As I’m writing and editing this, it’s approaching the one-year anniversary of Dawn’s death. I lost my life partner, travel companion, adviser, and cheerleader for the second time in the almost thirty years we were together. I initially started to lose her ten years ago when we received a diagnosis that reshaped and controlled our lives until her death on Christmas Eve, 2022. Alzheimer’s.

As I try to think about where I am in the grieving process, it has to start back then-ten years ago. After hearing the doctor deliver that devastating diagnosis, I tried to learn as much as I could about the disease, how it progresses and the impact it may have on us as we lived our daily lives. I think that I hoped learning about it, going to seminars and classes would somehow makes things easier or at least insulate me a little from its effects. It didn’t.

The last couple of years were the worst. The joy she found in the things we did together had disappeared and her dimpled smiles were rare. The terrible disease was robbing me of her, and the subtle shadows of grief were becoming sharp and distinct. The pretending that today would be better than yesterday didn’t work anymore. Today was often noticeably worse than yesterday. My life and the grief I had accompanying my terrible loss was often overshadowed by the physical need to care for her and the resentment that it had come to this. I soldiered on but was a mess of conflicting emotions.

Dawn was placed in a hospice facility after falling hard and hitting her head a year ago. Her two sons and I tag teamed it so she was never alone in the facility for the eight days until she died. I was sitting next to her bed holding her hand when she took her last labored breath late on Christmas Eve. Even though I knew this was what would happen, I was stunned. Almost numb. I didn’t break into sobbing tears like in the movies. I remember kissing her and telling her she had a “great run”. I may have prayed; I probably did but I don’t remember.

I stayed with her for about another hour before I left for the drive back to my apartment over deserted and snow-covered roads. It was about 1 AM Christmas morning and I was glad I was totally alone and no one could see me.

The days before her funeral, which was delayed due to weather, the holidays, and travel considerations, weren’t rushed. Arrangements were made and her sons and I moved her things out of the care facility she had lived in for the last four months. I remember wondering if I was grieving “correctly”. I felt guilty that I had a sense of relief. Dawn’s torture and anguish were over as well as my ordeal of being a 24/7 caregiver. What did those feelings mean? Was I a bad person? Shouldn’t I be crying all the time? I was conflicted and just waited.

The funeral was a typical January winter day in Michigan: grey and cold. The mass was a fitting celebration. And then the casket was placed in the hearse, and she was gone. Really gone.

I don’t remember too much about the next few months. Close friends invited me up north for a few days and I flew to Tucson to see one of my daughter’s. My children were attentive and tried to make sure I was ok. I visited Dawn’s grave several times in the cold and mud, but I was never sure why. I felt physically weak, maybe from an ailment I fight made worse by my emotional drifting.

I began receiving mailings on dealing with grief from my parish, the hospice organization that cared for Dawn, and even the funeral home that handled the arrangements. I signed up for a weekend grief workshop. And all of the time I’m wondering: what am I supposed to be doing? Should I be crying more, praying more, avoiding people, making more trips to the cemetery or maybe just trying to be more pitiful?

But none of that fit. I’d been grieving losing her day by day for over nine years. I mourned her loss, but I was kind of tapped out. I wasn’t feeling as bad as I thought I should. I could tear up thinking of her and even sob over silly things like when I donated her home office chair she sat in while working all those years on her degrees. I had started missing her a little bit at a time years ago, but now all that incremental missing was over. Now I just missed her.

Good old Charlie Brown from the Peanuts comic strip used to say “Good Grief” often when he felt exasperated, or things were beyond his control. Things were seemingly way out of control but then, probably aided by the passing of time, I stumbled into “Good Grief”; not the Charlie Brown kind but the restorative, resolute kind. I resolved to always miss her but to always be thankful for our life together. I resolved not to dismiss the sad feelings, but to always remember the happiness she brought into my life. I resolved to not dwell on loss, but to remember how my life became much better after I met her.

When we were both still working, we would always kiss goodbye in the morning and if one of us was anticipating a difficult situation or decision that day, we would remind each other to face the day and its challenges with “courage, confidence and joy”. That often proved easier to say than implement but it was a regular affirmation we gave each other to remind us we were in this life together. I now don’t often remember those three words, but when I do, it brings a smile to my face. They remind me to cherish the memory but to always accept the new day and life with “courage, confidence and joy”.

So where does this rambling essay that is in need of a good editor leave me? Well, I still feel the need to visit Dawn for a good talk a couple of times a month and have even thrown a folding lawn chair in the back of the car to make the visits more comfortable. I look forward to visiting places that were special to us, not in a macabre way, but to have fun and relive pleasant times. I’ve rekindled old friendships and relationships which help me appreciate the present and look forward to tomorrow. I try not to canonize Dawn in my mind, but to remember her as always trying to do the best she could with what she had been given-sometimes successfully and sometimes, as with all of us, regretting that she hadn’t done better. I think I’ve progressed to “Good Grief”; the kind that smiles more often than cries, remembers and appreciates things as they were and looks forward to tomorrow.

Amo, Amas, Amat

I spent two torturous years in high school taking Latin.  It was required to graduate and no other languages were offered (Catholic High Schools in the late 50’s).  I remember something about Latin being the “foundation of Western European languages” and the basis for innumerable English words.  Mastering it would be a great help to me throughout life.

I never mastered Latin, being passed by teachers mainly wishing not to prolong either their own agony or mine.  Subsequently, I  missed out on the great help it would have been to me for the last 62 years since that final class of my sophomore year.  But I did remember a few things and amo, amas, amat are three of them.  These are the first, second and third person singular, present active indicative conjunction, of the Latin verb for love, amo.  You might imagine from that description why Latin and I didn’t get along.  Somehow, this brings me around to “keeping Christ in Christmas”.

This is the time of the year when we start to see little magnetic manger scenes with “Keep Christ in Christmas” printed on them strategically placed on the backs of $50,000 SUV’s.  My local Catholic parish sells them as a fundraiser.  Truthfully, I’ve never engaged any drivers of these vehicles to ask them who might be removing Christ or if He was abandoning the day on His own volition and this was a marketing attempt to to drum up support to encourage Him to stay. It apparently started after legal challenges in the 1980’s concerning nativity scenes (creches) on public property met with mixed rulings concerning the promotion of a religion, Christianity, and most government units apparently stopped the practice to avoid litigation.  The increased use by some of a “Happy Holidays” greeting in lieu of “Merry Christmas” so as to be inclusive and avoid possibly offending an ever-increasing population of non-believers while still covering all the bases raised the ire of some Christians even more.  The “Christian” holiday was being subverted by politically correct liberals who were trying to remove Christ all together and make it a secular holiday.  As expected, no controversy goes unchallenged.  A 2005 book, conservative talk radio, and a now infamous FOX news personality elevated it to a substantial cultural war.  President Trump famously declared he was putting Christ back in Christmas and was cheered by his cohorts.  I somehow missed that moment as I seem to remember being overwhelmed by the vitriol he seemed to be continually spewing from his mouth.  But then, perception often overcomes reality.

With plenty of pandemic induced time on my hands, I’ve been expending more effort trying to get a better understanding of my own spirituality (see my previous effort on religion for an earlier attempt) and what it really means to say you are a Christian.  Any insights might help in trying to determine if I should buy a magnet and display it on the back of my car. At this point in the essay, I have to decide whether to write a few thousand more words or cut to the chase.  Let’s go with the latter.

Let me briefly state a few facts as well as a couple of inciteful (I think) observations.

