale of history, this continent has only very, very recently changed from being a collection of native tribal civilizations. We are presently a diverse nation of immigrants.

The framers of our constitution were careful to draft a secular document that gives our government authority drawn exclusively from the people. It is structured to actively resist the overriding influence of any special-interest group without having to resort to another revolution.

Our elected President is expected to represent all Americans. He is responsible for managing a civil society that protects life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all of us. Modern civilizations like ours work best when no social class, race, religion, or business interest is allowed to cause others to be oppressed.

President Obama does, in fact, have the benefit of teaching constitutional law for over a decade. This has given him a profound understanding of the balances that must be maintained for the health and growth of this nation.

As for Obama’s personal faith, Christianity Today published an interview in 2008 and quoted him: “I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life.”

President Obama, has a lifetime disposition of seeking to find common ground between people. He promotes sincere respect within a healthy discussion of issues, including faith, in our pluralistic society.

To achieve this goal, he believes that, during public debate, religious people should translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific values. [Whitehouse.gov] He has also been pointedly frank about telling liberals that they “must put aside any religious biases, and reach out to others, including evangelical Christians, as a reconciling essential in a democracy.” [June 28, 2006]

We may, in our pursuit of happiness, seek out and associate within communities of people like ourselves. However, this does not diminish our responsibility to respect, honor, and defend those with different faiths.

We should take care to not aggressively thrust our private values or religious symbols into the face of others. The fact that the faiths of others are different from our own does not mean that they are without values or have no goodness.

It is precisely our diversity that, bound together like a bundle of sticks, strengthens our nation to bend without breaking. We should be determined to treat all neighbors as we would want them to treat us – to, as far as it depends on us, live at peace with all men.

©2012, David Satterlee

 

It has been suggested that I sound “too preachy.” Yeah, that should have been expected. Let me introduce myself a little more to those of my neighbors who, so far, have only smiled and waved.

As you probably have noticed, there’s nothing like a conservative preacher, any teacher, or a flaming liberal, to tell you just how things ought to be.

First, I was actually the closest thing to a conservative preacher in my young manhood. I was raised in a fundamentalist, evangelical Christian faith that believed in the ordination of all lay ministers. During that time, I led adult Bible study groups every week for years. For the record, the brotherhood and I eventually saw fit to part ways.

Second, I have also regularly taught children and adults. I spent almost two decades in computer work for Amoco Oil Company, where I designed and led many technical classes. Next, I spent a decade as an herbalist – telling people how to live. I was also a substitute teacher for several years and am married to a career public school teacher.

While I was with Amoco, they gave me a series of career-development psychology tests. In one of them, my top two archetype identifications were found to be “Evangelist” and “Warrior.” That was tough news for someone with social anxieties.

The counselor had a hard time putting his finger on my potential. He mumbled his way through the obvious, but I knew he was thinking: missionary to the heathens, tilting at windmills, and questing hero. In the end, Amoco buried me deep in the corners of several computer rooms. I managed to make trouble anyway.

And finally, in case you haven’t noticed, I’ve become that odd duck in the middle of rural Iowa, a flaming liberal. Find me a tree and I’ll hug it. Fear not, my good neighbors. I am a gentle soul and, as my wife says, “the nicest man I’ve ever met.” I’ll put it out there and you can buy it or not. I quit putting my foot in actual doors a long time ago. Love, DavidS

©2012, David Satterlee

 

I would like to say a few nice things about the Girl Scouts.

In recent news, Bob Morris, A conservative State Representative from Indiana, made headlines by writing in a letter that the Girl Scouts were “quickly becoming a tactical arm of Planned Parenthood” and were being “subverted in the name of liberal progressive politics and the destruction of the traditional American family values.” There is more, but it starts to get truly ugly.

The fact of the matter is that the Girl Scouts are a fine, conservative, 100-year old organization with the ambition to: “help girls develop self-confidence and good decision-making skills that will help them make wise choices in all areas of their lives.” They believe that girls deserve to be educated, informed, and involved in society – that they should be “given the opportunity to develop physically, mentally, and spiritually.”

Naturally, we have to understand that, 100 years ago, these were all radical, liberal, progressive notions. In America, women weren’t allowed the right to vote until 1920. They were often expected to remain “barefoot and pregnant” or be the “perfect housekeeper” until well into the 1950s (or even later, depending on where you live.)

The first Girls Scout meeting was organized on March 12, 1912 when Juliette Gordon Low brought eighteen girls together. One hundred years later, 2012 is “The Year of the Girl.” It is estimated that 50 million women in the United States today have been Girl Scouts.

Last year, I had occasion to take a picture of our local troop. They insisted that the American flag, along with their Promise and Law be displayed with them.

