God IN or ON the Brain?

Chell and Infidel have been posting some very interesting stuff about transhumanism and the effects of altering the human mind and body. Can we preserve/enhance our minds? Our physical bodies? And what about the soul? Can we cheat death scientifically? What of our humanity? The questions, the consequences, are almost endless. What makes us human and by attempting to transcend that humanity, in what sense do we remain human? What is the human condition?

An Op-Ed piece in the New York Times by David Brooks, "The Neural Buddhists" touches on this subject as well. As Brooks says, to scientists, "the idea that the spirit might exist apart from the body is just ridiculous. Instead, everything arises from atoms. Genes shape temperament. Brain chemicals shape behavior. Assemblies of neurons create consciousness. Free will is an illusion. Human beings are “hard-wired” to do this or that. Religion is an accident."

Lo and behold, over the past decade, a new group of assertive atheists has done battle with defenders of faith. The two sides have argued about whether it is reasonable to conceive of a soul that survives the death of the body and about whether understanding the brain explains away or merely adds to our appreciation of the entity that created it.

The atheism debate is a textbook example of how a scientific revolution can change public culture. Just as “The Origin of Species” reshaped social thinking, just as Einstein’s theory of relativity affected art, so the revolution in neuroscience is having an effect on how people see the world.

These are good questions and they do have profound consequences. Is a spiritual experience simply a chemical reaction in the brain stimulated by neural firings?

Scientists have more respect for elevated spiritual states. Andrew Newberg of the University of Pennsylvania has shown that transcendent experiences can actually be identified and measured in the brain (people experience a decrease in activity in the parietal lobe, which orients us in space). The mind seems to have the ability to transcend itself and merge with a larger presence that feels more real.

Brooks thinks this new wave of research will lead to something called Neural Buddhism:

First, the self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships. Second, underneath the patina of different religions, people around the world have common moral intuitions. Third, people are equipped to experience the sacred, to have moments of elevated experience when they transcend boundaries and overflow with love. Fourth, God can best be conceived as the nature one experiences at those moments, the unknowable total of all there is.

In their arguments with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, the faithful have been defending the existence of God. That was the easy debate. The real challenge is going to come from people who feel the existence of the sacred, but who think that particular religions are just cultural artifacts built on top of universal human traits. It’s going to come from scientists whose beliefs overlap a bit with Buddhism.

Are religions simply cultural artifacts built on top of universal human traits? Where do the ideas of gods come from? If looked at from this perspective, did somebody just sit down one day and come up with the idea of Baal, or YHWH? Some ancient and unknown author of speculative fiction? Did Moses have this sort of neural episode when he thought he was talking to YHWH?

Christians tend to think they are the only ones who have profound spiritual experiences, or at least, the only legitimate spiritual experiences. The rest of us who have them, I suppose, experience "tainted" experiences sent by Satan or something. But the truth is that Paganism was and is profoundly spiritual and that Paganism is not simply a series of coldly calculated cultic acts which leave the devout free of emotion. Pagans, as the evidence demonstrates, loved their gods.

Was it all in their heads? Is it all in our heads now? Does science level the religious landscape and make all spiritual experiences equal? It will certainly dash to pieces Christianity's conceit of a monopoly on the divine, but it won't do much to elevate Paganism.

In unexpected ways, science and mysticism are joining hands and reinforcing each other. That’s bound to lead to new movements that emphasize self-transcendence but put little stock in divine law or revelation. Orthodox believers are going to have to defend particular doctrines and particular biblical teachings. They’re going to have to defend the idea of a personal God, and explain why specific theologies are true guides for behavior day to day. I’m not qualified to take sides, believe me. I’m just trying to anticipate which way the debate is headed. We’re in the middle of a scientific revolution. It’s going to have big cultural effects.

Brooks is undoubtedly correct that these theories puts revealed religion on the spot, and all monotheisms are revealed religions - Zoroaster, Moses, Paul, Mohammed...these guys all talked to a god and not just experienced him but were instructed by him in some way. They all wrote about their experiences and about what their god demanded of the reset of us.

But even before this neural science, the emperor Julian argued that nobody in their right mind could find fault with the 10 Commandments, save the first two, which he found blasphemous. Christians like to claim their Judeo-Christian sense of justice is unique but it is not. For many centuries cultures had functioned with very similar sets of laws. There is nothing new and unique brought to the table by monotheism, whatever their claims. So perhaps some things are hard-wired into the human brain.

But if moral prerogatives are part of the human condition, does that mean the idea of the divine is also?