1. We don’t know the date Christ was born.  His birth certificate must have been lost when the Romans sacked Jerusalem in 70AD.  The December 25th date coincides with the celebration of pagan sun gods and may have been chosen to provide an alternative for the newly Christianized Roman Empire in the 4th century.  There are several other theories but all point to the idea that the date is arbitrary.  If shepherds were really present as the evangelist Luke notes, a more probable time might be in September or October when sheep were still in the fields prior to winter.
2. Christmas is not the most important Christian feast; Easter is.  If we want to get into a theological morass, the feast of the Annunciation on March 25 when God became Incarnate (man) may be a more significant feast.
3. Only Mathew and Luke have birth narratives in their gospels.  The event didn’t rate a mention by Mark or John.
4. Paul, the great apostle, makes little of the birth of Jesus.
5. The religiously pious Puritans actually outlawed Christmas from 1659 to 1681.
6. The bible does not say Jesus was born in a stable, so our traditional nativity scenes are mostly a mythical creation.  The first nativity scene may have been made by St Francis of Assisi in 1223 in an attempt to reemphasize Christmas as “Christ’s-mass” over secular materialism.
7. The Christmas traditions we celebrate today are a combination of celebrations and customs from several European nations: decorated trees from Germany, cards from England, St Nicholas, a gift giving bishop, from what is now Turkey.
8. Probably the greatest contributions to the way Americans currently celebrate Christmas were provided by some short stories from Washington Irving, the popularity of Charles Dicken’s novel “A Christmas Carol”, and of course, Clement Moore’s poem “A Visit from St. Nicholas”, more commonly known by its first line, “Twas the night before Christmas…”.  All were 19th century publications and secular in nature.
9. Christmas was not established as a national holiday until 1870.
10. The “Happy Holidays” greeting now shunned by some aggrieved Christians, is actually based on “Happy Holy Days” which may be preferable to Merry Christmas since it is meant to include all of the Christmas season from the first Sunday of Advent in early December through Epiphany on January 6.
11. The word “Christmas” probably didn’t come into use until the 11th century as a better way to describe the day on which “Christ’s Mass” was celebrated.  Since the mass is a particular Roman Catholic worship service, my protestant evangelical friends will just have to rationalize it.

So, all this brings us back to amo, amas, amat.  As I read The New Testament and see how Christ lived His life and what His core message was, I can only imagine that He is shaking His head and throwing up His arms in disgust.  It’s clear that He puts much more credence on what we do than on what we say.  The Christ in The New Testament demands faith but that is of little consequence if our lives are not dramatically changed by our purported faith and our behaviors do not align with the Greatest Commandment, which all four evangelists record.  I’m paraphrasing, but He insisted that we love God with all we’ve got and love our neighbor as ourselves.  So, it’s not only what we proclaim, but how we live, our deeds and good works, how we look upon and treat others, and how we use the material gifts we are given that will weigh heavily on how we are judged (please read the book).

As we enter a season that many believe commemorates the birth of the Son of God who preached love, it seems like the words or phrases believers, non-believers, agnostics, atheists, and those just trying to be politically correct use to greet me during this season is of little consequence.  What’s more important is my own sense of what it means to set aside a day to celebrate Christ’s birth and how He effects my life.  The trees, gifts, decorations, and magnetic nativity scenes mean nothing if I have lost or maybe never really internalized the meaning and way of life demanded by the “Greatest Commandment”. That “Keep Christ In Christmas” magnet is better placed on the dashboard of my car where I can see it so I can have proper perspective than on the back where it may be a hollow message.

George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegal, a German philosopher who would have been 250 this year, wrote in the preface to his book Elements of the Philosophy of Right in 1821: “The owl of Minerva begins its flight only with the coming of dusk”.  Those who know me will quickly realize I cherry picked the Hegal quote for my own (as of now undisclosed) purposes and never read the book.  They would be right.  In my defense, I have an audio course on philosophy which covered some of his ideas for a full 30 minutes, qualifying me for nothing but cherry picking esoteric quotes .

Now, about Minerva.  I don’t remember ever meeting anyone named Minerva although I might have.  It turns out Minnie Mouse’s original name was Minerva.  I may have met her at Disneyland in 1967 while stationed in California or at Florida’s Disneyworld during one of my three visits since 1980.  In any case, any meeting didn’t make a lasting impression on me and I’m sure it didn’t on Minnie either.  A few ancestors on my mother’s side had Minnie as a shortened version of Wilhemina but no Minervas.

But Hegel’s observation from 1821 provides a great seque for me.  Those familiar with ancient mythology will recognize Minerva as the Roman goddess of wisdom (and a few other things), kind of a do-over god for Athena, the somewhat more ancient Greek goddess with similar attributes.  Minerva was accompanied on her travels by a small owl who became associated with her wisdom.  Owls are nocturnal, taking flight at dusk, so the phrase becomes a metaphor for wisdom and understanding becoming evident toward the end of a nation’s or individual’s days.  In other words, when we are old.

My own assessment of the flight decisions of Minerva’s owl is best described by a great eighteenth century American, Ben Franklin:  “Life’s tragedy is we get old too soon and wise too late”.  Old Ben was not the only notable historical persona to comment on this relationship.

• “Wisdom begins at the end.”  Danial Webster
• “Wisdom is not a product of schooling but a lifelong attempt to acquire it.”  Albert Einstein
• “So, with old age is wisdom and with length of days, understanding.”  Job 12:12

So great Americans, a brilliant scientist, and God’s ever faithful servant Job all seem to agree that as we get older we get wiser.

To be fair, this is not a universally accepted principle.  Socrates thought that:  “The only true wisdom is that you know nothing”, which makes it sound as though growing in wisdom as we age may not mean exactly what we expect.  And of course we have all heard that “… there’s no fool like an old fool”.  So, as I explore my own situation, all of us can individually decide if I can be categorized as “growing in wisdom” as I aged, becoming simply a “wise old fool”, or maybe just becoming an “old fool”.

To see if Minerva’s owl has possibly taken flight in my life, it seems worthwhile to first determine if I am indeed considered old at 75.  The National Center for Health Statistics reports that the current average life expectancy of a newborn male is 76.1 years.  The Social Security Administration indicates that the life expectancy of a male born in 1944, the year of my birth, is 72.   Looking at 5 generations of my male ancestors, the men on my dad’s side lived to be a little over 76 while those on my mom’s side lived to about 80.  While not a very good endorsement of the modern American health care system and discounting the fact that Martha Stewart thinks 70 is the new 50, it appears that the data supports that I am indeed old.

Those who know me may have already properly categorized me in one of the three possibilities I previously noted (growing in wisdom, wise fool, or just an old fool).  Maybe a few aphorisms and observations that are currently floating in my head will help the undecided to determine if I’ve gained any wisdom in my 75 years.  Here goes.

• Being born and raised as a male only child does not properly prepare you for the drama and helpless feeling associated with trying to raise four daughters.
• People around you do not get sick, lose their jobs, or experience a myriad of other life situations just to inconvenience you.
• Shit really does just happen-and often to good people.
• God seems to be pretty indiscriminate in choosing who is rewarded or punished in this life.
• Power and money are the accelerants in a fire more likely to melt your moral base into an unrecognizable and malleable puddle than anneal (harden and strengthen) it.
• The things I thought I would never get enough of when I was 20, sex and money, have been supplanted at 75 by companionship and time.
• The wise old man may say he does not fear death but he’s still pretty apprehensive about the process.
• Parents are more likely to be successful raising their children when they are both reading from the same page of what seems like a 1000 page book of nonfiction.
• Comics are the best part of any newspaper.
• Be suspicious of any absolutes including religious ones.  They tend to vary over time.
• As time marches on, we will all become members of the “good ole days” club.
• Constitutional “originalism” and the “inerrancy of the bible” seem somehow to be linked and espoused by the same groups.
• None of us had control of who our parents would be, place of birth, color of our skin, and early education.  Somewhere between 15 and 30, most of us realize that we are now  the prime influencer in how the rest of our lives progress.  If we don’t figure that out, things probably won’t go very well.
• Most of us don’t want constructive criticism and don’t react well when it’s given.
• Giving unsolicited advice can sometimes (maybe often) be interpreted as telling someone they are wrong and may sometimes (maybe often) result in an unexpected reaction.
• It’s easy to say you believe in something whether it be religious, political, or social in nature but much harder to follow through on those beliefs as life starts throwing punches.
• The message behind “…to err is human, to forgive divine” and “A just man falls seven times…”, Proverbs 24:16, isn’t how most of us assess wrong doing, especially if we are the victim.
• Real honesty in a committed relationship, marriage for instance, is an important key in maintaining that relationship over time.  It probably doesn’t entail coming clean on all the “dirty laundry”, but it does mean sharing the weaknesses that are responsible for most of that dirt.
• A sharp breaking curve ball and a sinking fast ball are two of the most difficult pitches to hit In baseball.  Life seems to be full of them.
• Plan for the best but allocate for the worst.  If things go wrong, you have a new starting point to plan for the best.
• In a critique of our friend Hegel’s book (see paragraph one above) Karl Marx wrote that “…religion is the opium of the masses”.  Indiscriminate use of opium (religion) can blind us to reality but, if used properly (and I believe as God intended) it helps us withstand pain and suffering and live life with hope.
• Libertarians and Statists have identical problems when it comes to addressing social problems.  Each sees possible solutions to a problem (coronavirus for instance) as an attack on their position rather than something with an optimum solution that won’t fit neatly into either of their political pursuasions.

