Friday's Odds and Ends

Hello, my name is Maryann, and I am a parent who spanked her children. Primarily with my hand and sometimes with a hot-wheel track - my boys can attest to how that stung without injuring them - but never with a weapon that would bruise them or make them bleed. And corporal punishment was reserved for serious infractions such as lying or stealing.  What could a four-year-old child have possibly done that was so terrible it warranted the discipline that NFL player Adrian Peterson inflicted on his son, beating him with a switch until the child bled?

Since the news of what Peterson did broke last week, people are speaking up in defense of his actions, espousing the old adage, "spare the rod spoil the child." His mother was quoted as saying he did it out of love for his child. "When you whip those you love it's not about abuse, it's about love."

Sorry Ms. Jackson, but whipping a four-year-old until he bleeds is not love.

This is a father's love.

Enough about that. Have you heard about the new website for the wealthy among us, Netropolitan? To join, one must ante up $9,000, and the site is billed as "The online country club for people with more money than time." The direct link to the site didn't work when I tried it, maybe because I didn't pay my $9,000, so I linked to an article that has more information. Just in case you might want to join. (smile)

Last Sunday in the Dallas Morning News, Steve Blow's column was about the ongoing debate about the separation of church and state that gains new fuel every time someone objects to a religious symbol in a public place or the religious right petitions to allow prayers at public gatherings. Steve's column mentioned two recent issues in the Dallas area that stirred the embers of the debate. First was a plaque mounted on a school building dedicating the school to "...the education of God's children and to their faithful teachers in the name of the holy Christian Church."

I'm a Christian, but I object to the plaque since some of the students and teachers there might not be Christian. Steve suggested the religious leaders in the town go to the school board and say, "In hindsight, those plaques really do represent public monies promoting one religion over others. That is not the American way and they should be removed."

The other flap is over a request by a group of atheists to be allowed to do an invocation before a city council meeting in Rowlett on a rotation basis with the religious representatives. The hue and cry that elicited has been loud and strong, and I'll admit that when I first heard about the request I wondered why an atheist would want to do an invocation. Who would they be invoking? Then I read Steve's column, reminding us that "Our cherished freedom of religion includes the freedom to choose no religion." He urged the religious leaders in Rowlett to speak those words to the City Council members and ask them to "...allow them (atheists) to bring a secular word of inspiration periodically."

The final point in Steve's column was about why our founding fathers were so careful to keep religion and politics apart. "Just look around the Middle East at what happens when they merge into one.
It’s a mess. A bloody mess.

"Some see the problem as Islam itself. In truth, much of the problem is simply the mixture of church and state into one toxic brew."

So true.

Now to close with some fun from the funny papers. This one is from Crankshaft. Rose is visiting with a lady friend telling her, "My lungs seem to be bothering me. And there's something wrong with my bladder. But those things aren't as bad as the pain I get in my back. I don't know if it's my pancreas, my spleen or my liver. And then I get these heart palpitations that just seem to go on and on."

Her litany of ailments goes on through several panels, then Crankshaft walks into the kitchen and says to his daughter, Pam, "You're missing Rose's organ recital."

Hope everyone has a great weekend. Do you have plans for something fun? I'm going to a play Friday night and will have our monthly writers' group meeting on Sunday. 

Friday Odds and Ends

Texas Gov. Rick Perry either had a recent meltdown, or he truly believes that the doctrine of the separation of church and state is a myth devised by Satan to drive Christians from public life. He also said, "American families are under siege and that Christian Warriors must defend the nation against secular attack."

Separation of chrch and state has often been misinterpreted and misused, depending on who was touting it. Athiests have said that it means there should be no mention of a God, or higher power, or religion in schools, governement offices, courts or any other place where it might offend someone. People of faiths other than Christianity have lobbied so no mention of Jesus or any holiday associated with Jesus can take place in a public venue that might be construed as government sanctioned.

What most people forget is that Thomas Jefferson first invoked the separation of church and state to assure a group of Baptists in Connecticut that the state's Congregationalist majority could not use government to impose its religious views on everybody else.

Think about what that means. It is not that we can't practice our religion. It is not that we can't have prayer in school. It simply means that the government cannot tell us what kind of religion we should practice.

On a professional note, I have recently received two wonderful reviews for my next release, Stalking Season, which is the second book in the Seasons Series that began with Open Season. The first review is from Kirkus: "So deftly plotted and paced that, although it’s certainly possible to grow impatient with the protagonists’ unwarranted impatience toward each other, they’re appealing enough to keep the pages turning."

