Archaeology Anyone?

Although my personal love has always been Roman history from the time of Julius Caesar, my second historical interest has always been Egypt.

Now, UCLA has spent two years working up this virtual tour of Karnak. It makes me wish I had some speed to this old clunker of a computer, but alas, I don’t think I can use the site well.

You can read a nice explanation at Science Daily about how this was accomplished. Karnak is one of the largest archaelogical sites in the world.

I grew up at a time when we mostly had slide shows. If we had the occasional “talking” school educational show, it usually the sound went out, and the film broke once or twice. It’s just amazing what is available to teachers now. I’m soooo jealous.

If you have kids, you might want to share this with them. More to the point, share it with your kids history teacher!

I haven’t brought you much science lately, but I still look over the posts most days, trying to find something of general interest.

Enjoy.

Reaching for the Mature

Okay, my bad. Yech, I hate that stupid term, but it does seem all the rage, even for people like me who need to stick to 60′s jargon.

But I did error, and probably waste your time yesterday. I made a fatal mistake in understanding the human animal. And so I’m going to correct that today. Read on if you can spare the time.

Yesterday I made some comments about atheists, at least some atheists. I accused them of being  childish and snotty to be frank. I was not wrong, but that is beside the point. I was at a site called Proud Atheists. You can go and visit if you wish, but I’d not recommend it.

As I said yesterday, I found the topic posted by “Mark” interesting, and I responded in a serious manner. When I returned, I found that most, (not all of course), but most responses were silly, smirking and much like what you would expect from young boys in the garage smoking a stolen cigarette while using “dirty” words with all the appropriate snickers and guffaws.

I wrote what I wrote yesterday, and and returned to PA and left a comment inviting Mark to come read and leave a comment. He chose not to. Which is fine, but as I again looked over the latest postings and comments, I realized that there not just more of the same. Bashing and making sport of Christianity as if believers were just brainwashed and brain dead pimples on the butt of planet earth.

I sighed softly, wondering why there were no “adult” comments, when it dawned on me. I had merely slipped up on a juvenile site of the genus “atheisticus immaturitis.” Yes, atheists, just like their counterparts in the world of religion, start out as babies, and go through stages of maturity, or don’t as they are motivated to learn and grow.

It has been my fervent belief that any faith worth believing in can withstand rigorous and penetrating evaluation. I am aware that some faith investigators do come away having shed their faith, but I think this is the exception rather than rule. Every bit of study, and exploration serves to broader my faith, and I don’t think I’m exceptional in that sense.

It may, of course, cause me to rethink some things, and readjust what exactly I do believe and how I practice it. That should be obvious and not frightening. It is called maturing in faith. As Paul said, “when I became of age, I put aside childish things.” Every book I read, whatever it’s position or conclusion, helps me vision God and Christ in a new and hopefully better way. I discard images that no long seem supportable, I embrace, I hope a more loving and meaningful conceptions over time.

All I know is that my faith grows. It is alive. It is not set in stone as some of my fundamentalist brothers and sisters seem to think it should be, and apparently needs to be if worthwhile to them.

I have discovered that atheism, like probably any philosophic construct must do the same. It starts in infancy with simply beliefs and grows insofar as the holder wishes or needs to pursue the subject. It constantly evaluates and questions itself as it should. In the end, it emerges as a adult fully formed philosophy.

I have met many atheists of this type, and I find them delightful, informed, deeply thinking individuals. They have strong arguments to put forth, and they are important ones, one’s we need to listen to and respond to. We need not necessarily respond to them, since few confirmed non-believers have a need to be hounded by proselytizing zealots. But thinking of what they have to say is important to our own faith-based maturity.

If we are too afraid of this, then we are really saying we fear that our faith is not up to the test. For me, quite frankly, no faith no “up to it” is not worth having. I seek truth, not comfort, though comfort can come from truth.

Today, by that serendipity that I so love, I ran across another blog and pursued that one. It led to another. I have looked at both a bit more carefully and offer them to you for your enlightenment.

One is called, “Evaluating Christianity,” and the other is called, Evangelical Realism.

We are all too aware that there are elements on both sides who would deny the other the right to speak. The rest of us in the middle, the rational on both sides, are responsible for finding the means to dialog. Division is rampant in this country due in large part to radical elements. It’s time we do our part to bridge the gap.