The Girl Scout Law is: “I will do my best to be honest and fair, friendly and helpful, considerate and caring, courageous and strong, and responsible for what I say and do, and to respect myself and others, respect authority, use resources wisely, make the world a better place, and be a sister to every Girl Scout.”

I think that we should honor and support these traditions and values of Girl Scouts locally and nationally.

©2012, David Satterlee

 

I was discussing the concept of  “developmental levels of worldview” with a friend. She keep wanting to imagine that my description of a hierarchical, predictable sequence of developmental stages suggested increasing “smartness” or “betterness.” I was having trouble getting across the ideas that any worldview stage is perfectly fine so long as it serves the needs of your current circumstances and does not oppress others.

Eventually, I suggested that progressive developmental levels was like a progressive experience of elephants:
[This does not accurately represent my belief system; it’s just an imaginary hierarchy of experience.]

  • What’s an elpherbunt? (simply no clue)
  • I have heard of elephants.
  • I have read a story about elephants. (unable to independently anticipate the experience of an elephant’s subsonic rumbles)
  • I have seen an elephant at the circus.
  • I have watched elephants at the zoo. (the most common limit to likely developmental stages)
  • I have lived with elephants in the wild. (few people would even imagine that anything more was possible)
  • I have memories of being an elephant.
  • I have always been an elephant. (few elephants would even imagine that anything more was possible)
  • I am the race memory of all elephants.
  • I Am that I Am. (God’s description of himself in Exodus)

Each stage is adequate for the needs of certain individuals in certain circumstances.

At each stage, some greater [effort or] involvement has been achieved to have had a larger understanding.

At each stage, it is difficult to explain the experience adequately to some who has not been there.

At each stage, it is difficult to imagine the richness of knowing involved in additional stages.

I’m not suggesting that all of these stages are actually plausible for an individual. But, then again, how could you actually be certain of that unless you were I Am?

 

If you don’t already know, Stratfor is a private company, founded by George Friedman, that gathers international intelligence and creates reports which they sell to individual subscribers, businesses, and governments. They have been in the news recently because their data and email were seriously hacked. This is very interesting and sensitive stuff. WikiLeaks is publishing excerpts, and it is a big deal. Stratfor is being straightforward about the event, fixing the problem with a vengeance, and offering their clients extra value. I subscribe to their free newsletter and love it. I also love Friedman’s recent books including “The Next Decade” and “The Next 100 Years.”

I picked up my copy of the Fort Dodge Messenger this morning (Friday, March 9, 2012) and flipped to the editorials on page four. They are often more entertaining than the comics. Rachel Marsden’s column “The new WikiLeaks stash” jumped right out and grabbed me. Sure enough, it was a critical (if not gloating) diatribe [yes, I admit to taking an emotionally-charged swing at some things myself] against Stratfor. The topic seemed out of place in Fort Dodge, Iowa. [Admittedly, I’m kinda out of place too. If there is anyone else around here who takes an interest in Stratfor or issues of global geopolitical existentialism, please introduce yourself; we probably ought to meet.]

First, if you don’t already know, Rachel Marsden describes herself as a: "political/geopolitical and communications strategist/analyst, Radio/TV presenter, internationally syndicated columnist with (Chicago) Tribune Company, author, and speaker.” Whew. I’ve read that she is Canadian and lives in Paris (France, not Texas). Rachel has been compared to Ann Coulter and has done work for Fox News, Spectator Magazine, The O’Reilly Factor, the New York Post, Washington Times, and conservative politicians.

Ms. Marsden also has a new book called American Bombshell, which  prominently [The entire cover, actually] displays her attractive face and flowing dark tresses with the title information plastered across her chest. I’m not suggesting that there is something wrong with any of this, and I haven’t read the book. I suspect that the book addresses serious explosive national and international issues, and that the subliminal implication that Rachel is an “American Bombshell” is entirely unintentional. But, I’m drifting into Rush Limbaugh territory here, so let’s backpedal real fast and move on.

In today’s column, Rachel reviews recent Stratfor events and then begins to pick at the fatty pieces [I visualize a vulture ripping at road kill]. Her second paragraph leads with a statement about the CIA using private intelligence firms for “black ops” in a way that seems to imply that Stratfor is involved in killing people for hire. Does she really think that or is she just shredding a victim? Not nice, smarty pants.

My favorite rant (a real beaut) is buried in the middle of the piece:

  • “Do you know how a lot of these outfits in the thriving private intelligence sector operate? The company CEO, usually a former agency employee who has maintained UMBRA or “Top Secret” clearance, meets with a private or state client to pitch his outfit’s services, then passes off the analysis work to some book-smart/sidewalk-stupid naif who has just been dragged kicking and screaming into the real-world workforce after frittering away a good decade or so ringing up a party tour of Ivy League schools on mommy and daddy’s AmEx black card.”

