Category: General

Several months ago, I encountered an interesting newspaper column entitled “America doesn’t need more God. It needs more atheists” (Washington Post, 10-3-23).  The author, Kate Cohen, said that Americans needed more atheists since atheists “demand that truth claims be tethered to fact.”

It is unfortunate, Cohen notes, that atheists are not popular in our public culture.  A recent Pew Research Center poll listed the number of self-proclaimed atheists at 4 percent.  Several psychologists, using a different polling technique, were able to raise that to 26 percent of people who refused to say they believed in God.

Americans seem to have a built-in distrust of atheists.  We don’t want to vote for them or want our children to marry them, and we even associate lack of belief in God with criminal behavior.  We refer to God in our pledge of allegiance and stamp it on our currency—this, for many of us, is part of the notion that we are “a Christian nation,” something that is not true legally, sociologically, or even behaviorally.

And this brings us back to Cohen’s claim that we need more publicly professed atheists in order to raise the level of honesty in our public life.

Cohen cites a recent Washington Post/ABC News Poll in which 29 percent of Americans said they believed that President Biden was not legitimately elected.  22 percent of those polled “think there is solid evidence of fraud” while 7 percent said there wasn’t such evidence but still said Biden was not a legitimately elected president.  

Eighty-one percent claimed to be Christian in a 2022 Gallup poll. How many of them, I wonder, might also be among those who deny Biden’s victory in 2020?  I suspect it was more than a few.

Being affiliated with an organized religious group, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or other, does not make you immune to political falsehoods.  Of course, neither does being an atheist. Cohen argues, however, that atheists are more “tethered to facts” because they do not accept religious stories or “myths,” as she calls them.

Cohen also claims that atheists are more likely to be active in and donate to political campaigns and are 30 percent more likely to vote than religious people. She believes atheists “understand that, without [belief in] a higher power, we need human power to change the world,” but also admits that there are are social and political activists are who are religious. “You don’t have to be an atheist, she notes; you just have to act like one” she says.

Having said that, she is still critical of religious believers for not “pushing back against the outsized cultural and political power of religion itself.”  By this she means all the religious exemptions that have been given by recent court decisions.  These include rulings that the state of Maine must “pay for a parochial school. . . and that a website designer can reject same-sex clients.”

Cohen’s article raises some interesting and legitimate points.  Religious groups now have more legal, social, and political power than appropriate in a nation which has long valued separation between church and state. 

The second major point this author makes (beyond claiming that it is easier for atheists to be more honest and that there are more of them in hiding in religious communities than you might think) is that America would be stronger if more atheists “came out of the closet.” If this happened, she says, would reduce some of the pain which evangelical Christians inflict on our country by supporting people like Donald Trump. 

“So ask yourself: Do I think there is a supernatural being in charge of the universe? If you answer ‘no’ you’re an atheist. . . .But if you go further, you’ll be doing something good for your county.”

Now this is where I get off the train that Ms. Cohen is driving, even though I am willing to ride with her criticisms of the damage done to America by the type of “Christians” she deplores.  While I believe in God, I do not accept Cohen’s definition of God as a “supernatural being” running the universe.

In my last post I summarized the argument of Washington Post columnist Kate Cohen claiming that American politics would become more honest if we had more public atheists among us. In it Cohen repeatedly referred to God as a “Supreme Being” and “a supernatural being in charge of the universe.”

While I agreed with much of her criticism of our political dishonesty, I wish to propose an alternative form of Christian honesty. God is not a being, supernatural or otherwise.  While I know many Christians are shocked by that assertion, calling God a being suggests that God is some bearded old man in Heaven making judgments about events and people on earth.

            Several years ago I wrote, at my daughter’s request, a brief essay for my grandchildren on my religious views. In it, I rejected belief in the traditional views of Heaven and Hell, the image a judgmental God in the Old Testament, and even the more recent view that Jesus’ death was necessary to save us from sin and condemnation to Hell. 

            Instead, I told my grandkids, I believe in a Divine Creative Spirit (not a Being) existing in all of creation, including humans, and that we all have access to this creative Spirit to the extent that we become conscious of the “God” within us. All life is thus ultimately One and ultimately good.

