Senator from Delaware,
thinks the Earth is a few thousand years old,
and further believes that the science-based account
of the evolution of our species
is a myth.
On the other hand,
she embraces a religious dogma
that was founded upon
an array of primitive superstitions,
taken up and organized
by the Caesars of Rome
as an effective instrument of repression,
then honed by
medieval ignorance and torture,
and refined by modern denial,
as the embodiment of Truth.
Unfortunately for America,
her beliefs appear to be shared
by many in her political spectrum,
and she could very well become
part of a future wing nut majority
in the United States Senate.
I suppose our country
has survived worse.
But Christine poses a unique threat,
which, to my knowledge,
never before has been faced
by the American electorate.
She wants to take away one of our
one clearly implied, if not clearly stated
in the “pursuit of happiness” clause
our Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson
(a man of diverse happy pursuits),
so thoughtfully included in
the Declaration of Independence.
Like an explorer
in the Age of Discovery,
my teenage self
acted with impunity
in repeated reliance
on this particular right,
which, as Jefferson so aptly put it,
was “Endowed by our Creator,”
continually satisfied that I was being faithful
to our country’s founding precepts.
And after nagging worries about
sudden onset blindness and hairy palms
I fearlessly maintained
a swollen sense of pride
as I welcomed each eruption of
unabashed and intensely passionate patriotism
brought forth by my labors.
On the other hand…
Candidate Christine wants to take from us
this one inalienable right,
the one within easy reach
of almost all people,
regardless of income, creed, color, national origin
or political persuasion—
a right the people can exercise on demand
in the privacy of their homes, offices or automobiles—
a right that some, especially teenagers,
can exercise sometimes just by
exercising their minds.
Christine would make
this cherished inalienable right illegal
because she believes it to be a sin,
likening it to “cheating,”
although she is unclear
as to who or what
is being cheated, or how.
Could it be just an exaggerated fear
of the left hand
not knowing what the right hand
Recently, attempting to clarify her position
on this issue, she announced
that the greater sin
she is trying to inhibit is “lust,”
stating that that one cannot commit the sin
she wishes to proscribe
without lust being its handmaiden.
here’s where you definitely
could use a helping hand.
Clearly, you speak from
a lack of experience.
Now, there are probably some of you
who might agree with Christine
from a religious
or even the unwanted hair viewpoint.
If so, you might find comfort in
novelist Christopher Moore’s succinct
resolution of his theological concerns:
“If this is a sin, then at least it is one
which takes hours and hours of practice
to get it right.”
To paraphrase Shakespeare,
“Ahhhh, that’s the rub!!”
On the other hand…
In fairness to all,
I believe it is up to each individual
to get his or her own hands
around this controversy
and find their own conclusions.
If we can get a good grip
on the questions,
then we may find that answers
will come easily.