Two Wrongs Make it RIGHT!

Most of you are not WordPress users. The homepage always has your sign-in info, but also lists a number of other blogs that they deem of some interest. I’ve learned to quickly run down the list, since occasionally I find something interesting.

The other day I did, a post entitled something like, “Why do Christians comment on atheist blogs.” Curious, I sauntered over and took a look at the post, which was short. The writer is quite popular, there were a couple hundred replies. I posted my answer and left, thinking that this might be an interesting blog to follow.

A couple of days, I check back to see if there had been any response to what I wrote. There was, and it surprised me. I had said that I thought some Christians thought that an atheist just needed the right argument to be made, and of course, they assumed they had that argument.

I indicated that I thought that faith was not “teachable” that we all come to it or don’t by so many different ways that no one can talk someone into it. I also said that I thought that there was something wondrous that nonbelievers missed in life regrettably.

The response from one person was odd to say the least. He took issue with the first point, by suggesting that it was ludicrous to think that children ended up in the faith of their parents by virtue of mere chance.

Of course, I had implied nothing of the kind. Children are raised in a church. They may leave or stay depending on any number of factors. My point was that the atheist becomes a believer by a unique set of circumstances that can’t be anticipated nor manufactured. It is an issue of the mind and heart.

My point about belief giving a wondrous benefit was turned into some claim that only believers can feel reverence for nature. He pointed out that atheists can be awed by mountains and such as well.

At that point I suggested that the person try reading a post rather than simply twisting a statement to their liking to then “get off” their favorite reproach.

The point of all this is that I’m not used to such childishness on the part of atheists. Most that I have met over my lifetime have been intellectual, well educated, thoughtful, civil, highly moral, and so on. They have an excellent argument to make, they make it, and they have no need to resort to snotty put downs in order to feel superior.

As I scrolled down the responses, I saw over and over references to believers as irrational dopes who believed in fairies and leprechauns and Easter bunnies and invisible gods. Many of the posters were arrogant in their superiority, talking down to believers as children who were clinging to fairy tales to avoid responsibility in life.

Again, this has not been my experience overall. Certainly not among several atheists who read this blog and comment from time to time. They are always friendly and civil. They may tease, but it is clear they are teasing, and not trying to put me or other believers down.

What I hear from atheists is the same as what I hear on religious forums. It’s the other side that is childish, arrogant, threatening, and so on and so on. Worse, each side now justifies its crude behavior  by claiming that the other side does the same.

This prompted me a few days ago to get into a strange argument with a Catholic, and I’m still scratching my head trying to figure out what I am missing. I’ll try to be brief:

A thread was entitled, “What horror stories about Protestant churches do you have to tell?” I responded with something like, “Oh goodie, another thread where we can bash other faith traditions and hurt people’s feelings. What fun!”

This was met with a reply from Donnie (not his real name), who replied, “not to be like a broken record but on Protestant forums they do this to Catholics.” To which I replied, “is it an excuse for bad behavior that the other side is doing the same? I think we are forgetting that old axiom, ‘two wrongs don’t make a right.’”

This brought an inexplicable complaint that I was putting “words” in his mouth by calling the behavior “bad or poor.” I replied, “No, I didn’t claim that was your definition. It is mine.” To which he replied, “I can’t figure out what’s wrong with you, but I’m done with this conversation.” To which I replied, “I can’t figure out what’s wrong with you, but I’m done with this conversation.” To which he replied, “You’re just trying to be nasty,” or something to that effect.

It seems that somehow, as long as the other side is doing wrong, we are now entitled to do the same. No one sent me the letter that the old adage was no longer in use. I’m seriously ticked. I mean I was raised believing that when someone did you wrong, it made you equally wrong to do the same back to them. Now, it’s right. Somebody changed the rules without telling me.

If somebody can tell me who changed the rules, I’d like to know, because I seriously disagree. Trouble is, I can’t figure out who has that authority. If I had to choose, I’d probably choose the Republicans. It sounds like something they might do. Or is that treating them the same as they treat me? Now, I’m seriously worried I can’t be the snarky pundit that I so like to dream that I am. Have I got to be nice now? Even to John and Sarah, and Rush, and Sean, and Glenn, and oh lordy, the list is ever growing.

