Tom Head

You know, kids of biracial parents used to have the same sorts of problems that kids of LGBT parents have today. What made it easier was when mixed-race marriages became more common, more widely known, and more socially acceptable. The only way I can think of to prevent kids from feeling the way you describe is to normalize LGBT relationships, and the institution of marriage would go a long way towards doing that. Back in my childhood and teen years, adults used to tell me never to marry a black woman because our hypothetical kids would catch hell. Of course the only reason they'd catch hell is because more whites and blacks didn't marry. It's a catch-22, and now I see gays and lesbians in the same situation: That the best way to protect your kids' interests is not to have kids. Not sure that's the way we should be going about all this. Cheers, Tom

To put things in perspective a bit: 22 percent of voters cited "moral values" as the primary consideration they took into account when voting. Of that 22 percent, 17.6 favored Bush. (Which leaves me wondering: Who are the 4 percent of voters who supported Kerry but believed "moral values" to be more important than the economy, the Iraq war, health care, etc.?) It has been my experience that for most folks who go around talking about "moral values" or "family values," the phrases are code for pro-life, anti-gay rights, anti-feminism, and anti-pornography platforms. In a post-election ABC interview, Karl Rove of all people reminded the interviewer that the social issues vote tends to hover around 16 percent, so the 17.6 percent figure should not be accepted as having revolutionary importance. Why the media is harping on this is beyond me. (I never understood the "NASCAR Dads" demographic, either; beer-swilling working-class white religious Southern husband-fathers have always trended Republican. The Bush job losses gave the Democrats some inroads, but they were never going to even break even in this demographic and I think everybody knew it.) Bottom line: The "moral values" vote is the social conservative vote, which tends to make up about half of the Republican base. Progressives cannot, almost by definition, get the social conservative vote on the basis of "moral values." They can go out of their way not to offend this chunk of the electorate, as Clinton did when he betrayed his principles and signed the Defense of Marriage Act, but they will have limited success even in that arena unless they can actually project themselves as being further to the right than the Republican (at which point people like me would probably vote for the Republican, cancelling the effect). I think we need to focus on the other 82.4 percent of the electorate and stop trying to convince ourselves that we can attract right-wing loyalists. John Kerry got 48 percent of the vote--55 million votes, the highest of any challenger in history--and came 70,000 votes away from carrying the presidency. This was against a wartime president who led in the aftermath of 9/11. Could we have done better with John Edwards? I don't think so. Joe Lieberman? Possibly--that's what Bush allegedly told John Howard while visiting him last year. But Kerry was still an excellent choice, IMHO, and he would have made a great president. Cheers, Tom

The world can certainly use a progressive study Bible, but I don't think there is one yet. The best historical-critical Bible commentary, IMHO, is actually the one the Roman Catholics use--the New Jerome Biblical Commentary. It goes into source criticism, myths that influenced Judeo-Christian traditions, etc., and is just generally a lot more objective than you might expect a denominational commentary to be. Highest recommendation. The Oxford Annotated NRSV is also nice, but doesn't go into the same level of detail. A good inclusivist commentary on Christ's central teachings can be found in The Sermon on the Mount According to Vedanta by Swami Prabhavananda. Cheers, TH