One point that should be clear is that if we cannot prove the existence of the gods, neither can it be proven that the gods exist only in our minds. If we are parts of a greater whole (nature) then it would make sense we could interface with it. We have eyes, ears, taste buds, the sense of touch...why not a little something in the brain which allows us to interact with our surroundings on another level? Is it possible this is what science has finally discovered?

It would not be the first time science was hundreds of years behind the curve, "discovering" something people have always known: the world is full of the divine, and we are part of it. Why wouldn't part of our brain be set aside to allow us to experience it? And why wouldn't our brains react to it? Brains react to everything else, and if a mundane experience, why not a spiritual?

Sphere: Related Content

Sex in Religion

I bring up the subject of sex and fertility in ancient religion quite often and did so again the other day in my post about Satanists, specifically with regards to Canaanite religion. As an addendum to yesterday's post I thought I'd share Archaeologist William G. Dever's excellent reference to this topic in his Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? (2003):

The fertility themes so prevalent in Canaanite religion, and no doubt typical of early Israelite religion, continue throughout as the fundamental aspect of Israelite religion. Note that here again the focus of religion is on the land: insuring its fruitfulness, enhancing its capacity to nourish and sustain humans and animals, holding it in sacred trust in perpetuity. Today it is politically incorrect in some circles to emphasize the central role of sex and reproduction in Canaanite and Israelite religion. But this "new prudery" overlooks the fact that religion is essentially concerned with ultimate reality. And nothing was as ultimate as the continued fertility of fields, beasts, and humans in an agricultural society and economy; it was literally a matter of life and death. (p 199)

Sphere: Related Content

Are Satanists Pagans?

The claim made by David Bay, of Cutting Edge Ministries, that the Washington Monument is "a filthy, phallic and satanic homage to the god Baal" is rightfully dismissed by Gwydion Tiamat, a self-professed Satanist. He wisely chose not to go by his given name because, as he says, friends' houses "have been firebombed." And anyway, as he says, "they're just pagans."[1]

My jaw dropped. Satanists are Pagans?

Are they?

Remember, Satan is a Judeo-Christian construct. Satan did not exist in the Biblical era. The early Jews had no concept of Satan. The snake in the Garden of Eden, the one that tempted Eve, was originally just a snake. There was no group of people, no ethnic group or cult, that worshiped a being known as Satan.

So are Satanists Pagans?

Polytheists had no concept of an arch-evil entity like the Judeo-Christian figure known as Satan. To accept the existence of such a being would require a cosmic dualism that was missing from Classical Paganism as well as from Norse or Germanic Heathenism. As I quoted Ramsay MacMullen saying a few days ago, our ancestors believed the Gods were beneficient. There was no cosmic contest between Good and Evil.

I used to work with a Satanist. He told me a lot about it and cleared up many of my misconceptions, misconceptions that many share. He said much what Gwydion Tiamat said, that Satanist are not out to hurt people and don't sacrifice cats. It's more about recognizing that people have carnal desires and expressing the freedom to satisfy those desires.

From this, I thought they sounded more like Epicureans. Epicurus had preached that this was the only life we had and that we might as well enjoy it, that happiness comes from pleasure and freedom from pain. So why not simply call themselves Epicureans? Why embrace a being who is an invention of monotheistic dualism?

And if you embrace a construct of monotheistic dualism, can you call yourself Pagan?

"Satan," Tiamat said, "is everywhere."[2]

He is? My coworker, the Satanist, didn't go in much for theology. He really didn't have much to say about that aspect of his life. He really didn't give any indication of believing in a being called "Satan." But I suppose there are Satanists and there are Satanists, just like there are Christians and there are Christians. Not all ancient Christians worshiped Jesus as a God, after all, as the Gnostics demonstrate.

Granted, one brand of Satanist embraces the idea that Satan is to be equated with the Egyptian god Set (Setianism). Christians and Jews are more likely to equate Satan with the god Baal. Anton Szandor LaVey, who founded the Church of Satan in 1966 and who authored The Satanic Bible, did not consider Satan to be an actual god to be worshiped but rather the human instinct within us. In that sense, I suppose, Gwydion Tiamat is right: "Satan is everywhere."

But does believing that human instinct is everywhere make you a Pagan? Hardly.

Does worshiping Baal make you a Pagan? Yes, most definitely. But which Baal are you worshiping? The Baal of Judeo-Christian imagination and propaganda, or the actual god Baal?