Please tell me that everyone has to be above it all except when I want to make sport of the Republicans and the Religious right! Life would be just too too boring if I can’t slice them into bits with my impeccable dry wit. I’m so confused right now! HELP.

Gosh I Love the GOP

I saw this picture on one of the first blogs in my reader this morning, and just had to have it. I’m seriously thinking of starting a collection of great Cheney pics like this. I mean, they will be worth something someday!

Mostly I can’t get over that the funniest thing I can think of these days is the GOP. No swine flu, no economic ups and downs, no handshakes with Chavez for me! I’ve waited eight long years, and I am just enjoying this too much to stop.

I mean, really, how inept can a bunch of so-called brilliant lights be? All their bulbs have dimmed to flickering softly in the twilight. Yesterday I even posited that Satan might be seriously at work here, since it’s hard to imagine how they could deliberately be this bad.

They being the GOP. Polling last week confirmed the obvious, only 21% of folks self-proclaim themselves as Republican. Perhaps the number is larger of course, many may just be too embarrassed to admit their affiliation. Still.

Michael Tomasky posits that this works out to about 46 millions of persons. Now Rush Limbaugh’s listening public appears to be around 25 million. That means that nearly half of all Republicans are listening to Rush. Does this explain the problem?

I read one blog that suggested that Mr. Cheney should have run for President in 2008. You immediately think, what kind of wingnut is this? But then you see the sense of it. He would have lost in a landslide and perhaps then the rank and file would have been shaken from their right wing lethargy an comes to their senses.

I read another blog yesterday that suggested the Foxy News was gaining rather handily in watchership, while CNN was losing and MSNBC was gaining a bit. That seemed dreary and scary to the writer of the post. I would have agreed but for something I know personally.

We watch Foxy more than ever now. Not for news of course, but as a excellent gauge of how well the Democrats are actually doing. The more Fox rants, the better the left is faring. And nothing on earth is more fun says the Contrarian than to watch Sean and Bill and Glenn sputter and shake as even their hand picked experts disagree with them. They literally tie themselves in knots trying to make everything a disaster for Obama.

Did you hear by the way, that he uses a teleprompter? Alot? I mean the audacity of actually wanting to say exacting what one means! That’s a true shock to the system I tell ya. After eight long years of stupid remarks by his dopeness “The Decider,” a President who actually can speak English!

You can have even more fun at forums. I don’t bother replying to any, but I love to read the topics. Did you know that (careful now, sit down for this one) Obama actually invited gay couples and their kids to the Easter Egg hunt! Yes he did. Buried down at the bottom of the rant was, “well to be fair, so did Bush, but he hated it, and just did it to stave off the usual left wing media.”

You always hear the phrase, more fun than shooting monkeys in a barrel. And you might liken watching the self destruction of the GOP as this. However, I’d advise against it. I’ve investigated this phrase and am having difficulty finding shooting monkeys fun, (we don’t want them as mad at us as swine are now do we?), nor why it would be fun to shoot them in barrels. I mean how big a barrel, and how does that enhance my enjoyment?  Perhaps Cheney should be consulted on this, since he likes shooting old men quail  who are hand stocked in the grass around him. He may be able to explain the fascination.

Anyway, the media is now fast on the track of asking the GOP, and more particularly those particular Rethugs who insisted on removing money for pandemic preparedness from the stimulus bill. I mean talk about being snake bit. Again, I don’t know why that comparison works, but it’s the kind of thing you always hear when coincidences like that turn up as synchronicity.

Are you seeing this pattern developing. All these phrases we use to describe events are tied to animals. This has got to have something to do with why we get all our diseases from critters. I mean it can’t be a coincidence. Think of cart before the horse, raining cats and dogs, high as an elephant’s eye, ornery as pole cat, sly as a fox.

You can write a billion more without breaking a sweat. I guess they don’t like it. Perhaps they have their own list of phrases, smelly as a human digging a sewer, sad as a stood up bride with droopy flowers, blind as a  kid with coke bottle glasses. Who knows what our dogs and cats are saying behind our backs, snickering and all.

Well, this was about the GOP, and has now morphed. It’s not my fault. When you talk about the GOP,  you just naturally develop a certain loss of brain function. I can understand why they are imploding a lot better now. I need some fresh air to clear my head and return to a functional IQ.

