Prayer

In late November, six Muslim clerics were removed from a US Airways flight in Minneapolis after some other passengers were disturbed by their very public praying at the gate. This has become a major incident, with the imams claiming religious discrimination, various interfaith organizations conducting "pray-ins" and calling for the acceptance of public prayer, and other Muslims calling for the establishment of a private "prayer room" at the Minneapolis airport.

Here's where you might expect me to get all up in arms and plead for more tolerance toward minority religions and such. Suprise.

Not that I support yanking the obviously harmless clerics off the plane (that reeked of overkill), but I do think that their actions in the terminal were inappropriate for the very public place they were in. Praying silently and privately is one thing; laying down prayer mats, kneeling down and bowing, and reciting your prayers out loud is something completely different.

While this activity is perfectly acceptable in a mosque or private home, in a public setting it can be very disrupting. There is an unstated obligation in a public society to fit in with your surroundings, to not draw attention to yourself. You can be as individualistic as you want in private, but in public you become part of the public. That's why we have various laws regulating public behavior -- you can't walk around naked in public, or play your car radio too loud on a neighborhood street, or stagger around drunk and beligerant. We moderate ourselves in public in order to form an orderly society; practicing private ritual in public disrupts that order.

I don't direct these comments solely to Muslims who feel the need to pray five times a day, no matter where they are or what they're doing; the same holds for anyone who wants to make private religious rituals public. Imagine a Pentacostal loudly speaking in tongues during dinner hour at Applebees, or a Buddhist sitting down to meditate in a cross-legged position in the middle of a crowded shopping mall, or a fervent Baptist holding his Bible aloft and shouting out prayers in the aisle of a commuter train. None of these are appropriate public behaviors; all become disruptive when forced on nearby strangers.

I would think this would be self-evident, that individuals would police themselves in these matters, and that further restrictive rules and regulations would not be necessary. Instead, what seems to be to be common-sense restraint is viewed as advocating religious intolerance. Asking someone to tone down their behavior in public is now tantamount to attacking an entire religion. It's political correctness elevated to a level of religious evangelism, and it's wrong.

If you want to pray, do it at home, or in church, or silently to yourself. When you're in public, moderate your behavior so as not to offend or disrupt others. Asking someone to pray to themselves is not religious intolerance; it's simple civility.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Choice

The results are in, and the public voted for a change. Top among the reasons for voting as they did, the public cited the war in Iraq, terrorism, and corruption. That's right, we voted to throw the bums out. Good for us!

Voting for a change is effective only when there's a valid choice, however. Some areas of the U.S. had lots of choice; some didn't. I happen to live in Hamilton County, Indiana, one of the most Republican areas of the entire country. As happens most every election day, I found myself very pissed off when I realized that many of the offices on the ballot presented no choice at all -- only Republicans were running. In particular, there wasn't a single Democrat on my ballot for county sheriff, court clerk, recorder, coroner, assessor, or commissioner. There was also no Democrat on the ballot opposite Senator Richard Lugar, and only a token opposition to Congressman Dan Burton. In other words, for well over half the offices on the ballot, I had no choice but to vote Republican. Maybe it's time for me to move.

Across the country, though, there was more of a choice, and people in general voted against the Republican incumbents. This is a good thing. The country is a in a real mess, and while the Executive branch is chiefly responsible, the Congress is to blame for letting it happen. When the bums and scoundrels are too much in the pocket of the President, it's time to change staff. Which is exactly what happened yesterday.

The good news is, a fresh Congress will provide the necessary checks and balances on an Executive branch used to unfettered and unquestioned power. Even better news is that it looks as if everything happened on the up and up; the wave was so big that the ruling party couldn't steal it this time.

It's definitely time for a change. Get ready for an interesting two years.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Vote

Tuesday is election day. It's important that you exercise your right to vote. It will be disappointing to see half the electorate not exercise this right; it essentially means that half the populace doesn't care enough about our democracy to play their part.