Baal was a Canaanite god, seen as the son of El (whose attributes and position were stolen by Yahwists for their god). Canaanite religion has a very bad reputation as a consequence of the Hebrew Bible's libel upon it. This outlook is maintained by today's Christians and even by some scholars who ought to know better than to let religious propaganda color their perceptions. William Foxwell Albright, the "Father of Biblical Archaeology," for example, stated that the "Canaanites, with their orgiastic nature-worship, their cult of fertility in the form of serpent symbols and sensuous nudity, and their gross mythology..."[3]

Never mind that scholars are recognizing that what Albright was in fact insulting was the true and original religion of the Israelites, who were in fact, Canaanites themselves and not escaped slaves from Egypt.

The point I am trying to make, the question I am trying to ask, is, if you see our gods through monotheistic eyes, are you a Pagan? So if you let monotheistic prejudice color your perceptions, corrupt the religious landscape, are you doing justice to your gods? You're worshiping a monotheistic corruption of a god who was originally not seen in that way at all. Let's face it: ancient Baal worshipers did not have the same jaded view of their god as the Israelites, as the Yahwists who wrote the propagandistic version of his worship that appears, via the Bible, in modern imagination.

"Nothing could be more fatal to a spiritual faith than this sensual religion." says the Catholic Encyclopedia.

There is a great deal wrong with this statement. First, the assumption that Pagan worship was not spiritual. Second, the assumption that because something might be sensual that it could not also be spiritual. There is no doubt that Paganism, with its acceptance of life and celebration of life lends itself more to sensuality than does Christianity, which tends to be death-oriented and life-hating and opposed to nature. After all, as we can see from Albright's assertion, nature-worship is a bad thing.

At the same time we must recognize that much of what is commonly attributed to ancient Paganism is slander, and that everything associated with Paganism, including dancing, feasting and drinking, were opposed by Christianity. Accusations of sexual excess are more of the same. Pagans are drunkards, licentious, and so forth. It did not matter than fertility is life-affirming and that there is nothing wrong with sex. It did not matter that feasting and drinking and dancing were legitimately part of religion, aspects of religion that Christianity rejected and in time made illegitimate.

Should we take the view, in our attempts to reconstruct or revitalize the customs and traditions of our ancestors, that any of these slanderous outlooks is legitimate, we are following the wrong path. Acceptance of the role of sex and sensuality is not the same thing as worship of sensuality. It is not the same thing as saying these ancient people who accepted its role and legitimacy, felt that life revolved around it, or that they did not have very strong morals. Pagans were very moral people. The Romans were almost prudish, in fact.

The idea that giving yourself over to absolute pleasure makes you Pagan seems to me a bit misguided.

So if I go back to my original question, "Are Satanists Pagans?" I find myself troubled. For one thing, if Satanism is really about satisfying your sensual desires and not about a god, can you really be a Pagan? Religion was never about self-indulgence. Religion for the ancients was giving proper respect to their gods, not to their own desires. Can you have religion without a god?

If Satan is Baal, why don't you call him Baal? Why don't you call yourselves Baalists? And why, if you want to worship Baal, do you worship the Judeo-Christian Baal and not the original, pre-propaganda Baal? If Set, the same goes. Set was a powerful warrior who slew the chaos serpent each day so that the sun could rise. He was identified with Baal, and also with the Hittite god Teshub. Does Set sound like a deity given over to sensuality to you? Sounds to me like Set is performing a service for his people, a selfless act, not one of self-indulgence and pleasure-seeking.

Yes, in time, Set came to be demonized and this is one of the ways in which I think Tom Stone is right about people "inventing" their gods. Even if the gods cannot change, our views of them can. Set came to have negative associations, for instance with foreigners, and the Egyptians were always very insular and xenophobic. But why, if you want to worship Set, do you choose this later view of him and not the original, beneficial Set? And then why do you associate him with a being, Satan, who was never a god, never worshiped and never, in fact, existed?

If anyone has any views or opinions on this, I would love to hear them. I personally do not see if helpful for modern day Pagans to play into the hands of Judeo-Christian propaganda about our morals. I am a Pagan in the sense my ancestors were Pagans, in the sense that they followed the customs and traditions of their ethnic religions and worshiped the gods of their people. I am not a Pagan in the sense that Christianity understands it, a negative, immoral sense.

Notes:

[1] Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, May 10, 2008, "D.C.: The devil's City?" by Dan Morse. Originally published in the Washington Post.

[2] Ibid.

[3] W.F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the Historical Process (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1940), 281.