Short Takes on the Day, 04/27/09

Well, yesterday’s post must have concerned God, since he went to some efforts to make me feel better about missing church yesterday. Later in the morning, I developed a definite fever, and felt lethargic. Rut-row, was the swine flu coming my way? We had been in a hospital for goodness sakes only Friday, and you know that everybody gets sick when you go near those places!

It didn’t last long. After I ate, I felt quite a bit better and the “symptoms” disappeared. So I started to feel a bit justified in my choice. Turns out though that it was never to be.

Today, which cooking up a storm, I finally got to sit down and turn toward my daily office practices. I happened to gaze out the window, and you guessed it, a solidly flat tire met me. Given that with all the rain, something like four inches total, nothing was getting down the lane but the Bronco, I was never going to church yesterday anyway. So I figure God was telling me it was okay, that I sorta fudged on “not being able to get out.”

***

John McCain continues to fascinate me. His daughter has come out in favor of gay rights and is taking plenty of pot shots at Karl (slight of hand) Rove. But the old man continues his shameful crap. He’ s more than willing to accept that waterboarding is torture and we shouldn’t do it, but thinks we should “move on” and not prosecute the slime balls who have ignored the Geneva Conventions and well, defend the practice on unproven claims that “it worked.” McCain remains the candidate who cuts corners on ethics to continue stroking the base. Word is  that he’s getting a real run for his money by an ultra conservative in Arizona, who is beating him over the head about his immigration policy (which of course, McCain no longer wishes to even speak of.)

***

Speaking of the new swine flu, and we were, how’s come we keep getting diseases from animals? I mean this seems always the case doesn’t it? Do they ever get sick from us? Other than getting murdered for food and tested for cosmetics and such? I mean that’s enough to be really mad at us I guess. But I haven’t seen any pigs sneezing. Is that a sign? I yell at one of our cats, Kate. She sneezes all the time, and never covers her nose, but that’s another story.

I’m just wondering if this is some massive conspiracy by the animal kingdom to do us in. I can understand why they might think it a good idea, but really our menagerie of spongers are way to lazy to work for their supper or pay any rent. They need us, like it or not. So enough with giving us all this darned illness! (You know this might have something to do with birds committing suicide by flying into jet engines……just thinkin’.)

***

Oh and while we are still talking about the flu, and we still are cuz I said so. Just wanted to give a nice shout out to the Rethugs for their help. Not only did they insist that money allotted to “pandemic disease” control be taken out of the stimulus package because it somehow didn’t create jobs, but they are blocking the appointment of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius for HHS. You know, it’s to the point where you almost have to think there is a satanic force at work making sure the GOP is on the exact wrong side of everything these days. (Shall we reload in our circular firing squad boys and girls, and continue to off each other faster than a Democrat can win an election against ya?)

***

It seems that all was atwitter for nothing much. Lots of speculation was afoot that things would not go well when Charles and Camilla had a private audience with his Holiness Benedict XVI.

First of all, it was expected that the Pope would be chastising the couple, since both are divorced, which is not kosher in the Vatican (I love mixing religions like that). It was also theorized that Benedict would present the couple with a facsimile of Henry VIII’s request for annulment. Neither one happened.

Apparently the meeting was quite chatty. This of course leads to new speculation that the Vatican is thinking about relaxing the divorce prohibition for its flock. Camilla was married to a Catholic, although Charles was not (actually it’s against the law for a royal to marry a Roman Catholic under current Acts of Secession). The pope we understand did want that dropped.

I’d not place too much emphasis on his meeting the two and not wagging his finger at the couple for “living in the sin of adultery” though. It would take some mighty fancy foot work to change the Church’s stance on divorce without a whole lot of other dogma threatening to collapse. When you make claims that the Church is prevented from error by the Holy Spirit, it is a big no no to suggest said Spirit in error.

Course, there are ways around this, but who is gonna be big enough to say they “misinterpreted” the Spirit? So don’t look for any change soon. So far the willing martyr has not been found. Swords are being readied perhaps for the inevitable falling upon though.

***

that’s all folks!

Hope Springs Eternal?

It’s been one of those mornings. Not to my liking by a long shot. Even Bear looked up with disgust as if to say, “Oh good grief, grow up, it’s raining, stop your silly complaining and take a nap.” Which he then preceded to return to.