Those who know me will be able to tell which of these “wisdom” observations actually reflect anything I have learned in my 75 years.  I have a feeling that if God allotted me an additional 75, it would not result in any significant improvement in my ability to use any  acquired knowledge more “wisely”.  I do know that if I tried to provide a list of supposed wise aphorisms in 1973 (the year we discovered Leslie was severely mentally impaired), in 1994 when I was divorced, or 2013 when Dawn was diagnosed, I might have a different list.  So, a last bit of “wisdom”;  Timing is everything.

 

Happy Trails to you,
Until we meet again.
Happy Trails to you,
Keep smiling until then.

Dale Evans, 1952

The lyrics above were sung at the conclusion of every episode of the Roy Rogers show back in the 50’s. Roy Rogers and his wife, Dale Evans, would ride their horses Trigger and Buttermilk into the sunset while the show credits rolled. That song from my childhood resonates with me as I reflect on my life with Dawn.

We met over 25 years ago at a weekend conference for Catholics who were divorced, widowed or were widowers. Two and a half years later we were married.

As a second marriage for both of us, we were vigilant to avoid behaviors and mistakes that had caused stress in our previous relationships. Our children (all six of them) were all grown so we avoided the issues of trying to blend families. We were not rich but were blessed with a certain amount of financial security and a willingness to live within our means that helped prevent stress inducing money problems.

As the years rolled by, our love truly did develop into a richer relationship: better, I think, than either of us could have imagined. Things came up as they always do: relationship issues, family issues, friend conflicts, health problems, and job and career disappointments. But we had become even better friends to supplement our love relationship. We talked, we cried, we laughed, and made tough decisions together that enhanced our relationship. We took things as they were and truly tried to do the best we could with what we had.

We are far from perfect or don’t pretend to be role models. We have made a ton of mistakes, caused pain in others and come up short in every measure. But we are just people. We found each other and worked through our mistakes and shortcomings and forgave each other as much as is humanly possible, We hope family and friends can forgive us.

About this time nine years ago, Dawn noticed that she seemed to be forgetting things. It was shortly after her mother had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s so perhaps she was made more sensitive to the symptoms. A standard screening test followed by a complete neurological workup did show some memory issues but nothing definitive. Memory issues continued and six years ago we received a formal diagnosis of Alzheimer’s.

Everything changed. We knew with a pretty high probability what the future held for us, we just didn’t know how fast it would unfold. But the balance of this story won’t take you down the “caregiver” path with a series of “here’s what happened” recollections. If you are truly interested in the progression of Alzheimer’s, I suggest you pick up a copy of “The 36 Hour Day” by Nancy Mace and Peter Rabins. First published in 1981, it’s in its sixth edition and is still the go to compendium for effected family members and caregivers.

Shortly after the formal diagnosis, I went to a session for spouses and caregivers of those newly diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. The facilitator pulled no punches and all the health, behavior and emotional issues associated with the disease for both the patient and caregiver were presented very starkly. She was equally blunt about the possible financial impact. But what affected me most was the assertion that I was basically going to become Dawn’s parent. I almost cried right there. While I listened to the description of the disease progression with almost clinical detachment, that statement caused a knot in my stomach. She was my life partner, not my child.

So, six years later we have experienced most of the seven stages that are often used to describe Alzheimer’s progression. We have exhibited many but not all of the behavioral, emotional, and cognitive issues associated with the disease. It’s not a linear progression and some days are better than others. But, I have resisted becoming Dawn’s parent. She relies on me for almost everything and I do sometimes find myself not being totally honest or withholding information, but I have not become anything close to a parent.

Like almost everything in our lives since we have been married, we’re in this together. Although I have become her caregiver, Dawn is not a child and I do not parent her. I care for her, protect her and comfort her but not in the way I did for my children. I watch over her with an entirely different set of eyes. My care for my children had a huge love component but also an equally large responsibility component. With Dawn, the love is huge but the responsibility aspect has been complimented with a set of characteristics that haven’t always been prevalent or consistent in my life. I have a deeper sense of compassion for her. I have been able to be far more patient with the situations and events that arise than I ever thought I could have as an old man raised as an only child. I find myself being ever alert to foresee and prevent things that might not only be harmful but unnecessarily stressful or anxiety inducing for her. These things are not particularly unique in a spousal caregiver; I’m grateful they finally emerged in me after being well concealed.

So Dawn and I are living every day as best we can and definitely not as parent and child. Life looks a lot like a drawing in one of Dawn’s adult coloring books. We see the picture and know what it’s going to be, but we get to choose the colors and can then decide whether we are happy or displeased with our choices. I am slowly but steadily loosing my wife, my best friend, my supporter, my sometimes conscience, and my life’s traveling partner. It will truly be a sad day for me when I can no longer care for her because her needs exceed my physical or emotional capabilities or my own infirmities prevent it. But we are riding off just like Roy and Dale. The credits (and debits) are rolling on the screen and I know in my heart that we wish each other “Happy Trails until we meet again”.

Postscript: the story is obviously not over and I have plenty of opportunity to screw things up. I pray daily that I continue to receive the grace and tenacity to finish coloring our life picture and know that we can look at it and say we “did the best we could with what we had”.

Trying to express coherent thoughts on politics seems more difficult to me than a previous effort on faith. Aristotle put a far better mind than mine to the task 2500 years ago in “Politics” and they eventually ran him out of town. I’m hoping for a less dramatic result.

While there are politics in many aspects of our lives, I’m specifically thinking of those concerning the governance of the activities of our country, states, and associated entities and the decisions that apply to all citizens. Like religion, it’s a topic that may be best to avoid with friends which was made crystal clear to me earlier this year.

A friend frequently posts positions on religion, social behavior and politics that are most often associated with ideas that are considered conservative in todays lexicon with a few being a little to the right of that. Many of the ideas strike a responsive chord in me although I often disagree with their suggested method of implementation or if a view is not truly applicable to all citizens (ideas based on a particular religious preference, for instance, but are promulgated for all ). Since my friend readily expresses their opinions on social media, I thought they might be amenable to other points of view that could be considered in the process of validating their position. On some issues I had empathy with their position but came to a more nuanced understanding after calming my emotions and examining the situation and facts (kneeling during the National Anthem for instance). I commented on others when a position was based on verifiable factual inaccuracies or crossed over the “bite your tongue line” when they seemed to support behaviors that I believe are inhumane or indefensible for me as an American. Most of my friend’s posts were just cheerleading for a particular point of view, stronger borders or smaller government for instance, with the now mandatory hyperbole for emphasis. Boy was I wrong.

My friend eventually responded with an unexpected tone and approach. In particular, I took it as a suggestion that I was not patriotic (okay, I can be a bit touchy and use hyperbole too). My friend concluded that my “…liberal opinions and comments” would no longer be accepted. The rest of the response was actually a bit stronger. I was both hurt and shocked. Hurt because of a friendship wounded and shocked because my opinions and comments were considered both liberal and offensive. I don’t consider myself a liberal, don’t align myself with many positions taken by those purporting to be liberal, and certainly didn’t mean to offend. I find many positions supported by those who claim to be either liberal or conservative equally problematic.