Sphere: Related Content

Activists question televangelist probe

I read in the "Faith" section of today's Journal Gazette that "Nearly two dozen conservative Christian leaders have signed a letter to the Senate Finance Committee questioning an investigation into six large ministries that preach a gospel of prosperity." Some of you might remember reading about these ministries, which are accused of bilking gullible believers out of money, including the retirements of the elderly. The leaders of these ministries, conversely, lead the high life.

The activists letter "argues that the 6-month-old inquiry sets a dangerous precedent."

Yes, if you consider enforcing the law a dangerous precedent, I suppose they are right. But obviously these people think robbing the poor to enrich themselves is neither illegal nor immoral.

I keep thinking of the George Carlin routine in which he says that God is bad with money. He always needs more money.

And so do these ministers, apparently, and some prominent Christians agree, including Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar, Beny Hinn, Eddie Long, Joyce Meyer and Paul and Randy White, the accused. The activists who support them in their nefarious ways include, perhaps ironically but unsurprisingly, Paul Weyrich, the co-founder of Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority, Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association, the man responsible for us not being able to enjoy the programming we want simply because he doesn't know how to turn a knob, and former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell.

I suppose these religious leaders want immunity from prosecution, no matter what they're accused of. They've already shown that they care nothing for the rights of others in their hateful and bigoted speech, and that they want to dictate to us our morality. They want to violate the constitution by involving themselves in the political process while preserving their tax exemptions and now they want to be free to bilk their followers so that they can live more lucrative lives.

I wonder what Jesus, who owned perhaps a pair of worn out old sandals and a ragged cloak, would say about it all. Sometimes, I think, we hear the question asked too often, "What would Jesus do?" Perhaps it's being asked of, or by, the wrong people.

Sphere: Related Content

Church Politicking for Theocracy

(I received this yesterday from Americans United and am posting it here, as I always do, for general consumption. This is an issue that needs wider publicity, if only because these people feel (justifiably, I think) by having a friend in the White House. I personally know Christian conservatives who think Bush has let them down and it frightens me to think how much worse things would be in this country if they had their way. What has already happened as a result of the so-called Religious Right's influence in politics has been damaging enough):

A Religious Right group’s plan to ask churches to violate federal tax law on electioneering is deplorable, according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

The Wall Street Journal reported today that the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) is urging clergy to defy the tax-law ban on candidate endorsements by tax-exempt groups. Ministers are being pushed to use their pulpits on Sept. 28 to preach about candidates and spark a showdown.

The ADF, a theocracy-minded legal operation founded by right-wing religious broadcasters, hopes the Internal Revenue Service will launch investigations of these churches, thus opening the door to a federal test case of the constitutionality of the law.

Said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, “This is a truly deplorable scheme. Federal tax law rightly requires churches and other tax-exempt groups to use their resources for religious and charitable purposes, not partisan politics. When the faithful put their hard-earned dollars in the collection plate, they don’t expect it to wind up pushing some politician’s campaign.

“The Religious Right leaders who lust for political power in America will apparently stop at nothing, not even the sacred character of the church,” Lynn continued. “The vast majority of clergy do not seek to turn their incense-filled sanctuaries into smoke-filled political backrooms.

“I think very few clergy will yield to the Alliance Defense Fund’s worldly temptation,” Lynn concluded. “And those who do will find their churches’ tax exemptions in jeopardy. I assume the ADF will provide a list of congregations unwise enough to join this move, and we’ll be ready to report those churches to the IRS.”

Lynn noted that clergy know they are free to speak out on religious, moral and political issues. But they cannot use tax-exempt resources to support or oppose candidates for public office, which includes statements from the pulpit by church officials and other indications of campaign intervention.

In May of 2000, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia unanimously held that the IRS properly revoked the tax exemption of the Church at Pierce Creek, a congregation near Binghamton, N.Y., that bought newspaper ads in 1992 opposing presidential candidate Bill Clinton. (Americans United filed a complaint with the IRS about this clear violation of tax law.)

The court ruled in Branch Ministries v. Rossotti that “the revocation of the Church’s tax-exempt status neither violated the Constitution nor exceeded the IRS’s statutory authority.” (The three judges were Reagan appointees, and the opinion was written by James Buckley, a scion of the ultra-conservative Buckley family and brother of William F. Buckley.)

Americans United has served as a monitor of the intersection of religion and politics. In response to church politicization efforts, the watchdog group has distributed informational literature to religious leaders about federal tax law. In 80 cases since 1996, Americans United has asked the IRS to investigate apparent electioneering violations of the IRS Code by religious groups.