            While this view would be rejected as heresy by my evangelical Christian friends, it is not anti -Christian. A good Christian, for example, can believe that evil is not caused by God but is a part of life and often a consequence of human decisions. A good Christian can also believe that God needs our help to create the “kingdom of God” on earth. This makes active love of others and the earth most important.

Here is a simpler definition of my version of Christian attributed to South African bishop Desmond Tutu: “Without God, you can’t.  Without you, God won’t.”

            This way of being a follower of Jesus boils down to belief in a God or divine force that helps us do the right things—including being truthful politically—but who does not control or manipulate us—a relational god rather than a judgmental one. 

This divine spirit is not the all-powerful, all-knowing, judging “being” many of us were introduced to as children.  This ultimate source of creativity is an all loving and all-forgiving power that “invites people to align their wills with spirit and to partner with him/her/it to create and spread beauty throughout the world.” (Benjamin Corey, Unafraid: Moving Beyond Fear-Based Faith (2017), p. 174.) 

This thumbnail sketch of an alternative to traditional evangelical Christianity does not deny the divinity that exists in Jesus, that Jewish boy who Christians claim as their founder. Jesus, in the words of 19^th century theologian and churchman Friederich Schleiermacher, had a higher level of “God-consciousness” than the rest of us. By following him as he requested—he never asked his disciples to worship him—and imitating his life of love, we can develop a higher level of that consciousness of divinity within ourselves. 

By following that path, we can make America a better, more honest, place, without worrying unduly about the various doctrines and dogmas that many churches use to control Jesus and make him into a God whom we often either fear or dismiss.  We too often make Jesus into a God with whom it is hard to identify. That is unfortunate, since his message is more about unconditional love than it is about power, obedience, and fear of Hell.

Christianity should be more about sharing love than judging others. If we viewed it that way, we might have the positive effect on our society that atheists like Kate Cohen would like us to have.  We would be more compassionate in our social and political policies and behaviors.  We might also learn how to accept imperfections in ourselves and others, but still “love our neighbor as ourselves.”

That approach might, with divine help, keep us from being manipulated by power-hungry political or religious leaders—and that would allow Christians to join with atheists and others in creating a better world for all.

Several months ago, I encountered an interesting newspaper column entitled “America doesn’t need more God. It needs more atheists” (Washington Post, 10-3-23).  The author, Kate Cohen, said that Americans needed more atheists since atheists “demand that truth claims be tethered to fact.”

It is unfortunate, Cohen notes, that atheists are not popular in our public culture.  A recent Pew Research Center poll listed the number of self-proclaimed atheists at 4 percent.  Several psychologists, using a different polling technique, were able to raise that to 26 percent of people who refused to say they believed in God.

Americans seem to have a built-in distrust of atheists.  We don’t want to vote for them or want our children to marry them, and we even associate lack of belief in God with criminal behavior.  We refer to God in our pledge of allegiance and stamp it on our currency—this, for many of us, is part of the notion that we are “a Christian nation,” something that is not true legally, sociologically, or even behaviorally.

And this brings us back to Cohen’s claim that we need more publicly professed atheists in order to raise the level of honesty in our public life.

Cohen cites a recent Washington Post/ABC News Poll in which 29 percent of Americans said they believed that President Biden was not legitimately elected.  22 percent of those polled “think there is solid evidence of fraud” while 7 percent said there wasn’t such evidence but still said Biden was not a legitimately elected president.  

Eighty-one percent claimed to be Christian in a 2022 Gallup poll. How many of them, I wonder, might also be among those who deny Biden’s victory in 2020?  I suspect it was more than a few.

Being affiliated with an organized religious group, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or other, does not make you immune to political falsehoods.  Of course, neither does being an atheist. Cohen argues, however, that atheists are more “tethered to facts” because they do not accept religious stories or “myths,” as she calls them.

Cohen also claims that atheists are more likely to be active in and donate to political campaigns and are 30 percent more likely to vote than religious people. She believes atheists “understand that, without [belief in] a higher power, we need human power to change the world,” but also admits that there are are social and political activists are who are religious. “You don’t have to be an atheist, she notes; you just have to act like one” she says.

Having said that, she is still critical of religious believers for not “pushing back against the outsized cultural and political power of religion itself.”  By this she means all the religious exemptions that have been given by recent court decisions.  These include rulings that the state of Maine must “pay for a parochial school. . . and that a website designer can reject same-sex clients.”