I went back and reviewed the few ideas and comments I had expressed. I truthfully think most were right down the middle. Facts are neither liberal nor conservative. For instance, corroborated facts supporting or refuting human effect on climate should be assessed without prejudice. A different point of view on a problem is not always conservative or liberal in itself. Political parties often change positions on issues or say one thing and do the opposite.

So, this incident confirmed what I had suspected all along; thinking that I have ideas, information, or opinions others might be interested in is pretty hubristic on my part. Also, when it comes to politics (and religion) opinions and courses of action are often determined in the absence of factual information or relevant experience and, once made, resist being altered by any line of reasoning, no matter the basis. Sentiment and emotion often trump rationality and seem to be the overwhelming criteria on decision making on both sides in the current ultra adversarial political environment. That approach may be fine in the relentless support of your alma mater’s athletic teams (go Zips) but good governance is not a game.

At the risk of losing what few friends I have left and possibly alienating family members, I still decided to offer some additional thoughts that will probably be diverse enough to irritate just about anyone who might stumble across this and have time to waste.

POLITICAL PARTIES

First, a few thoughts on political parties from some of the founding fathers.

“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.” John Adams.

“Political parties… agitate the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindle animosity of one part against another.” George Washington.

“Nothing could be more ill-judged than the intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties.” Alexander Hamilton.

“If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would rather not go at all.” Thomas Jefferson.

Sounds like they might be independents in todays political climate.

Before I lay myself bare, a bit of self disclosure is necessary. I am personally fiscally conservative and slightly left of center (if there is a center) on social issues. My heritage is with the Democratic party. My grandfather was heavily involved in local politics in Ohio and proudly stated he had never voted for a #&*@ Republican in his life. My mother was a chip off the old block and made the same statement without the associated profanity. My father was apolitical but knew better than to rock the boat. I voted for Gore in 2000 but could have voted for McCain in 2008 except for Sarah Palin. I didn’t want Hilary and could have easily voted for John Kasich in 2016 but he wasn’t able to get any traction in the Republican primary.

Both parties seem to have lost their way now. More fiscally responsible “Reagan Republicans” have apparently abandoned that principle in favor of whatever Trump wants. We’ll see if the promised magic of business tax cuts can fuel enough growth to support government spending plans. They seem to be morphing into the “party of the mean” in their approach to opposing ideas, name calling, belittling rhetoric, and encouragement to ardent supporters that borders on supporting violence. Not only have they failed to “drain the swamp”, they’ve enlarged it and now see it as an attractive part of the landscape.

Democrats don’t have much to be proud of either. The current rhetoric from some is very similar to the most absurd from the Republican side. Obama was like a favorite in a horse race that gets pushed to the outside and doesn’t have what it takes to recover. He was greeted by the worst recession since the Great Depression and threw money at just about everything in hopes of turning things around. The ship was saved but barely afloat. The Affordable Care Act started with promise but degenerated into a complex debacle that suffered from inadequate conception, terrible rollout, and Obama willfully misrepresenting it. The recovery from the recession was steady but painfully slow. He seemed to lose interest in governing and was ineffective as a party leader. He permitted the opposition to take political advantage on almost every issue and actually seemed to give up in the last couple of years. He permitted himself to be pushed into band aids for hemorrhaging issues rather than pragmatic solutions. Now the party has started to move too far left for me. They are permitting good ideas to be overwhelmed by far left rhetoric and intolerance and the promise of “free stuff”.

We’ll see what happens but I find it difficult to align with either the party of “mean” or the party of “free”.

Maybe the thoughts already expressed don’t sound much like Coherent Pondering. Let me express a few more on some current issues before you make a final conclusion.

SCHOOL PRAYER

The Supreme Court ruling in Engel v. Vitale decided in 1962 was probably the single most important issue responsible for the rise of what we now call the “Christian Right”. Actually it didn’t “kick God out of schools” as some claim. It did state that “…it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of American people to recite as part of a religious program carried on by government.” What it did serve to do was eliminate the dominance of one faith, Protestant Christianity generally and the Baptist version of Christianity in the south, from advocating a religious preference in schools and government entities. While application of the ruling has varied from state to state, it didn’t prohibit praying in schools. Students are free to pray as long as there is no disruption in the school or interference with the rights of others. Parents are free to put a scripture reading or prayer in a lunch bag for their child to ponder before that first bite. Students are free to silently pray to whomever they want prior to that science test they didn’t study for. Teachers just can’t have everyone recite the Lord’s Prayer from the Christian bible.

If the ruling is somehow overturned at the request of the Christian religious right, they may unleash more than they bargained for. While Protestant Christians may be able to lead the Lord’s Prayer in public schools or place creches on school grounds at Christmas, Muslims will certainly request and be given equal time (and space) to roll out prayer mats at noon and again in the afternoon (that will set off those on the Christian right). As a Catholic parent, I might advocate for a rosary or mass once a week. Hindus may sing and chant the “Gayatri”. Jewish believers may see the need for teachers to lead a prayer from a Siddur.

The God I believe in would not be happy with all these charades. It seems to me that God’s preference, no matter religious persuasion, is best expressed in the Christian bible in Mathew, chapter 6, verse 6. “Whenever you pray, go to your room, close the door, and pray to your Father in private”. Christian parents concerned about their children’s prayer life might want to read the “Sermon on the Mount” in Mathew and see how they measure up as an example. Parents are a child’s most important teacher and prayer leader.

ABORTION

I find it difficult to internalize the pro abortion/choice position and reasoning. I’m sorry, but it often sounds like they are arguing for the right to return something they don’t want to Walmart. I know, “My body, my right” and I don’t mean to trivialize firmly held views. I have strong empathy for pro abortion/pro choice positions. I can’t imagine being poor, scared, a teenager, single, or already mothering (or fathering) too many and discovering I’m pregnant, or learning I am bearing a child with a serious handicap. In a secular government, it seems like the abortion question revolves around legal definitions of several terms including personhood, life, death, risk, and rights. Since all those definitions seem subject to social structure of the times (consider the Constitution’s de facto legal acceptance of slavery for instance in 1787) any determination made today probably won’t last. We complicate things more when we throw strongly held religious positions that also change with the times into the mix.

I’m sure my faith persuasion (Catholic) has a strong influence over my emotional response. But I am not convinced that the Catholic position is all that rock solid or has been held with such firmness since the time of Peter. Likewise, the Evangelical Christian position promoted today is not without nuances as is the position held by most elected Republicans. Goldwater famously evolved into a pro abortion position. Reagan signed a bill permitting abortion in the case of rape. President Trump was pro abortion/choice until it became politically advantageous to switch to pro life. In 1971, the Southern Baptist Convention worked for “…the liberalization of state laws to permit abortion not only in cases such as rape and incest but fetal deformity, and in the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental and physical health of the mother”. Author Frances Fitzgerald expands on this in The Evangelicals. They were also vehemently anti Catholic and may have considered this a “Catholic” issue. In 1968, prominent Evangelical theologians and physicians located personhood at birth in the document “A Protestant Affirmation on the Control of Human Reproduction”, probably in response to the Pope’s Encyclical “Humanae Vitae”. (See Fitzgerald’s book noted above for more). Apparently religious positions as well as political ones are subject to change with the wind.

My own skepticism of the pro life movement overall is based on its lack of outrage if it truly believes that over 50 million abortions since Roe v Wade is murder. It seems to me that the Catholic Church should literally risk it all ; property, money, tax status. everything in continual and progressive civil disobedience to work against what they consider an abomination and government sanctioned violence. Instead, we hear sermons, wave some placards, maybe protest some Sunday at an abortion clinic or read about some priest refusing to give communion to a pro abortion politician. Evangelicals and the Christian Right suffer from the same feigned outrage. They align themselves with a political ideology that advocates the reduction or elimination of financial support for programs that help reduce unwanted pregnancy (birth control), or provide support for poor mothers (food stamps, WIC, and Medicaid). The attitude and approach does seem to reinforce the criticism of conservative religions that traditionally held the woman responsible for sexual transgressions. My personal experience was several years ago when my wife worked as paid staff at a “crisis” pregnancy center and was responsible for fund raising. A dozen or so Protestant Evangelical churches in the area proudly proclaimed their association with the center while very quietly donating a pittance towards its support and almost no support to clients after they gave birth. Perhaps things have changed but I am skeptical. As a sidelight, I find it interesting that “all life is sacred” except life created by rape or incest. Looks like Republicans and some Evangelicals don’t really believe in the sacredness of “all” life.