Sphere: Related Content

An Outlet for Outrage

Most of this I've said before. I just needed to vent a bit so if I'm repeating myself, I apologize in advance.

On her blog Upstream from Lethe, Indrani discusses the plight of the Hellenes in Greece, victims of persecution for the last 1600 years. She notes the words of a Greek Orthodox priest, Father Eustathios Kollas who stated in response to the ruling of an Athens court recognizing Greek polytheism: "They are a handful of miserable resuscitators of a degenerate dead religion who wish to return to the monstrous dark delusions of the past."

Who is going to stand here and tell me we do not need to respond to that? Who is going to suggest we lay low, act like "tame Pagans" and let this go unanswered?

I am outraged by this kind of remark. You should be too.

Certainly, we can live exemplary lives and set a good example. Living good lives will demonstrate to some that you can be a polytheist and still be a good person. But it isn't enough. We cannot let such things be said and not respond.

As I've said before, if we let Christianity control the terms of the debate, they will also control the outcome, and this we cannot let happen.

We are being slandered, monstrously slandered, to borrow Father Eutasthios' term.

So many Pagans believe that they must act like the "tame Indians" so prized by White missionaries in the 19th century American West, and by the US Government. But as the example of the Native Americans proves, being a "good Indian" won't get you preferential treatment. It won't save you from persecution and it won't save you should they start building bonfires again.

We, as Pagans, must stand up for ourselves. For our rights and for our reputations. When such things are said, we must write to the editor of the local paper. If you are in a position to do so, allow yourself to be interviewed. We must create awareness and we must re-educate, using these methods and also those many of us here are familiar with, informational websites and blogs.

I fail to see what is monstrous about freedom of belief and worship. If Christians are offended, they need not watch; they need not participate in Pagan festivals and religious rights. We don't want "hissing Christians" there in any event. I don't go to their Churches and misbehave or protest, no matter how offensive I find their beliefs and their conduct. They have a right to believe what they believe and to worship how they wish to worship. As do we.

Sadly, they are not willing to recognize our right to worship. As A.H. Armstrong has commented, "In general, I do not think that any Christian body has ever abandoned the power to persecute and repress while it actually had it. The acceptance of religious tolerance and freedom as good in themselves has normally been the belated, though sometimes sincere and whole-hearted, recognition and acceptance of a fait accompli."[1]

So we must fight for our right to worship as we choose, to honor our gods. We will be insulted, we will be ridiculed. We will be called "kooks" and worse. Father Eutasthios' words are by no means unique; his opinions are widely held. But as our numbers increase, the laughter will cease. Nothing confers legitimacy in peoples eyes like numbers. Numbers, as is sometimes said, have a quality of their own.

Until then, we must endure, but we must not simply endure in silence. We must fight and fight aggressively against the forces of intolerance. If there is ever to be a better day for our children, we must fight. We owe it to our ancestors, we owe it to our descendants, and we owe it to the Gods themselves.

Sphere: Related Content

The Evil of Nipples

You have to wonder when nipples became objects of evil, capable of washing morality overboard and corrupting entire cultures and civilizations. I mean, they're fairly simple devices really, with a straightforward and rather necessary purpose, that of nourishing babies until they're capable of using a straw or tipping back a glass.

It's fairly well known, I think, that people have them. Ancient Pagan societies, Greece and Rome, to name too, were familiar and comfortable with the concept of nudity, with the fact that both men and women have bodies under their clothing and that these are quite different in structure and in purpose. You'd see a phallus here on a wall, another phallus there. Heck, statues even had vaginas, if you can imagine that. Just think. People have reproductive organs and unlike Ken and Barbie, these could be openly and unashamedly represented. Incredible.

Now I read here that all this is quite improper, nipples let along those nasty reproductive organs. We've seen it before, teachers horrified at being confronted with ancient statues which actually represent women as having breasts and men as having penises. Cover them up! We don't want anyone to know such things exist!

Well, lo and behold, "Mariska Hargitay was rather surprised when she suddenly had no nipples." I bet she was. This collection of photos (and yes, Mariska had nipples when the photos were taken) is intended to be PG-13. By that I would take it to mean that no overtly sexual images would be conveyed: "Because we want to be on the newsstand, we have to be careful about the raciness." But since when is the human body racy?