Cohen’s article raises some interesting and legitimate points.  Religious groups now have more legal, social, and political power than appropriate in a nation which has long valued separation between church and state. 

The second major point this author makes (beyond claiming that it is easier for atheists to be more honest and that there are more of them in hiding in religious communities than you might think) is that America would be stronger if more atheists “came out of the closet.” If this happened, she says, would reduce some of the pain which evangelical Christians inflict on our country by supporting people like Donald Trump. 

“So ask yourself: Do I think there is a supernatural being in charge of the universe? If you answer ‘no’ you’re an atheist. . . .But if you go further, you’ll be doing something good for your county.”

Now this is where I get off the train that Ms. Cohen is driving, even though I am willing to ride with her criticisms of the damage done to America by the type of “Christians” she deplores.  While I believe in God, I do not accept Cohen’s definition of God as a “supernatural being” running the universe.

Are You a CHINO: Christian in Name Only?

            A friend of mine, whose identity remains anonymous for his/her/their own protection, shared this title phrase with me some time ago.

            Stealing the title of the famous book by Jeff Foxworthy, “You Might be a Redneck If…”  I would argue that you might be a CHINO if:

• You associate being Christian more with what you believe than with how you behave;

• You believe that the Biblical phrase “the poor you will always have with you” means that you do not have to help them become less poor;

• You believe that Jesus requires only a personal relationship with him, one that does not extend to groups of people or other individuals who are not like you in some important way(s);

• You believe that the commandment to “love your neighbor as yourself” is and should be obeyed only after you have carefully defined and narrowed the term “neighbor;”

• You think followers of Jesus are only found among churchgoers or, worse yet, that all churchgoers follow Jesus;

• You believe that the death of Jesus on the cross was the only important thing in his life, and thus overshadows everything else Jesus did and said during his ministry;

• You believe that most social teachings of Jesus–especially those putting the poor and oppressed ahead of self–should never be “mixed with politics,” yet that is exactly what you do when you support walls (real or psychological) to separate us from asylum seekers and the poor and tell churchgoers to vote for Trump and against “evil” Democrats; 

• You think being pro-life only requires that you oppose abortion. Life after birth (see gun violence, capital punishment and poverty), on the other hand, are not important life or death issues for you;

• Your behavior suggests to others that you are more interested in power and money than in philanthropy and compassion;

• You believe that the United States was created as a Christian nation.

It is true that, while CHINOS may be more prevalent among MAGA Republicans, it is also true that we are all infected with CHINOISM. It is part of the sinful human condition.  

However, CHINOISM among MAGA Republicans has become more important over the past several years as red state leaders have become more aggressive in arguing that America is a Christian nation, something not evidenced by our behavior and clearly not a belief of our founding fathers, most of whom were Deists (belief in a distant rational god) rather than Christians.

            In the generations during and after the creation of the Constitution and new nation, a large number of Americans were not religious in thought or behavior. For many Americans in the early decades of our Republic booze was more important than the Bible.

Even though several religious revivals known as “Great Awakenings” occurred in the 18^th century, Americans have been religious, ethical, and spiritual in a variety of ways throughout our history. The U.S. could be considered a religious nation, given our willingness to create and/or provide homes to many new religious groups such as Mormons, Pentecostals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Seventh Day Adventists.

None of these groups have matched the anger and tenaciousness of today’s Christian nationalists,

who want a state ruled by their understanding of God, instead of by votes and human lawmakers.

            Today’s evangelical MAGA Christian nationalists want to go far beyond the founding fathers in attempting to merge some conservative Christian values and some CHINO values and use them to created laws and government policies, something most of our earliest leaders, especially Thomas Jefferson, would have feared and deplored.

            Today’s MAGA Christian nationalists want their CHINO views to be reflected in all areas of our lives, especially health care and education.  This is a clear threat to democracy since religious laws are not subject to the will or votes of the people. God, at least for many of my conservative religious friends, is a judgmental and authoritarian ruler, quick to punish, slower to forgive.

            Think about that last paragraph as you prepare your letters of rebuttal to this column.

            Several decades ago, I was trying to convince a young man in Murray to vote for Democrats in an upcoming national election.  He replied that he couldn’t vote for Democrats because they “kill babies.”  Taking life needlessly is an unapproved form of murder, different from approved murders by soldiers in our many wars, in self-defense known as justifiable homicide, and in prisons executions we call kjhklhbhj  capital punishment.