There are undoubtedly many who believe that life and personhood begins at conception and any interference in the natural progression is immoral based on their religious beliefs. I respect and affirm their right to believe this and live their lives accordingly. But as long as we want to maintain a secular society, we must respect the rights of others who hold just as firmly to an alternative point of view. For the government or majority (or minority) to legislate using a particular religious point of view as grounds is far more than a slippery slope to theocracy but a giant step towards replacing state recognition of religious freedom with a national freedom based on state mandated restrictions with a particular religious premise.

But the current free for all on this issue does seem to denigrate and cheapen the value of human life. Arguing over definitions and resorting to political placard waving and chants ignores the importance of life and the central place of the family in successful child rearing. It seems like a more comprehensive solution is required. A solution that would support successful child bearing and birth by providing support to those who need it (medical as well as affordable daycare) and alternatives (like adoption) for those who choose to give birth but don’t see themselves as successful parents seems wiser, although more difficult politically.

Stepping back, the issue is bifurcated and, if we are to maintain a secular society that respects religious beliefs, we need a bifurcated solution. So I would posit that those with firmly held views against abortion based on their religious views should practice that belief faithfully and live a life in support of that view that will generate admiration and emulation. As Saint Francis purportedly said; “It is no use walking anywhere to preach unless our walking is our preaching”. Likewise, those who think the religious perspective of those advocating making abortion illegal is an infringement of their freedom, need to be respectful of any opposition and promote viable alternatives (adoption and viable day care options for instance) not just abortion as possible solutions.

Any abolition of abortion by the current religiously driven politics will probably be short lived. Science will be driven to provide more elegant solutions in the way of better birth control and alternatives to the surgical abortion options currently employed. A change of political power will make the wind blow in a different direction and will probably result in the same failure as prohibition.

CABLE NEWS PUNDITS

I belong to a demographic group that spends entirely too much time watching cable news. I can sum up my thoughts on this topic rather succinctly.

1. If you spend a predominant amount of time watching a particular “cable news” outlet, you aren’t watching news. You are exposing yourself to propaganda and mind control. That goes for all three major cable outlets; CNN, MSNBC and FOX.
2. You don’t have to watch Morning Joe, Fox and Friends or whatever CNN has on in the morning to know their position about anything. Likewise Hannity, Maddow and Cuomo are predictable in the evening hours.
3. Only a few cable personalities try to elicit intelligent insights into news and policy. Chris Wallace and Shepard Smith try at Fox, while Jake Trapper does the best for CNN. Margaret Brennan at CBS (not a “cable” outlet) tries hard. Meet The Press and its daily cable clone continues its slide to mediocrity. I’ve lost track of NPR after Gwen Ifill died.

Almost all the cable news outlets employ mostly highly paid entertainers disguised as news casters pandering to a specific political and demographic sector without regard to truth or nuance in what they report or discuss. Distortion seems to be commonly accepted by all. Any attempt to stray from that strategy and provide additional insight that differs from network orthodoxy is met with highly predictable outcomes.

In short, most do not offer fair and informative assessment on almost any topic and are a colossal waste of time. Better to subscribe to a respectable news aggregator and read a few good opinion writers on both sides of the political spectrum rather than permit an entertainer to be your sole source of information. If you insist on watching, change channels often to try to balance the misinformation.

INTERNET TROLLING

I continue to be amazed at what is put forth as fact on many internet sites. I’m equally amazed that people will take the hook on the most outlandish claims. Some enjoy several reincarnations especially if they fit a narrative a particular partisan group wants to believe. I’ve seen made up stories from 15 years ago surface as a current event. While some are akin to simple cheerleading, others are outright fabrications or distortions. I try to be very careful in analyzing information and try to fact check it as much as I can before letting it influence my ideas, or worse, pass it on as something it isn’t.

PATRIOTISM

Prologue: I completed this portion of this essay several weeks prior to publishing this essay. A controversy arose a few days prior to the ending of my remarks (which have taken on a life of their own) regarding the cancellation of a Nike shoe style. The shoe, with a 13 star American flag embroidered in the backstay portion (heel), was to be released to celebrate the July 4th holiday. The news stories indicate that the design was recalled after the prime instigator of the NFL kneeling protest objected , supposedly because it came from the slave era and many would find it offensive. Since then, there have been stories that the design is being used by some white supremacist groups. Perhaps the backstory will have more compelling reasons but my understanding is the “Betsy Ross” flag represented a unified resistance to British rule, not slavery. While I understand revulsion at continued glorification of all things Confederate (flag, monuments, etc.) that are directly associated with slavery or the “Jim Crow” era, this seems to be a fabricated rationale for creating a problem that didn’t exist. Perhaps I’m just an old white guy that isn’t “woke” yet, but as I’m pondering this, it is effecting my confidence in my original assessments regarding the “kneeling” protest and its ultimate purpose. I am letting my reflection found below stand for now pending time for more information. I may have to amend my assessment that follows accordingly. Coherent Pondering doesn’t mean ignoring new information.

Early on in this essay, I indicated that some information I provided to a friend to consider before passing final judgement on those kneeling during the National Anthem was rejected and I thought the response implied I was unpatriotic. I actually think the actions, attitudes and feelings I have displayed throughout my life have always been patriotic. When compared to the comparable actions of any of our last four presidents, I may be considered a super patriot. I actually volunteered for active duty in the military during an armed conflict (Vietnam) and served for three and a half years. Clinton may have used political connections and a “fake” commitment to join ROTC in order to extend a student deferment. Bush, also with apparent political help, joined the Air National Guard, a common ploy at the time for avoiding active duty and Vietnam, and failed to even complete that responsibility. Obama appears to have never considered military service and Trump famously received a deferment after submission of a doctor’s letter stating he had bone spurs. In my estimation, three of the four probably qualify as draft dodgers (the draft had been abolished before Obama was eligible).

While I am proud of my time in the military, it was not particularly commendable. The only ribbon I was personally awarded (others were awarded because I was breathing) was for expert marksmanship in 1967 and was actually the last time I recall firing a weapon. My performance reports were excellent and I was recommended to become a regular officer in the Air Force. I faced no dangerous situations and didn’t volunteer for any. I flew home from my last duty assignment on Okinawa in full uniform and no one spit on me or verbally accosted me. I returned to civilian life and reflect on my active duty time with no regret. I have a deep respect for those who choose to serve and especially for those who continue serving as career military.

I stand proudly for the National Anthem, place my hand over my heart and sing the correct words, not famously try to lip sync like our current president, and know and can recite both the pre 1954 and post 1954 versions of the Pledge of Allegiance. When someone doesn’t stand or remove their hat during the Anthem, I notice. I also notice when fans at sporting events choose that time to get an adult beverage or use the rest room before the game begins. I also notice when people stand but chit chat or look at their phones. While I may wish that all of those individuals alter their behaviors and show their gratitude for the country and system we live in, it is too much of a leap for me to brand them as “unpatriotic” or suggest they be removed from the event.

Millions of Americans refuse to stand for the Anthem or recite the Pledge for deeply held religious views, mostly Christian in nature. They are not universally denigrated today, fired from their employment or otherwise threatened. It is part of the freedom we enjoy as Americans. When a couple of hundred professional athletes chose to sit or kneel during the National Anthem, I was initially upset and insulted. But I had to step back and assess what was going on. While I might wish they had chosen a different method of protest, they certainly had a right to express their anger with what they reportedly considered racial injustice in a peaceful and noticeable way. I take their concern as sincere. No property was destroyed, no individuals hurt and no laws were broken. Is this chosen method of protest materially different from remaining seated for religious beliefs? Is it really a slap in the face of those who served in the military and in particular, those who gave their lives for their country? It seems to me that their right to protest in that manner and for that cause is a large part of what our military protects and why soldiers risk their lives.