I didn’t go to church today. I should have, and could have, but I didn’t. I woke up several times during the night and heard the rain whipping against the house, thinking of the lane getting worse and worse with each drop. The holes fill in the in low spots, and become large enough for the dogs to leisurely take a bath in. By 5:30, I decided I wouldn’t go.

The Contrarian had worked long and hard to smooth it out. I could get out, but I would have torn it up a lot doing so. Set and satisfied with my decision, it helped not a bit when the Contrarian encouraged me to go. “Actually, tearing it up might help some, it will give me so ridges to pull dirt from and help smooth it even better.” Now my damned excuse was gone! My mood deteriorated further. Worse yet, by 8 the rain has ceased and the sky brightened as the weather people, my enemy today, said the break would last until evening when all hell would break loose again for some more hours of soggy goodness.

“Blessed by you, Lord our God, King of the Universe, for rains to feed all life on your earth.” I mumbled this through tight jaws, spitting out the words. I’d learned this Jewish blessing a few days earlier. Blessings were to be poured out at the rate of 100 per day, everything after Universe, created by the speaker to honor God for something close at hand–the mixer that kneaded the dough, the vacuum that sucked up the dust, the eyes that looked over slowly budding trees.

Then I recalled a post. Wounded Bird and Mimi wrote a post on how hope is the defining element of Christianity.  I think that is essentially true. We are a people of hope, we Christians. We hope for things unseen. We believe that Jesus was the Christ, the son of God. We believe that if we are faithful, however we define that, we will be with Jesus in heaven, however we define that. It is a hope for the future.

But then, hope is always for the future isn’t it? Hope is defined as “the feeling that what is wanted can be had or that events will turn out well.” According to Webster’s Dictionary at least. Notice that  hope is not irrational, it is the feeling that what is wanted CAN be had.

That is comforting. But hope is not the property of faith, far from it. It is clearly ingrained in the human psyche. The fact that we are here today is proof enough of that. If we lived without hope, then we would simply sit and rot. The race would have been extinct soon after it came to be.

Lack of hope is the nemesis of depression. It is the essential definition of this insidious disease after all, the feeling of utter hopelessness. Nothing can be more corrosive to the human mind. In fact, if it remains unchecked for too long, the mind gives up and destroys itself. People who are hopeful don’t kill themselves.

We know what Christians hope for, eternal life with God. Some other faiths have hopes for after lives as well and this is also easy to understand.

But what is the hope of the atheist? Or any faith-filled person whose religion has no such belief in a continuation of some sort?

I have been at a loss to understand what there is to hope for absent an afterlife frankly. I see people living in conditions that make me weep with frustration and sadness. I see people wracked with chronic pain and chronic disability that makes life difficult beyond measure. I see people spending thirty and forty years working eight hours a day at a job they hate. The list goes on and on. How do they continue I ask myself? How?

After all, if death  comes to all, and it does seem that way, then why do we strive? Why do we fight to leave legacies of achievement? We will not be here to see the accolades. Has Yul Brennar gained anything tangible because his movie “The Magnificent Seven,” is being shown today? He’s long dead, and if with God, I’m sure he’s way too busy to notice.

The only clear answer I ever get is that that those with children have reason to struggle, sacrifice and otherwise keep on steppin’ because everyone wants their kids to have it better than they did. That is pretty much true for every parent, though I’m sure there are exceptions. But then, we know what will come. They will, no matter how comfy we make them, still move toward inevitable death, wherein their triumphs will be meaningless, at least to them, and who else counts when you’re dead?

Sorry to be so depressing. But I’m a believer, and I have hope of that afterlife after all. But I can’t come up with a reason for the others. I just can’t seem to fathom in my dark moments how you keep on getting on with it, without this. Maybe Marx was right when he called religion the “opiate of the masses,” the thing that keeps them passive, and quiet while they are being exploited.

If Marx was right, it changes nothing really. That doesn’t make religion or faith invalid in the least, it just means we ought not fall subject to its being used to keep us passive to our own exploitation. Marx was speaking of Europe. Archbishop Oscar Romero could have said the same thing about Latin America.

What upsets me at moments like this, is that this is misuse of faith as far as I’m concerned. Using it to carry my hope for me. For indeed, as I said, it seems utterly ingrained in us all. I just don’t know where it comes from. Perhaps from that same place that allows us up to the moment of death to think without thinking that somehow we will escape it. It causes us to use that so funny phrase at every age, “if something happens to me,. . . .” IF???? Did you say IF? We never use WHEN, and the appropriate word is WHEN!!!!