In and of itself it is not, should not be, considered racy. These famous people who were photographed were not engaged in sexual acts. They were simply...naked. I don't know about everybody else, but I take my clothes off quite often. And I'm not generally thinking about sex when I do. I'm thinking about taking a shower, or putting on something different or something clean. And let's face it, a person can look sexy with clothes on. Some people will argue that a few clothes can even increase the sexiness of a body.

So what is this with erasing nipples? What kind of skewed morality do we Americans operate under? They have posters and billboards in other countries where people quite plainly have nipples. Are Americans not allowed to have nipples, or to know they exist? Are we operating under a misapprehension to think we have a right to have such things on our persons? Think about it for a minute. Nudity is not sexual in and of itself. When Vigo Mortensen fought for his life in the recent film, Eastern Promises(2007), there was nothing sexual in it. The poor man was trying to relax in a sauna when assassins tried to kill him. His nudity in that scene was quite believable. He wasn't trying to seduce anyone, was not engaging in sexual acts.

Did they have to show him nude? No, I suppose not. But the more important question is, was there a reason they shouldn't? People need to be more comfortable with the idea of nudity. I'm not a nudist, never will be. I'm a Heathen. I don't worship my gods skyclad. I wear clothes. But isn't it ridiculous to consider all nudity sexual? Shouldn't it be placed in context? Remember the Vagina Monologues and opposition to billboards related to that play which I mentioned last year, I believe? Yes, the vagina is a reproductive organ and reproduction requires sex, but is sex itself racy? Is it naughty? Is sex evil? I mean, without it, none of us would be here, including the prudes, bigots, and intolerant people who oppose its very existence.

We live in a predominantly Judeo-Christian culture (leave aside for a moment the fact that "Judeo-Christian" is a Christian construct) which considers all nudity evil and is generally misogynistic to one degree or another. Some of us are not part of that predominant culture or its worldview, religious or otherwise. We don't all consider nudity evil, yet we all of us suffer equally. If a few don't like nipples, they disappear as if they don't exist. If a few do not like penises or breasts, statues can't have them. Ken and Barbie can't have the parts all people are born with because in having them, somehow, our children will be corrupted instead of educated.

Personally, I want any children of mine to know that people have nipples, penises, vaginas, and so forth. What good is it pretending we don't? They'll figure it out for themselves at some point, earlier rather than later. Anyone who has children knows that simple truth. Isn't it better to talk about it, accept it, even illustrate it, rather than making something evil of it? I personally think this leads to a greater likelihood of "purient" interest in such things. We would be much better off if we could simply accept the truth that people have body parts and that these body parts have quite natural uses.

I'm not advocating naked pictures or statues. I'm simply advocating simple acceptance of fact, and honesty, with ourselves as much as with others. Pagan societies were not perfect, but at least people were willing to accept such simple truths and were able to do so without pretending any of it was evil.

Sphere: Related Content

Decision Indiana

It looks like, against all odds, that the Democratic ticket will be decided in Indiana this year. I remember very early on in the primary process that all the pundits were saying Indian had made its primary too late in the year, when all was likely to have been decided, making our vote irrelevant. It did not turn out that way.

The problem is, now they are saying Republicans are crossing party lines and voting in the Democratic primary (since their own is already decided they can afford to) and voting for the Democrat they think is most beatable. I've heard both Hilary and Obama listed as the beatable candidate.

What bothers me is the idea of my vote being canceled out (I'm registered here as a Democrat) by a Republican. It's illegal for one thing, though given the laws there is no way for anyone to know unless you're a well known Republican and walk into the polling place and declare yourself a Democrat - then somebody could challenge your vote).

After a great deal of thought, I ended up voting for Hilary. I did this for two reasons. All things being equal (and I thought they generally were), I felt Hilary was a little stronger on healthcare (given my son's condition, I think this is understandable) and General Wesley Clark, who would have been my first choice, is a supporter of Hilary. Perhaps if she wins she'll be wise enough to make him Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State. I hope so. At the least, I hope she uses him as National Security Adviser. The man is too good a resource to waste.

So it's done now and I will sit back and see how it turns out. I'm comfortable with my vote even though I don't like everything about Hilary. No candidate is perfect and the Democrats, I think, are too weak on the immigration issue. But I agree with those who say voting for McCain is like giving Bush a third term. These extreme conservatives may think McCain (or even Bush) is not truly a conservative, but when you think like a Nazi I suppose nobody is ever going to be fanatical enough for you.
And of course, the Republican Party has sold its soul to the so-called Religious Right, putting them beyond the pale for me. I would have a very difficult time voting for a Republican these days. I mean, they would really have to stand out.

Sphere: Related Content