So, if my assessment is the liberal one; that is, while the type of protest is problematic but the expressed gravity of the basis for the protest has validity and it deserves some deference, is President Trump’s reaction the conservative one? Do conservatives hold as a core value that U.S. citizens should be fired, fined, or maybe not even be “allowed to remain in the country” for exercising a constitutionally protected right? Or, do they dispute that there is a continuing problem in the justice system where minorities are concerned ?

While none of the protesters rise to an equivalent of Martin Luther King, it might pay for all of us to reread Dr. King’s “Letter from the Birmingham Jail” written in 1963 when he faced criticism for his choice of protests against racial injustice to provide a broader perspective. As an old white male, I’m not particularly concerned that my grandson, granddaughters, or my new great granddaughter needs to be given “the talk” about dealing with the possibility of repeated and unprovoked police stops related to the color of their skin. I don’t have to worry that one of those stops could become violent because of a misunderstood direction or mistaking a cell phone for a gun. Police have to make life and death decisions, often with little or no time to do a textbook assessment of a situation. White officers, black officers, and those of other minorities have been involved in incidents that resulted in deaths that seem to have been avoidable. Kneeling to draw attention to what they see as a continued injustice when those incidents are adjudicated doesn’t seem so bad. The flag stands for “…liberty and justice for all”. Kneeling to bring attention to what seems to be a need to have our country improve the meaning of “for all” seems somewhat patriotic in a quest to make America great.

So, if being in the military isn’t a prerequisite for being considered patriotic (as attested to by our last four presidents), standing for the National Anthem seems to be a tradition for most rather than a heartfelt expression (or maybe a time for going to the restroom), what may be real indications of an individual’s dedication to one’s country and support of efforts to get as close as possible to the idealized American way of life? Here’s just a few thoughts.

1. Vote. Not just cast a ballot, but vote after examining issues and individuals to the best of your ability.
2. Assisting in your local community to make it better for all whether it be by volunteering for something as simple as a park clean up day or working in a more organized endeavor such as “Habitat for Humanity”.
3. Support powerful leadership but not leaders who want power.
4. Put yourself in the shoes of those with different ideas, racial background or religious affiliation and walk a few miles. It may be enlightening.
5. Recognize your own blind spots before passing judgement.
6. Internalize the idea that different is not automatically wrong. You can disagree with someone’s politics or religious beliefs without needing to denigrate them.
7. Love and support this country not only for what it was (there is much to be proud of but much to be ashamed of also) but for what it has the potential to become.

I think you get the idea and can add several of your own. Loving America and being a patriotic good citizen is multifaceted. As a part of speech, love can be either a noun or a verb. The noun merely names an emotion associated with an attachment or endearment. The verb form necessitates some action. Love of country requires action and participation, not passive acquiescence or selective reminiscence.

IMMIGRATION

Let me start this portion off with enough ammunition to irritate those on both sides of the current issue. First, some irritants for my left leaning friends.

1. The fact that hundreds of thousands of unknowns cross our southern border annually seems to qualify as a real crisis. The fact that it’s more or less in any given year doesn’t change that.
2. Walls are not inherently immoral.
3. Some evil people are sneaking across.
4. Individuals who cross the border illegally and stay will pose a near term and long term burden on US taxpayers.
5. Most illegals crossing are for economic reasons. While they may be admired for their courage and desire for something better for themselves and their families, that alone does not constitute a valid reason for circumventing immigration laws.
6. The asylum process and implementing laws are broken and need to be revised.

Now a few things that will irritate my conservative friends.

1. Stop whining that the Democrats are keeping the wall from being built. Trump had his full $25 billion for the wall in exchange for a deal on the “Dreamers” 18 months ago but the ultra right scuttled it.
2. Demonizing a whole culture and sensationalizing some criminal behavior to achieve a political end is a deception.
3. Democrats are not for crime and drugs.
4. Republicans had the house, senate and presidency for two years and did nothing.
5. Immigration, asylum and refugee policies all need to be updated based on needs and capability, not racial demagoguery.
6. Separating children from parents or blood relatives is immoral. It was when Obama apparently did it and it is now under Trump.
7. Be realistic. The 12 million plus illegal immigrants currently in the US will not be deported en masse. Establish a way to “legalize” them so you deport only the undesirables.

In a way, Trump is right: Illegal immigration issues could be resolved in a couple of days with a pragmatic approach rather than those of ideologues.

I can’t end this section without another swipe at my friends on the Christian Right. Your tacit support of some of the tactics and actions used to enforce current immigration laws is deplorable. You read the bible daily and fail to internalize Jesus’ most basic teachings. You don’t need to advocate for “open” borders but you do need to advocate for humane treatment and respect for human dignity. Policies that require detention rather than release to await a hearing need to be accompanied by the necessary resources that assure all are treated compassionately. Hearing wait times should be reduced to the minimum by providing adequate legal resources. Family separations, squalor, deprivation, and lack of basic medical resources are a stain on a country that purports to be that “Shining City on a Hill”.

CAPITALISM and SOCIALISM

First, a couple of things. Socialism is not Communism. Capitalism is not inherently evil. Cable pundits on both sides of the current political assessment of economic systems are throwing around terms and criticisms designed to cause emotional rather than rational assessment of proposed ways to improve our way of life.

I am an old white guy that benefitted from all the advantages of capitalism (and a lot of luck) during my working career and now, in my retirement, benefit from two socialist programs, Social Security and Medicare. Seems like I have the best of both systems.

Capitalism has failed to fairly distribute the prosperity realized from the efforts of all providing inputs into production over the last 45 years, or almost two generations. Almost all the income improvements and associated wealth went to the upper income brackets. Although productivity continued at approximately the same rate, wages for those in the middle class stagnated while those in the top tiers (top 10 % for instance) increased dramatically. While there are many factors effecting this trend (education, being a significant one) it is clear that the promise of just “working hard” isn’t producing the promised results of an improved standard of living. The resulting societal unrest and search for alternate solutions is nothing new. During the depression communism had an allure related to its promise of more equal treatment. It should be no surprise that blue collar workers who feel they have followed the rules, worked hard, and paid their dues but see almost all the results of their efforts accrue to white collar employees might be open to considering economic approaches that promise change. Enter the expanded interest in socialism.

I remain a capitalist. It seems like it holds the greatest possibilities of providing the necessary incentive for economic growth. But, its proponents must get creative and find a way to more fairly distribute its benefits to all. The risk of not finding a workable solution is not only continued pressure to augment or replace it with alternate systems, but an increase in the possibility of related social unrest.

Republicans are trying again to show that lowering taxes on the prosperous and corporations will result in reduced income and wealth inequality. Results from similar past attempts seem to indicate that the trend of the rich getting richer while the rest stagnate continues without abatement. While it is too soon to pass judgement on the current attempt, early assessments are not promising. Trump’s claim of being responsible for tremendous job growth and reduction of unemployment rate under his administration actually just follows the same trend line started in 2009 under Obama. There has been a marked slowing of that growth in the last 18 months and his accomplishments in those areas are quite modest when compared to Clinton, Reagan or Obama.

Democrats, at least those running for president, seem to espouse some type of nirvana associated with socialistic programs and government intervention. Rather than “free” stuff, I would prefer an emphasis on policies that encourage making things “affordable”. Affordable health insurance for instance probably correlates more to cost of delivery than associated premiums. Arbitrarily lowering my premium may lower my personal insurance cost, but not system cost. If I pay less, someone else has to pay more to cover cost or the system will bankrupt. The key to lowering cost is to attack the “drivers” of cost whether it be distribution systems, lack of competition, supply shortages, incentive systems, encouraging unnecessary treatments, or a myriad of other functions. “Medicare for all” seems to just propagate a system that is currently unsustainable. Payment options I have seen don’t seem any more sustainable than the current one. What we need is support for a medical system that can be developed across political divides. Going to our corners is not a solution. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen a workable idea. But unlike tax cuts that primarily benefit the already prosperous, we need a more elegant solution if we hope for improved results.