Yeah, it's pretty bad--but we'll live. If three consecutive terms of Republicans (1980-1992) didn't kill us, four more years of the Shrub won't. If you want to radically change your life in response to Bush losing, then IMHO your best bet is to go through some sort of formal study program in political science or activism (you would have time to do a master's, if you're already a college graduate) and volunteer for your nearest viable Democratic Senate candidate in 2006. We had far more seats up for grabs than the Republicans did this year, five retirements in the South, and we've still got about (I say "about" because two races are still undecided) 45 votes. Rehnquist is the third most conservative justice on the Supreme Court and, in rare cases, he actually votes to the right of Thomas and Scalia. Whoever Bush appoints, I find it unlikely--given that there are about ten moderate Republicans in the Senate plus 45 Democrats, and Bush would need 60 votes to really push a right-winger through--that the new justice will be to the right of Rehnquist. My bet is he'll probably be slightly to Rehnquist's left, which will indicate a net shift in our direction. (Early prediction: Bush nominates Alberto Gonzales, and elevates Clarence Thomas to chief justice. Pessimistic scenario: Orrin Hatch as nominee. Optimistic scenario: O'Connor as chief justice.) The two justices to watch are John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor; Stevens would be 88 years old in 2008, though he's in good health and loves his job. I think O'Connor would be 83 or so. Stevens is a left-leaning maverick and O'Connor is the Court's true swing vote, so if Bush replaces one or both of them, it could actually represent a shift to the right for the Court--a significant shift, if the Republican count in the Senate actually increases in 2006 (which I seriously doubt, because at that point the shoe will be on the other foot and more Republicans than Democrats will be up for reelection). My other piece of advice to you is to sit back and enjoy the Republican Party schism that's about to unfold. Now that they have a clearer majority, the split between libertarian Cato Institute Republicans and theocratic Christian Coalition Republicans will become more pronounced. If we're smart, we'll be able to snatch some people from category #1 and marginalize the Republican Party like we did in the 90s. Personally, I would like to see the Democratic Party become in effect the Social Libertarian Party, with diversity on fiscal issues but unity on social issues. Our party has already tried the reverse, and it didn't hold. Obviously I'd rather have seen Kerry win and the Democrats take a majority in the Senate--I hoped for it, I prayed for it and, frankly, I expected it--but the Republicans didn't turn tail and run when they got stomped in '92, and the result was a '94 victory that has given them 12 years of congressional majorities. There's no reason why Democrats shouldn't be ready to roll up their sleeves and do just as well. Cheers, Tom

Andrew Greeley, Hans Kung, John Courtney Murray, and Joan Chittister. Agreed. (Not to mention John Kerry, IMHO; I haven't heard enough of his theology to be certain, but the little he has said leaves me suspecting that his private faith is very theologically sophisticated and that he would be an 8-pointer.) There are actually many progressive Catholics, though the hierarchy doesn't seem to be very fond of the idea right now. I'm an Episcopalian, and our church gets plenty of progressive ex-Catholics, so I'd love to be able to tell you "No, join us"--but the truth is that there's still plenty of room in the RCC for those who disagree with parts of the current Vatican platform. Cheers, Tom

I like Paul. I think he was probably a good egg--egalitarian and even liberal for his time, a good Christian who probably did work based on a sincere understanding of religious experience. Without Paul, Christianity would be an obscure Jewish sect. I think Paul gets a bad rap for the same reason any of us would get a bad rap if someone took our emails and based a religion on them for two thousand years. Cheers, Tom

Howdy, folks. I'm new here, but might be able to shed some light on this; I'm a member of both the Unitarian Universalist and Episcopal churches, and religious studies is my academic field. So here goes: - The first thing to remember is that, according to a 1997 congregational survey, fewer than 10 percent of UUs identify as Christians. This is why there's a Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship (UUCF) for those who belong to the Christian faith or affirm a Christian-influenced theism within the Unitarian Universalist churches. The two largest groups in the UUA are pagans and secular humanists, but you'll also find Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, classical non-Christian unitarian theists, and so on and so forth. The dynamic is wonderful, but things tend to be a little on-the-fly. - Not all UU Christians are actually capital-U Unitarians; there are many Trinitarians, and for that matter polytheists and non-theists, in the UUA. - I would argue that there is no real distinction between UU Christians and 8-pointers; most 8-pointers probably aren't affiliated with a UU church, but most UU Christians probably do agree with the 8 points because it's very hard to be a UU if you're not self-critical and tolerant of other faiths. Cheers, Tom Head www.tomhead.net