You know, I just somehow doubt the objectivity at work here. Smarty pants may even have her pants on fire. It’s an impressively mind-numbing run-on sentence that runs you over and sets your hair on fire. For another thing, it sounds a lot like a liberal’s take on George W. Bush’s early years. But, that’s another story.

How do you answer a statement like that? How about: “Um, what are your sources for that and how did you come to that conclusion?”

I also want to ask, “As an advocate for conservative causes, such as private business contracts to replace big government control of the means of serving public interests, aren’t you eating one of your own sacred cows?”

 

I found a relatively new poster at open.salon.com. http://open.salon.com/blog/not2late4 She writes with thoughtful passion about ways that she has had to face and reason about controversial situations. It turns out that I was the first one to “favorite” her and we exchanged several messages. She was distressed by the strong anger that one her articles had provoked and was considering withdrawing from the site. I hope that she will carry on.

Dear Kat,
People who write like you do are really annoying. This is actually a good thing. Don’t worry about it. Keep it up. Perfect your art. I got a bumper sticker for my wife’s car that said, "Well behaved women seldom make history." Margaret Mead is quoted as saying, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."  You may also draw more encouragement from http://herestothecrazyones.com/ As an award-winning elementary school teacher, my wife always kept the quote prominently framed on a wall … at student’s eye level.

If you read some of my stuff posted at SocioDynamics.org (some of which is cross-posted at open.salon) you will see that I have been wrestling with the questions of why some people are persistently fearful, angry, ignorant, or bigoted. I’ve found many answers in the science of psychosocial development. Unfortunately, the answers point to the fact that, in sequential developmental stages, there will just be things that many people can’t understand yet. And, they will dislike you intensely for discussing those things.

Introducing a new idea is, for them, like bringing a new cat into the house. There is no, hello-how-do-you-do. There is just reflexive hissing, arched backs, and hair on end. But, in time, it (usually) settles down to shared naps in the sunny spot on the floor. If there is hope for cats, there is hope for the public discourse of ideas… and maybe even all of humanity.

 

I favor leaving Rush Limbaugh on the air. I declined to sign a petition asking Clear Channel Communications to remove him. Rush is endlessly fascinating. It’s kind of like staring at the snakes at the zoo, watching a street fight, or lingering at the scene of a train wreck. You know you shouldn’t, but you just can’t seem to look away.

Shock jock Howard Stern keeps his audience in the same way. Oh yes, there are the supporters who simply align with everything he says, but… It seems that, whether they like Howard or not, most tune in “to see what he will say next.”

Limbaugh is an embarrassing caricature of the hate and bigotry embraced by too many conservatives. He seems to enlarge and amplify their basest attitudes. He’s the kind of influence my Mother warned me against when she said, “Bad associations spoil useful habits.” Of course, Limbaugh positions himself as the Grand Defender of Virtue, but that’s another story… That is what he thinks, and that is what my Mom thought. Mom wins.

Some listeners are embracing Rush’s message but the bad behavior of “dittoheads” is alienating independents. [For what it’s worth, Google “dittoheads.” You will find some very creative and entertaining send-ups of the phenomenon.] The Urban Dictionary points out the obvious; blind, unthinking, following without question. There is a satirical 12-step program for dittoheads. The good times just keep rolling.

Other listeners are uncomfortable and defecting from his program. In fact, as of this writing, an explosion of advertisers are also rejecting his show.

Finally, Limbaugh is energizing liberals. He is standing in the open, drawing lightening to himself. Just as Republicans cynically energize the bigotry of their base by giving them people and ideas to hate, Rush is out there painting targets on himself every day.

Rush is wrong. Rush is a train wreck. And, if you don’t believe me, ask your Mother… or Al Franken. Let him rant. Let him be the shining public example of everything that you no longer want to be. Don’t go over to the dark side of the force. Go to the light.

 

When did they decide that, because I’m a “liberal” that I like taxes? Hell, no! I don’t like taxes at all. But, here’s the difference. I know that I like what my taxes get for me.

I like my public library and the first responders who came when I needed them. I like free public schools, the teachers that inspired me, and the gifted teacher that my wife used to be. I like highways and bridges and reservoirs. I like clean water and clean air and fewer potholes.

I know that I don’t like having to do every fool thing for myself. I like the rule of law that says some gang can’t just waltz into my house, shoot me in the head, and take whatever they want. Granted, it sometimes happens, but not very often, and there are consequences.

So, not being stupid, I don’t want no government. I don’t want to “reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub” [Grover Norquist]. I want better government — government that is open, transparent, and efficient. I want regulations that help keep things fair and balanced. I want protections from toxic waste dumps, exploitation of children, and exorbitant banking fees.