CONCLUSION

Finally. Even I was tired of hearing my own thoughts: I can only imagine how exhausted a reader must be. I managed to bore you with about 6000 words. I remember groaning when asked to write a 500 word essay in high school. But I can’t end without a couple of observations on President Trump.

I can’t know how historians will judge him in 25, 50 or 100 years. If his approaches to international issues result in denuclearization of North Korea, Iran embarks on a more peaceful non nuclear approach with their neighbors, and he comes up with some method of easing tensions in the Mideast, he may be compared very favorably. If the economic prosperity continues unabated, trade tension with almost all the rest of the world ease, and he finds a way to begin to bring a divided nation together, he may be regarded as one of the best presidents.

I personally find him abhorrent. His brand of narcissism, subtle racism, feigned patriotism, ability to unabashedly lie about anything, failure to take responsibility, embarking on and creating political and economic quagmires without consideration of possible negative ramifications, apparent need to denigrate opposing ideas or individuals to support his own ego, blind spot to inhumane treatment unless it is politically advantageous to him, and total inability to project any desire to bring the country together create an apprehensive tension within me. He does not come across as trustworthy or sincere. He need not be perfect (most presidents and heroes aren’t); he can golf any time he wants, his past sexual dalliances are probably no worse than JFK, Clinton, or even Martin Luther King (unless charges of rape or unwanted molestation by Trump can be substantiated), and he can orchestrate any kind of 4th of July celebration he wants. But proceeding to govern in a way to satisfy his own ego is the sign of a despot. I hope my observations are wrong and I pray daily for the well being of the United States and that we continue every day to become better and truly be that “Shining City Upon a Hill”.

Sky Diving, Paralysis by Analysis, Old Shoes

I recently had another birthday.  When I was a child, I could hardly wait for them and it seemed like years between my special days.  Now they seem to arrive every couple of months.  I shouldn’t be surprised.  After all, back to school promotions start in June and my local Hallmark store annually reminds me that Christmas season starts in early September.  I would like all of those things to return to the timing of my childhood.  Perhaps that has something to do with my efforts to come to grips with my spiritual life.

As I’ve grown older, I really don’t feel much wiser.  I’m more reluctant to offer advice, even when asked.  My wife and I are dealing with some of the disappointments that often disrupt our “golden” years which  reminds me of a saying attributed to Woody Allen: “If you want to make God laugh, tell Him about your plans”.  It seems to me that we may also bring a smile to His face when we tell Him about our faith and what we believe. Life’s experiences, observations, study, successes, and failures have provoked what I hope is a healthy level of skepticism.  All of which is the best I could come up with as a segue to my topic.

Faith.  This is truly a ponderous topic examined and debated by the greatest philosophers and thinkers that we have records of from Aristotle, the Hindu authors of The Upanishads and The Bhagavad Gita, The Buddha, Confucius, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Luther, Descartes, Locke, Hume, Nietzsche, Johnson, Santayana, and a myriad of others from antiquity to modernity.  Dropping all those names only means I have a working knowledge of Google, not necessarily of their philosophies;  the list is offered only to give you a reason to completely discredit my unworthy personal observations.

A simple working definition of faith might be: A belief in something you can’t prove.  We can get all tied up in knots about what “prove” means, but let’s not.  I think we all get the gist.  Often when we hear the word faith, our minds immediately think of God or, more specifically,  religion.  That may be the same reaction of those who believe in a supreme being (or beings) and those who don’t.  Although there have been many philosophical “proofs” deployed for the existence of God, I don’t know of any that have been embraced as the ultimate proof and most seem to only be noticed by other philosophers when promoting their own theories.

But it appears that humans have had a belief in some higher power from earliest times. Our distant Neanderthal cousins might have ceremoniously buried their dead, a practice that could be related to the realization of a greater power.  Some early Homo Sapiens may have begun believing in deities.  Cave paintings and Venus like figurines from 30,000 tears ago seem to allude to some belief in a God or gods.  It seems unlikely that this primitive society had a sophisticated “proof” to support this belief.  In other words, they relied on faith.

This same ability to express faith in a deity or deities expresses itself in the estimated existence of over 4,000 different religions today.  About seventy-five percent of believers adhere to one of the five major faiths: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Chinese Traditional and Buddhism.  So we can go from the one God of Christianity and Islam (and Judaism) to the 12 gods of Hinduism, 8 gods of Buddhism and manifest possibilities in China’s traditional religious expressions.  So what gives?  What compels most of humankind to adhere to a belief in a higher power they can’t prove exists?  Is it merely a convention to provide meaning to life’s inexplicable destiny?

Some pop-psychology related to work done by Andrew Newberg, a neurotheology pioneer, and others posited that our brains are “hard-wired” for God.  Measuring brain activity during prayer or meditation sessions showed reduced activity in the frontal lobes and increased activity in the emotion related parts of the brain.  The assessment is that humans interpret this as an “other world” or God experience rather than simply a conscious slowing of the brain components related to physical awareness.  In another take on faith,  Freud characterized faith or religion as pathological, a malignant reaction to guilt and simply an irrational superstition.

These observations by the erudite may be a bunch of hooey–or not.  They may also be simply an expression of a humanistic belief system, or faith, as a substitute for a supernatural based system.  In other words, we all seem to have faith in something even if it’s nothing (think about that for a while–remember my simple definition of faith).

So, we get into conflict and trouble with each other when we attach a set of dogmas to our faith.  My simple definition of dogma is a set of principles determined by an authority to be incontrovertibly true.  Adherence to a set of dogmas is usually how someone associates with a particular religion.  This seems particularly true in Christianity, Islam and Judaism and probably so in most other religions.  It follows then that most of us, including you agnostics and atheists, associate with a set of dogmatic ideas and beliefs we consider to be incontrovertibly true based on a faith we can’t prove. While this statement may be legitimately criticized from all sides, the God of my faith is smiling, and sometimes crying, as we stumble through life advocating and proselytizing our particular religious faith system.  The resulting cacophony is much like a crowd of men, blind since birth, discussing the attributes of a particular color palette (think about that for a while).

After this somewhat chaotic discussion, readers may think that I am at best, an agnostic and probably distanced myself from any religion.  Actually I have settled on Roman Catholicism, the religion of most of my ancestors, except for a smattering of Anabaptist Amish, as the foundation of my spirituality.  This is the current culmination of proceeding through several stages, the most significant I refer to as “Old Shoeism”, “Sky Diving”‘ and the always present for me, “Paralysis by Analysis”, and is really a decision I make for myself.

For a good pert of my life, I professed faith based on a particular religion for the same reason I pull on a pair of old shoes; it just felt comfortable.  I was raised Catholic and all things Catholic seemed reassuring and comfortable.  Then there was the “Sky Diving” phase.  I was looking to get some excitement into my version of faith.  I wanted a religious experience which I now compare to trying sky diving.  The whole thing starts with signing a paper acknowledging you may die, getting about an hour of minimal instruction, strapping on a parachute packed by an unknown “expert”,  getting in a plane, flying to a few thousand feet above the earth and then jumping out on the back of a total stranger.  I tried charismatic prayer meetings and even went to a fortune-telling spiritualist: in retrospect, both seemed more weird than helpful.

Then there was the “Paralysis by Analysis” phase which is a recurring pattern for most things in my life.  I read spiritual writers, tried to understand the spirituality of Thomas Merton and others, listened to bible thumping television preachers, read Christopher Hitchens and excerpts from Richard Dawkins atheistic thinking, got a Jerome’s Biblical Commentary and set out to read and understand the complete bible and finally read Bart Ehrman’s critique of Christianity based on his assessment of modern biblical criticism.  Islam, Hinduism and far eastern religions escaped my analysis, probably because of lack of curiosity.

