Back to Our Regularly Scheduled Spring

Truthfully, I think that the week-end's heavy, wet snow, which produced a snow day (!) for my daughter and broke apart countless nearby apple and dogwood trees, probably finished off the magnolias as well.  This photograph was taken last week:

The Final Questions:

4) You and I both identify ourselves as liberal Christians.  I know you're familiar with the political ideas of Rev. Jim Wallis and others.  Do you think it's realistic that the "Religious Left" can come to have as strong a voice in the political arena as the Religious Right?  More importantly, can we do so without becoming what we don't to be?

I was discussing this question with another journaler online a couple of nights ago and I have to say that, no, I don't think that we will ever have as a strong a voice in the public arena.  Tolerance for other viewpoints and lifestyles is a hallmark of liberalism, which means that we seldom take to the airwaves or the streets to insist that others do it our way (although we do try to insist that others should be able to do things their way -- which is not nearly so sexy or compelling).  For instance, I have heard repeatedly from conservative Christians that the concept of gay marriage is an affront to the institution of marriage.  Even if that were true (which I don't believe to be the case), the obvious response to someone who makes that complaint is, "So, don't marry someone of your own gender."  How can it possibly damage heterosexual marriage for gay people to marry?  How can it damage heterosexual marriage for the legal requirements for marriage to be expanded, as long as heterosexuals are still included?

(Still included?! I hear a gasp arising from the conservative side.  What kind of a joke is that?  But that's the point.  If you are in the comfortable majority, it's hard to imagine that your securely protected rights could be eliminated, or that others might prefer they that they never existed in the first place.)

As long as we liberals remain baffled by the instinct to exert control over others and inhibited in the exercise thereof, our voices will remain muted -- which is perhaps just as it should be.  Muted but powerfully persistent.  We surely do not want Mr. Frist's insistence that "people of faith" are dimished by liberal politcal positions to go unchallenged.  I have taken to writing to my own conservative U.S. Senators on social and environmental issues for the explicit purpose of ensuring that they understand that not all Christianity resides right of center.

5) With your hiking, your birding, and your beautiful nature photography, could you see yourself living a truly urban life?

I've been thinking about this all week and I think the answer is absolutely! -- given  vibrant urban neighborhoods with easy access to safe walking streets and paths and parks and reasonable geographic proximity to outlying areas.  I could live in Paris in  a second, and I could live in Boston, Providence, New York, Chicago, Asheville, or San Francisco. Possibly New Orleans, too, as it seems I am about to discover. I can't see myself in exurbia, but urban  and inner ring suburban (where I live now) neighborhoods, with their access to great art, culture, music, dining and yes, nature, too are probably actually preferable to rural areas. 

Thanks again to SisterCDR for her thought-provoking effort in creating these questions! 

PS: Added later:  OK, I imagine Portland and Seattle would be great, too.   And Tacoma and Vancouver and Toronto and Montreal.

PSS:  Added much later:  I completely forgot that I love Washington, DC!