How bad is it? I enjoyed the colorful description offered by the author of “Are We Too Dumb for Democracy?” – “Our democratic government is like a college grad’s first apartment. There’s crap everywhere, no one picks anything up, and there’s a slow-motion decay of apathy, carelessness, and confusion.” Plenty of fixing to do.

It gets worse. Our government is showing signs of becoming self-destructive. For instance, the willingness of House Republicans to default on our debts. They also refuse to vote on legislative ideas that they had previously endorsed because,this time,it came from the White House.

I have run across startling metaphors for this self-destructive trend:

  • “Circular firing squad”
  • “Has the Republican Party become a death cult? “
  • “…it certainly looks and sounds like a suicide pact has secretly been signed”
  • “…refuse to grab the lifeline that President Barack Obama threw them”
  • Scott Brown… drank the Kool-Aid, Jonestown-style

To the GOP: Lead, follow, or get out of the way. And, tear up your signed no-new-taxes pledges of allegiance to Grover Norquist.

To the DCCC: If you want a clear board to play on, run an every-state, every-district, everything-you-can-tilt campaign. We will help, but it will help to show us the danger. Like the Republicans, we get more excited when we feel the adrenaline of fear. It’s not pretty. It’s not what we’re about. But, you know I’m right.

To everybody else: Please spend time getting broadly informed. Don’t just parrot someone else’s talking points. Find out how it all works together so that we can all work together. Figure out what new problems will appear as unintended consequences of your favorite policy ideas. Now you’re getting ready. Get involved. Get results.

 

I found this posted on the information board at my US Post Office in Dayton, Iowa, 50530 on March 2, 2012. There were also three modified cartoons referring to President Obama, fried chicken, watermelon, and black salami. I thought that the cartoons were inappropriate and offensive to public decency; I removed them.

The threat letter seemed more personal, so I added my answer and left it there. I will transcribe the notes for your convenience.

The original message was: “What do you call 20,000 liberals in the bottom of the ocean? A good start. Liberalism is a mental disorder”

My answer reads: “Please, don’t just threaten me with drowning and post anonymous racist hate cartoons against our elected President in a US Post Office. Make your case, explain your issues, and give practical ideas for improvement… and please have the courage to sign your name. With sincere best wishes, Your neighbor, David Satterlee”

Frankly, I worry that the threat could get personal. It may already be personal: I’ve had an Obama 2012 poster in my front window for weeks.

Having lived in this small rural town for only two years, I’m still a bit of an outsider. I’ve improved the old 1880s workman’s Victorian that we bought and joined the Lion’s Club until my social anxieties got too severe. I smile and speak kindly at every opportunity, and wrote a series of positive local feature articles for the Dayton Review until I had a stroke last year.

The editor of the Dayton Review has encouraged me to begin submitting an opinion column, which I can write from home without running all over to take interview notes. I plan to feature liberal ideas explained in terms and values that conservatives claim as their exclusive own.

It occurs to me that my openness may fan the flames among those who are prone to reflexive hate. I could just hide in the shadows, cringing and hoping that no one will notice me or be mean to me. But, I am aware of the courage of those great souls who spoke out to end slavery, gain the vote for women, oppose the baron kings and their trusts, and march for civil rights.

As a child in school, I was raised in a particularly rigid, conservative, Christian faith. I remember how it was to be the object of hate, bullying, and abuse. I learned to run fast. No more. I’m going to stand fast. Bullies should be faced down. I’m tired of this shit and I’m not going to take it any more.

I’ve spent decades trying to figure out all the things I didn’t learn as a closed-minded conservative. I started with all the self-improvement and pop psychology books. I graduated to social psychology, Eastern religions, and theories of human development. These past four years, I’ve concentrated on figuring out the difference between Republicans and Democrats. I came out of the process as a generally-tolerant, love-thy-neighbor, but still-evangelical liberal. But, I still can’t feel good about hate, disrespect, and bullying.

‘nuf said.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

 

It was getting late on a cold Iowa afternoon when I stopped for a hitchhiker. After putting his three heavy bags into the back, settling in, and thanking me, he told a story about a conservative town down the road that had confiscated his 3-year companion dog and refused to release it without a $100 ransom that he couldn’t afford. He asked me why I had picked him up. I said, "Well, I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about politics recently and about the differences between liberals and conservatives. I’ve become absolutely certain that we’re all in this together and it really bothers me when people take the attitude that as long as they get theirs, everybody else can go to heck." He replied, "Yeah, I figured you were a good guy when I saw your Obama bumper sticker."

© 2012 David Satterlee - Blogs Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha

Switch to our mobile site