Publishers Weekly  gave the book a starred review: “ . . . gripping second mystery featuring Dallas, Tex., police detectives Sarah Kingsly and Angel Johnson. . . . The relationship between the women is just as absorbing as the search for the killer. Few readers will anticipate the closing twist.”

I must say that I am blown away by these reviews. I remember getting so excited when I saw this type for one of my favorite authors and thinking, "how great." It is so hard to get my head around the fact that the reviews are for my book. So I thank the kind folks at Kirkus and PW for giving me such a wonderful gift. 

The book releases November 14th, but is available for pre-order, and you can request your local library to order a copy, or two, or three. (smile)

Now here's a funny from Non Sequitur:

Two men are sitting at a bar and one asks, "Why can't anyone running for office ever be honest about what they really stand for and what they intend to do?"

On the bar television a politician is saying, "I stand firmly on any divisive issue we can't do anything about to keep you distracted from the fortune I rake in from lobbyists for doing nothing."

To that the first man replies, "Geesh, I'd never vote for that guy..."

The second man says, "Which answers your questuon."

Separation of Church and State?

I'm a bit confused. Aren't we supposed to have a distinct separation between church and state? So why are evangelical Christians allowed to cross that line at will?

Mind you, I am a Christian, and I espouse all that the religion stands for. I just don't espouse politicians using religion to launch their political campaign. Yes, I do mean you, Rick Perry. And I don't espouse those politicians who flaunt their religion as if that somehow makes them a better president, or senator, or congressman, or political candidate.

If one is truly living a religion, whether it be Christian or one of the other fine religions, there is no need to manufacture sound bites to tell the public how connected he or she is to a God. And a public measuring stick of a candidate's worthiness should not include questions about religion. Those are not allowed in any job interview, so why are they allowed in determining a candidate's qualifications for office?

In a recent column, Ruth Marcus proposes a take-home exam that candidates should respond to before the 2012 elections. It has a single question that deals with the new congressional super-committee overseeing the national budget, asking where candidates would find the savings that are proposed in the recent debt-ceiling deal. The column is worth reading because Marcus tells candidates they cannot put a spin on their answers. They have to come up with specific and concrete plans, not just hyperbole.

It is also most interesting, because no where does it suggest that God is in any way involved in this mess, despite the fact that Rep. Tim Scott, R-SC, said "divine inspiration" was the force behind his opposition to Speaker John Boehner's initial proposal for a debt-ceiling deal.

Too often those in office, and those seeking office, throw out these references to God because it does seem to appeal to some segment of our society, but to me it makes them come across as phonies. Are they just pretending to be holy to gain support? Then I can't help but wonder what else they might be pretending about.

If you have thoughts on this topic, I welcome responses in the comments.

A Little Clarification on Separation of Church and State

Right up front, let me say that this post is not intended to stir a debate about religion, forms of religion, or which religion is the best. My personal beliefs are that everyone is entitled to believe, or not believe, and one right does not trump another.

That said, I do want to talk about the separation of church and state. People who want to remove all mention of a god or higher power from schools, public buildings, government and society in general use the First Amendment to the Constitution as their rallying point. But if you read that amendment carefully, you will note that the words "separation of church and state" do not appear. The amendment prohibits "an establishment of religion."  That means no national mandated or tax supported church.

At the time the amendment was written, most of the states had their own official churches and the federal government was not to impose a national official church, like England has the Church of England. Later, the states did away with official state churches, thus establishing a true freedom of religion.

If only we could all honor that.

Separation of Church and State

Let's get it right....

One of the issues to arise in the debate in Texas over school curriculum and textbooks is the Separation of Church and State as mandated in first Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Those who are against the inclusion in textbooks of any mention of God, religion, or the Judeo/Christian foundation of our country use this mandate as their trump card. If the State is not to be involved in religion, then we need to sanitize everything that our children are exposed to in school.

What these folks fail to realize is that they are trumping with a card that grants people the freedom of religion: The First Amendment to the United States Constitution (part of the Bill of Rights) prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

The key phrase is the “free exercise of religion,” and that freedom is given to everyone. If I believe in God, I am free to say so. If you don’t believe in God, you are free to say so. I can’t make you shut up, and you shouldn’t have the right to make me shut up. I shouldn't try to force my beliefs on you, and you shouldn't force yours in me. Simple as that, until the PC police get involved.

Banning any mention of God or religion is not going to make either disappear. And by including pertinent reference to religion and our Christian heritage as a nation, children are not being forced to believe in God or religion; they are merely being exposed to some facts. And if those children return to a home that is Jewish or Muslim or some other religion, or headed by Atheists, the parents can clarify that those beliefs they read about in school are not the beliefs of this household, but they are to be respected.

Share your thoughts here, keeping in mind that we will respect diverse beliefs.