At some point not that long ago, I realized that I was basically trying to find a pair of new shoes.  The one’s I tried on were either too tight (hurtful), too loose (feel good TV types and atheists, go figure), wrong style (hell, fire and brimstone), made from synthetic material  (prosperity gospel types) or insisting on “solo scriptura” Christianity.  Here I must digress momentarily.  If I choose to remain in the Catholic tradition, I must accept the bible as the word of God.  I have trouble believing God stopped all his “words” sometime in the early second century.  I do understand the bible to be some of the story of man’s relationship with God, but I’m less certain God considers it all the story or that it completely reflects God’s relationship with man, which is how God sees things, not man. Also, probably close to 600 million Christians (Catholics really) lived and died prior to the bible being more available to all thanks to Gutenberg’s press in 1455 and the printing in Latin of the Vulgate version.  For us English speakers, Tyndale’s translation published between 1526 and 1537 was our first chance. Early Christians certainly didn’t have the current collection of books that comprise the bible: those weren’t organized into a canon until the late 4th century, by the Catholic Church. Most couldn’t read or write anyway and relied on the Catholic Church for salvation guidance. Luther had some legitimate concerns but I’m not sure he envisioned individual interpretation by all according to their own whims.

All this is what eventually brought me back to that old pair of shoes in the back of the closet.  They were beat up and scuffed (sex scandals, financial malfeasance, misogyny, etc.), heels worn to one side (leaning to the right), worn out soles (the cushion was gone, every step hurt), and missing laces to keep them on and tie life together.  So I set out to see if I could ever be comfortable in them again.

I polished those beat up Catholic shoes up as best I could.  They looked better, but the old shine never really came back and the scuffs showed through several layers of polish.  A constant reminder of our human nature and a warning to be always vigilant.  I put in a pair of inserts fashioned in recognition of one of our greatest gifts, the ability to reason. These inserts contain a blend of doubt, skepticism, inquisitiveness, inclusiveness, forgiveness, and hope all held together by the idea that the God that enters into my life expects me to evaluate everything, discard the meaningless and live my life as best I can with the gifts I have been given.  My God is less concerned with who we sleep with and more concerned with the nature of the relationship.  My God alone knows when life begins and ends (don’t take this as support of abortion or euthanasia).  My God doesn’t see countries with artificial boundaries, but all humans with a shared purpose in living and an absolute need to rely on each other.

Now that the shoes were presentable and didn’t hurt, I needed something to keep them snug and keep me from walking out of them.  I chose new laces for them from the Christian bible (actually from The New American Bible, Revised Edition).  Specifically a portion of Mathew’s gospel that seems to summarize succinctly what is expected from us. We commonly refer to these chapters, 5, 6 and 7, as the Sermon on the Mount.  Saint Augustine, in his famous commentary on these chapters written in the 5th century, states that it is”…a perfect standard for the Christian life.”  Ten centuries later, Luther apparently concluded it was an impossible standard.  In my mind, both positions are worthy of consideration and are not mutually exclusive.

The “Sermon” is very hard to live up to and probably impossible for a human.  I don’t meet the standard in so many ways.  But that didn’t stop me from using it to lace up my shoes so I could walk in them.  It also give me a pass from having to continually be conflicted by opposing positions on things such as the inerrancy of the bible in all things, transubstantiation, virgin birth, necessity of faith alone to reach salvation (how much, how strong, in what), did the whale really swallow Jonah, what is the book of Revelation really about, who really wrote the gospels and when, and a laundry list of other issues we sometimes think are most important.

And now that they are laced up, something to keep the laces from coming undone.  This was an easy choice also covered in the “Sermon”.  I rely on “The Lord’s Prayer” found in Mathew  6:9-13.  It seems to cover it all.

Those more faith filled than me might call this “cafeteria Catholicism” or suggest I become a protestant or maybe a Unitarian.  But those shoes don’t fit.  They’re either too loose (Unitarianism) or not made with authentic leather (Protestantism).  Sorry to my non-Catholic friends, but you may think much worse of Catholicism.  As far as the cafeteria part, someone counted 255 “must believe” dogmas of Catholicism along with another 102 “certain truths”.  So the cafateria is really a smorgasbord of 255 entrées you must eat and swallow whole and leave room for another 102 side dishes.  My gift of faith must be much smaller than the mustard seed described in Luke 17:6 but I believe concentrating on trying to live up to the standard of the “Sermon” and walking carefully in my reconditioned old shoes will get me where I need to be.  Hopefully God is only smiling at my efforts and not laughing.

I don’t mean to proselytize by sharing my thoughts.  Everybody’s life journey is their own.  Saint Francis of Assisi reportedly said: “Preach the gospel at all times and if necessary, use words” and “It’s no use walking somewhere to preach unless walking is our preaching”.  Take time to think about those two ideas.  I just hope that all of you , as you meander through life trying to do the best you can with what you have been given, will take time to read Jesus’ Sermon.  It may set impossible standards and I continually fall short in so many ways, but I keep on walking in those old shoes with as much faith as is possible, relying on forgiveness and mercy.

Postscript.  Although I have proofread this essay about a dozen times, I am sure a careful reader of this essay may find spelling, grammar, logic and content errors.  In that sense, it remains an incomplete work, much as my life is still incomplete.  I look forward to the rest of my life’s spiritual journey along with  any gifts or insights God chooses to reveal to me.

I’ve had a little trouble completing my initial thoughts for this blog.  It’s not because I’ve been too busy, rather I have been over enjoying retirement.  Because of my lethargy, I have decided to torture you with some of my poetry.  Where did that come from?  A friend here in The Villages talked me into taking a poetry class last spring from our local adult enrichment organization.  The instructor was a longtime published writer with several poems published in recognized literary journals.  My friend and I were challenges to his patience.

Any of you that have an appreciation of good poetry may truly be “tortured” by my attempt.  If you have  little or no experience in reading poetry, mine is not an effort that you should use as an example.  However, since this was my very first attempt, I did surprise myself.  The poem I have chosen below was the result of several hours of effort over a few days.  While I thought that was a good effort, I have learned since I wrote this that some author’s revise their attempts over fifty times over several months, sometimes years. So please read this attempt with all that in mind and I would appreciate any comments you may have that will help me improve.

TODAY

Will this be just another day,
With routine and the necessary determining its way? 

Or will something unexpected interfere,
Making the day’s outcome less clear?

Will God try to make His loving presence known,
Or will an agnostic storm wash away what he has sown?

Will memories of past disappointments arise to painfully torment,
Or will grateful reminiscences provide satisfied fulfillment?

Will the risk be taken to make a new friend,
Or will apprehension thwart pursuit in the end?

Will the time allotted seem to move agonizingly slow,
Or will it evaporate faster than a late April flake of snow?

As evening approaches will there be gratitude for what was given,
Or disappointment and regret for opportunities not taken?

As night overcomes day and fatigue awaits sleep,
Will the day have memories worthy to keep?

Bill Thompson

March, 2018

Poems are written to be spoken aloud, not only silently in your mind.  If you have read this silently, please take time to read it aloud (someplace where you won’t feel conspicuously wierd).  Good poets have all kinds of tools they use to make poems seem real and allow you put yourself in the place of the writer.  I haven’t a command of all those tools but I hope you will have some affinity with my musing from last March.

Bill

 

I have decided to become a blogger.  That might mean a couple of things.

• I have entirely too much time on my hands.
• I have an inflated opinion of my thinking on several topics.

I’ll let the reader judge the veracity of those two points, but it also comes from the effect of various experiences over the last several years.  My religious views have been challenged by a friend with a Christian fundamentalist viewpoint as well as personal reading of  much more liberal, agnostic and atheistic viewpoints.  I have had the opportunity to participate in several classes based on works supported by “The Great Books Foundation”; joined a non-fiction book club that reads challenging history, memoir and opinion works from knowledgeable authors; rediscovered “The Great Courses” from the Learning Company that provide college level survey and comprehensive courses on hundreds of topics.  Age and health have probably made me more introspective also, especially coming to grips with Dawn’s Alzheimer’s diagnosis five years ago.

So, what’s in a name?  I chose “Coherent Pondering” hoping it will accurately describe the effort I put into this blog.  Coherent is an adjective that will hopefully describe a logical set of ideas or conclusions on a variety of topics.  Pondering is a present participle of ponder meaning to think about something thoroughly and deeply.  Hopefully my effort will measure up to the title I have chosen.

So, when a new blog shows up on your Facebook feed or in your email, please take the time to open and read it and I would appreciate your comments.