I understand why some people don't vote. I've encountered lots of folks, both young and old, who are totally disillusioned with the process. Some of these folks view all politicians as corrupt, or feel their vote doesn't count, or are convinced that money and privilege provide power, no matter what the vote results. Maybe some or all of these views are valid, but you still have to try. That's our duty.

If you don't vote on Tuesday, you forfeit all right to complain about the way things are run. Don't like what's happening in Iraq? Think we need health care reform? Concerned that your taxes are too high? Hate the way your local schools are run? Then quit complaining and go vote. It's the only opportunity you have to make your voice heard -- unless you're a lobbyist with big bucks to donate, of course.

So get out and vote on Tuesday. No matter which side you vote for, your voice is important. Don't squander your opportunity to instigate change -- and, slowly but surely, work towards a better way.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree. (But if you want to disagree, you better vote!)

Change the course

On next Tuesday, I will vote -- as should you. While most people think of me as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal Democrat, I vote for candidates from either party. (Although, I admit, my lifelong vote tally is predominantly Democratic.) As an example of my open-mindedness, this time around I'll be voting, once again, for Indiana Senator Richard Lugar. He's done an okay job, for a Republican apologist, and I especially like his efforts to contain loose nukes from the former Soviet republics. So he gets my vote, in spite of party affiliation.

For other offices, I vote Democratic even though the Democrats have no chance in hell of winning in my particular district. For example, I have to vote against Representative Dan Burton, one of the biggest slimeballs in Congress today (and that's saying a lot), even though he doesn't even have a viable candidate running against him. That's the peril of living in one of the most solidly Republican districts in the country -- an area so Republican that some offices don't even have Democrats listed on the ballot. It's not that the area is hyper-conservative; my neighbors engage in more than their share of drink and illicit sex, thank you very much. No, the district is extremely wealthy, and apparently well-off people vote Republican for financial considerations. So be it.

For lesser offices, where I have no idea who's even running (voting uninformed is one of the major shortfalls of democracy), I always vote against the incumbent. My take is that, more often than not, whoever got voted into office is probably corrupt, so I'll take whatever alternative is available. Retain judge so and so? Nope. Re-elect incumbent whomever? Not a chance. I always vote for change, as it were.

Speaking of change, this election is the best chance we have to express our discontent with the current resident of the White House. I know King George isn't up for re-election, but we can kick out his faithful and irresponsible toadies. That means voting against Republican incumbents, wherever you can. Stay the course? Not this election. This time, the election is all about changing the course -- and bringing some modicum of responsibility back to Washington.

But that's just my opinion; the important thing is that you vote, for whichever side.

Slogans

So the Bush administration says that it is no longer using the phrase "stay the course" when speaking about the Iraq war. Notice that they didn't say they were changing their strategy. They're just changing their slogan. It's not the same thing.

The Bushies have no clear goal for getting out of Iraq. They have no plan. They have no timetable. In my mind, if you're not getting out, you're staying -- the course, that is.

And if they were getting out, wouldn't that be the same sort of "cut and run" strategy they accuse their detractors of? I mean, if you're not staying, you're running. And if cutting and running is so bad, then so must be not staying, shouldn't it?

To make matters worse, Bush goes to the Orwellian extreme of denying that "stay the course" was never their strategy in the first place. Press secretary Tony Snow recently stated that "The idea that we're staying the course is just wrong," even though until very recently Bush uttered that phrase regularly and repetitively. The administration seems to think that they can erase memories just by saying the opposite of something. Maybe memories can be erased, but videotape can't. It's not quite 1984 yet -- even though they're trying.

This administration believes that appearances matter more than reality. Thus the changing of the slogan while maintaining the same strategy. As a public, we shouldn't much care what the Bushies call something. We should care about their actions, not their words. And their actions are dangerous and disastrous. It doesn't matter what you call it, invading Iraq and then refusing to exit the resulting killing field is calamitous. Call it staying the course, call it whatever you like, it's stupidity bordering on criminality.

So, come next Tuesday, let's make a public effort to not stay the course. Vote the incumbents out of office, and give our democracy a fresh start -- and the Bush administration something new to worry about for the next two years.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.