So somebody come forth and explain to me the altruistic reasoning that allows the non-believer to have hope. Cuz, I feel mighty rotten in using my faith as a crutch. I want to love my God because he’s God, because he’s worth loving, and not just because he’s holding the best ever Christmas present ever devised, and promising it to me one day.

As Oscar Wilde said, “We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.” Tell me of your stars.

Name Your Impulse

Okay, we’ve been through this before. What in the world makes a conservative, well conservative, and a liberal, liberal.

We try to converse with each other, end up yelling, throwing down our respective hats, and screaming bloody murder. “What is wrong with you. It’s obvious to anybody with a brain!”

Yet, we fail, and we are wont, on both sides, it seems, to declare the other side simple-minded, irrational, self-indulgent, and any such collection of pejorative adjectives that come to mind.

Noted psychologist, Jonathan Haidt, author of  “The Happiness Hypothesis,” has more to tell us on that score. Haidt, professor at the University of Virginia is also widely known for his essay entitled “Why People Vote Republican.” He will be getting out a new book in the fall of 2010.

His basic theory is that we are victims of rather different moral philosophies, gained as much from our peers than from our parents. We value different moral precepts and this makes it inevitable that we will fall on opposite sides of some very big issues.

The five moral impulses he discovered at work were these:

• Harm/care. It is wrong to hurt people; it is good to relieve suffering.

• Fairness/reciprocity. Justice and fairness are good; people have certain rights that need to be upheld in social interactions.

• In-group loyalty. People should be true to their group and be wary of threats from the outside. Allegiance, loyalty and patriotism are virtues; betrayal is bad.

• Authority/respect. People should respect social hierarchy; social order is necessary for human life.

• Purity/sanctity. The body and certain aspects of life are sacred. Cleanliness and health, as well as their derivatives of chastity and piety, are all good. Pollution, contamination and the associated character traits of lust and greed are all bad.

And of course, you guessed it. The first two are terribly important to liberals and the last two terribly important to conservatives. The middle one is vastly more important to conservatives than liberals as well. It takes little imagination to figure out where you fall, and as you examine the discussions you’ve had with conservatives, you can easily see the echoes of their moral priorities as well.

This of course translates rather excellently into religious liberal/conservative divisions as well. If one is religiously conservative, you can almost bet they are conservative as to all the various political issues they are concerned about. When you say, “how can you not care that millions of your fellow citizens don’t have basic health care?” they retort, “What is that up against the millions of babies we kill through abortion?”

Perhaps, just perhaps, neither side is being purposefully obtuse in refusing to see the point of the other side, their moral impulse just screams that something else is desperately more important before your issue comes to the fore.

What Haidt and others would argue, is that neither side would be good at being the sole group in control. Either would drive society in general into a hole. Liberals would end up with chaos and conservatives would install a sterile grey world of rules, killing creativity in the process.

That this is so is clear when you examine either party after serious losses. They devolve into a mess, kind of like the GOP is doing to itself today. It wasn’t all that long ago that the Democrats did the same thing, which of course led to the Bush fiasco, which in turn led to the latest Republican downfall.

By the way, you can determine your own particulars on this subject by going to http://www.yourmorals.org/.

Given that we are living in a more and more global world, we are going to continue to be faced with people who have radically different takes on this moral impulse ground. It becomes imperative that we learn this fact well, and work to appeal in our statements to as broad a range of the five as possible when framing our arguments.

One area as an example is that of the environment. Liberals support action because of their broad care for people and keeping them from harm. But evangelicals are being drawn toward action by appeals to authority–namely that God expects us to take care of what he has given us.

There is much to argue, for and against Haidt’s argument, no doubt. It is in its beginning stages of development and there will be plenty of critics. If you want to see some of them, then by all means look at the comments to the piece, which is linked up top. They are thoughtful and reasoned.

Yet, it seems Haidt is on to something here, and we desperately need an answer to this polarizing situation we find ourselves in. We cannot continue to address the severe and huge problems facing this country and globe without learning somehow to work together. That we have widely divergent ideologies is clear, but we have much at stake that is the same–our children for a start.

Its a beginning, and one well worth your time to read and consider I believe.