We see unapproved killing as immoral and link morality with religion, even though one can be moral or ethical without being religious.  Morals are simply telling the difference between right and wrong.

            Even in the 1970s, before the Moral Majority movement of Jerry Falwell in the 1980s, Republicans had begun working to convince Americans that they were the only party that supported morality.  They convinced many evangelical Christians, especially in the South, that truly moral people must vote Republican because Democrats favor women’s rights to their own bodies and immigration to the United States by non-Christians.

            Republicans also sneered that many Democrats didn’t go to church, and those that did attended “off-brand” churches like those of Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Unitarian Universalists.

            What can we make of all of this?  

            Democrats are no more and no less moral than Republicans.  We are all, to use the familiar Christian term, sinners. So how have some Christians on the political right been able to convince their brothers and sisters in Christ that only Democrats are immoral sinners?

            The answer is found, like many interesting things, in our history. 

Before 1980, many religious people were careful not to publicly favor any one political party. Catholics, Protestant, and Jews all claimed to be good, patriotic Americans. 

When I began Catholic grade school in 1949, at the intersection of 4^th and Main in downtown Davenport, Iowa, all eight grades of us stood before school on a large patio, in full view of downtown city traffic, raised the flag, and recited the pledge of allegiance—and that was five years before President Eisenhower put the words “under God” in the pledge 1954, to assure everyone that Americans were not godless communists. We even had an American flag in our church in those days.

 That changed in the 1980s when President Reagan and Jerry Falwell’s “Moral Majority” captured the flag of Evangelical Christianity and planted it firmly on the Right side of the American political spectrum.  Even in the 1970s, many Republicans did not see abortion as an example of murder, but they all came to do so once they saw it as a way to win evangelical Christian votes. They began by using their gift for inflammatory language to call abortion “infanticide.”

Alas, the Democratic Party didn’t hire the right public relations firms soon enough and, in any case, were divided among themselves on abortion. They were able to win back some votes by defending a woman’s right to choose, a slogan making them even more “immoral” in evangelical Christian eyes. 

This was a brilliant and successful political tactic by Republicans, which may have accomplished its goal after 50 years, judging from the national attention given recently to the leaked draft of a decision by the Supreme Court to ban abortions, reversing the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973, which made abortion a constitutional right.

Well, now that this issue may finally be settled, perhaps my young friend who couldn’t vote for baby-killers several decades ago will consider voting for Democrats, with whom he might agree on other issues.

Like other ethical voters, my friend probably saw abortion procedures as far more serious than the other moral evils in American politics, such as lying, cheating, and stealing.  Admittedly, those more acceptable sins do not have the emotional pull babies and children have upon us, something our Republican friends understood when choosing abortion as their major campaign issue.

However, now that victory over abortion seems to be at hand, at least in red states, moral Republicans can look to some of the other immoral behaviors of their political leaders. They can condemn politicians who tell Big Lies about election results, for example.

Who knows where this might lead?  Why, perhaps you can be moral and a Democrat, after all!

It is not unusual to hear the phrase “living the dream.”  For over a generation it has generally meant that someone was living their imagined best life.  It has also been used to refer to the American Dream, which is the idea that all who work hard in America can prosper and live the “good life,” usually understood to mean personal freedom and economic success.

            Part of that American dream included the idea of living in a democracy marked by government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” a famous phrase in Lincoln’s Gettyburg Address that I memorized in grade school. 

            That American dream of freedom and of opportunity for all to “achieve more than their parents” is under assault in the United States. Those responsible are not just Trumplicans but also, to some degree, members of both majority political parties.  

            Too many of today’s leaders have replaced Living the Dream with Living in a Dream.   Allow me to begin with Republicans, since more of them seem to live in this dream world.

Republicans Live in a dream world when:

• they really think that storms, fires and floods caused by climate change will become manageable b once we elect more Republicans and stop “reckless” Democratic plans to slow carbon-dioxide pollution of the environment;

• they really think that ending the right to safe and legal abortions will make America a less sinful nation, but then ignore the continual, widespread lying about the results of the 2020 election. Lying, like murder, weakens the moral fiber of our nation; both are included in the ten commandments;

• they really think that the political polarization that they have encouraged since Newt Gingrich told Republicans to consider Democrats enemies instead of opponents in the 1990s will end once they control the agencies and levers of power in Washington; 

• they really think that suppressing the votes of people who might disagree with them will be a successful tactic for keeping power; how do they imagine people will “assemble peacefully and petition their government” for address of grievances once the ballot box is no an option for promoting change or even expressing disagreement with politicians and policies?

Republicans, however, don’t live in this fantasy world all by themselves. 

An article in The New Republic (TNR 4-18-22) a liberal magazine, discussed the inability of Democrats in the Senate to pass legislation which would have protected voting rights from a Supreme Court threat to look anew at Section 2 of the original Voting Rights Act, which says that “abridging voting rights of racial and ethnic minorities was discriminatory regardless of intent,” that is, even if you claim election fraud.

            The author of this article ended the piece by saying that, even though Republican bias would dominate “the Senate and the Electoral College for many, many years to come…democratic reforms should continue building public support” for new legislation to protect voting rights. 

Democrats live in a dream world:

• when they believe that they have time to slowly “build public support” to thwart Republican assaults on our democratic republic. How can Democrats “build support” for “democratic reforms” when they lose control of state legislatures and Congress to Republicans;

• when they fail to recognize that Democrats cannot earn enough votes by raising money from the very wealthy; they should return to policies, beyond Obamacare, that demonstrate, in word and deed, authentic concern for all the poor and middle-class voters who supported Trump;

·      when they claim success by winning the presidency and (barely) the Senate, and spend far less money on Congressional, state, and even local races. The troubles facing the Biden administration should have convinced them that the White House is not enough;

• when they appear unable to find enough national and leaders who speak with clarity, conviction, and genuine understanding on issues of systemic racism and poverty that so afflict the poor they claim to represent; 

We live in a world in which many Republicans and their “base” have abandoned democracy, tried to steal the 2020 election, and plan to win in 2022 and 2024, by “hook or crook.”

Their success could turn the American Dream into a nightmare. Think about that the next time you vote!

         We like to see Kentucky in the national news, but it is unfortunate when this happens due to something tragic, like the West Kentucky tornado that hit Mayfield last December or the decision made by the Kentucky General Assembly to pass a bill that effectively made safe abortions impossible in our state. (Washington Post, 4-14/15-22; Forward Kentucky 4-19-22)

This new law, modeled on those passed recently in Florida and Mississippi, bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, and requires that fetal remains be cremated or buried.  It makes no exception for incest or rape, but only allows abortion if a woman’s life is in danger. 

Don’t misunderstand.  Like many of my fellow Democrats, I am opposed to abortions, just as I am opposed to rape, incest, unnecessary wars, racism, and other sins of violence against humans. This anti-abortion bill is tragic not only because it could end safe and legal abortions in Kentucky but also 

because it does not address the issue of the health and freedom of woman, or the moral problem of protecting and supporting human life once a child is born.

It is also tragic that, in what has become a Republican pattern, this bill scores political points at the expense of women, especially poor ones. The Guttmacher Institute reported in 2014 that 49% of women seeking abortions lived below the federal poverty line, and another 26% were close to the poverty level.

Before the Senate’s vote to override Governor Beshear’s veto of the anti-abortion bill, Senator Stephen Meredith called abortion “a stain on our country” and “our greatest sin.”  This smugly righteous and moralistic comment shows a callous disregard for the women and their families in his fifth district counties of Breckinridge, Butler, Grayson, Meade, and Ohio.

 If our legislators genuinely believe abortion is murder, they would forbid it absolutely, not only after fifteen weeks. This would, of course, mix religion and politics, something many Republicans say we should not do.  And since we want to keep crime down, does even the most judgmental Republican really want us to call abortion a capital crime?  Really?

Besides, if Republicans were really pro-life instead of just pro-birth, they would help people “womb to tomb,” and pay as much attention to the sad state of many nursing homes and prisons as they do to abortion. They might even introduce legislation that provides free day care for working mothers living in poverty, and make birth control more easily available.

And they could work to end capital punishment, since DNA tells us that we sometimes execute innocent people.

            Of course, we cannot keep people from sinning, even if we consider abortion sinful, and we love to punish sinners. Even though Christians know Jesus told the woman at the well to “go and sin no more” without condemning her (John 4:1-42).  Whatever our beliefs, we could reduce abortions by making it easier for women to choose pregnancy and adoption as an alternative. 

            We could show that we care and improve the health of women by providing medical and emotional help to women in such a difficult situation, even if this means using tax money to help those in poverty pay for medical care and counseling when needed.  It would also help if we used public money to underwrite some of the costs of adoption for those unable to afford such costs.

            That would, of course, make abortion a less effective political issue for Republicans. 

            Instead, Republicans have just made it more difficult for Kentuckians in need—including hungry children—to receive health care and food assistance [see https://www.wkyfin.org/2022-03-29/kentucky-senate-committee-advances-bill-tightening-rules-for-food-benefits-medicaid]

            Republicans know that those who can afford to travel to other states will always be able to secure legal or illegal, safe or unsafe abortions, regardless of anti-abortion laws.  These laws are aimed at the poor, not the wealthy, and that makes them both hypocritical and judgmental.  

            We all make poor choices, and are emotionally vulnerable at times. Legislators who pass anti-abortion bills are making very poor choices, both because they are imposing their moral views on others, and are doing this in a way that opens the way for unsafe abortions.

            This behavior is callous and dishonorable for any public servant.

Although Americans like to cite the old saying that “the only constant is change,” we have a difficult time understanding how change happens and an even harder time accepting it, especially when those changes are not to our liking.

            Politically, we are in a contest today in which both sides think that the other side should change its mind. We are frozen in a stalemate in which neither side wants to be the first to thaw.

            But wait!  What if that is not the best way to bring about change?

            Students of human nature—Philosophers, Social Scientists, and Religious Leaders—have long told us that change must happen first at the level of the individual.  

            Now, before you disagree, I do understand that the asteroid that darkened the earth in the age of the dinosaurs created a massive change that was external in origin and allowed us mammals to evolve (with God’s help of course) over the course of sixty million years.  

            We can be thankful that this is not the way change usually happens, even as we test that idea with our current efforts to melt all the ice in the Arctic with our carbon emissions.

            Change can happen slowly to us as individuals, as a result of life experiences that can anger or mellow us as we age.  But change can also happen suddenly as well, as we see in the many stories of sudden religious “conversion experiences.” Many converts to religion recall how quickly they “turned over their life to God” due to such a powerful emotional experience.

            Could such a conversion happen in our political views?  And if so, what might be the trigger for such a change?

            Here is one true story of such a change, and it happened to someone I know.  Names and places have been changed to protect the privacy of individuals.

            A very conservative man in a small Minnesota town had a daughter who was very sick.  This man had voted for Donald Trump twice and was very frightened of persons of color, whom he associated with bad behavior, and a tendency toward laziness.  

            Since his daughter’s illness required specialized treatment, she was transferred to a hospital in Chicago and the man and his wife were most apprehensive.

            However, his daughter’s condition improved and they finally returned home. 

There he told one of his Democratic friends the following: “I went to Chicago as a white supremacist, racist SOB, but I have returned with a whole different point of view. The staff was mostly black but they could not have been a more caring, professional, and empathetic group of people.  We were lucky to have them by our side.”

            This moral epiphany was sudden but significant.  It reinforces what many, including myself, have discovered to be true: it is in situations in which we are vulnerable and must depend upon others that we are most likely to be able to see a reality that differs from our pre-judgments. Such judgements are at the root of prejudice, a word meaning “judging before experiencing,” according to my counselor son-in-law.

It is only when we see people as people, and not as categories or stereotypes, that we can shed our prejudices.  Recall that staunch conservative Dick Cheney, became more accepting of lesbianism once his daughter identified as one. I recall seeing a T-shirt that proclaimed: “Be careful who you hate. It might be someone you love.”

I suspect many of us have had such moments of realization when actually engaging with people of whom we have been “carefully taught to be afraid, of people whose eyes are oddly made, and people whose skin is a different shade,” as the song in the musical South Pacific says.  

Over the decades, I have learned to accept those who are different from me most readily by getting to know them as individuals through conversations and cooperation on common pursuits, and by seeing them work, especially when I or those I care about depend upon the work they are doing.

Perhaps someday Democrats and Republicans may thaw our current stalemate without being forced to do so by circumstances. All would benefit if we could experience that conversion.