The Pendragon's Hall

The funniest thing to emerge from politics in many years was a poll that found that 37% of respondents thought a Halloween costume of Senator Hillary Clinton would be the scariest politics-themed costume. Her closest competitor was Rudy Giuliani who ran at about 17%. Ironically, or perhaps not so, was the fact that almost half of the men polled chose Clinton yet so did a third of women, and conservative Republicans did not seem to factor as much as Democrats and Independents in choosing for Clinton the role of "scariest costume." It just goes to show...we're not the only people who hate her.

CBS is such a joke. Their latest drama-comedy show, "Aliens in America," follows the fictional adventures of a middle-school boy and the Pakistani exchange student his mother imports to give him a friend. In one of the latest installments, the Pakistani insults the prettiest girl in the school by saying, "You make me uncomfortable; your only value comes from your sexuality." Clearly we are supposed to cheer the simple Islamic belief that there is value in women that comes from another place than their sexuality. This is placed in contrast to the cheap, superificial western (read: American) way. The problem with this is that it simply isn't true. The Pendragon agrees that women throwing themselves at every man is not an ideal way for them to live, but in Islam, we find a belief that women truly have no value besides their sexuality. Just because they're all covered up doesn't mean they're looking beneath the surface. After all, what is a Muslim woman for? She's for marrying (sometimes one of many) and bearing children, many, many children. I don't want to disillusion any readers who think the stork just makes a lot of stops in Chaostan, but that requires women to be merely sexual instruments of men. Who really is superficial here? The answer: both worldviews are flat-out wrong.

Sometimes it's hard to figure out which side of the aisle is worse. If it's not Pennsylvania's shemale lieutenant governor handing out anti-war literature at the funeral, then it's the Westboro Baptist Church blaming a Marine's death in Iraq on the country's acceptance of homosexuality. First of all, the country hasn't accepted homosexuality; it has in some places been forced down the throat of the voters by an activist lobby and their tame judges. But even if it had been accepted, while I don't pretend to speak for God, I can assure the good Baptists this soldier's death was in no way connected to homosexuality one way or the other. He died because he was in a combat zone during an active war. He died to protect this country and his sacrifice should be appreciated, not protested! I can only hope the soldiers' grieving father wins his lawsuit against the jumped-up Church and that perhaps this will convince them that there are times to keep their opinions to themselves.

The Pendragon supposes I really should comment on two big news items that people will be expecting me to comment on. The first is somewhat old, and I was hoping to simply ignore it, but it will not be ignored. Former vice president Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize. For what is highly uncertain--using scare tactics and phony science to scare a population into thinking his way does not seem to promote peace--but we all know the prizes are given out for anti-America activities these days. There should be no debate over that, and in that light, and only that light, Gore's prize makes sense. The interesting thing to the Pendragon is that the same people who scream that Bush is making a mountain out of a mole hill, exaggerating the threat of Islamic terrorism to get people to go along with him, think Gore is a hero. Islamic terrorists have attacked us in the past and continue to do so. How many global tidal waves have swept away our civilization recently? Gore has said that the end will come within ten years. If it doesn't, of course he can say that it was because he warned us, but this sounds suspiciously like using scare tactics and apocalyptic rhetoric to get people to support a platform you endorse. And Gore is doing it on less factual basis than Bush.

The second item came out just today: J.K. Rowling told a crowd in New York City that one of my favorite characters in her series, Albus Dumbledore is gay. He was in love with his childhood friend, Gellert Grindelwald, who eventually became a dark wizard that Dumbledore defeated in battle. It would be a lie to say I am not disappointed. The only people who are going to win with this are the Christians who want to say, "I told you so." Rowling said that the whole series was a plea for toleration. But before the secularists and the fundamentalists get all hyped up and start laughing at the poor, deluded Christians who've been defending Rowling all these years, let me say this. First of all, there is no suggestion in the entire 7-book series that Dumbledore is gay. Rowling's decision in this regard is entirely divorced from the actual books. So reading them will not expose your child to any hints of homosexual activity. I am disgusted because I know the gay community will now adopt Dumbledore as an icon to ram their lifestyle down the throats of the rest of us. This is a very un-Dumbledore thing to do, by the way. He championed toleration for everyone to quietly live their lives as they saw best. I can agree with this. The problem I have with gay marriage, besides my personal belief that it violates the created order of things, is that those who push the institution are determined to force it on everyone else. I think we need the marriage amendment in order to establish an accepted order of things. Deviate from it if you want, but you will not force your agenda on the rest of the country. And finally, who cares? Gay activists will make great headway with this, as will the witch hunters from our side of the aisle, and this fuels my great disappointment with Rowling, but Dumbledore being gay does not change my opinion of the books or of homosexuality. Robin Hood was a thief--I don't dislike reading those stories nor do I approve of stealing. In the end, however, I must confess: while my opinion of the Harry Potter books does not change, my opinion of its author does sink. The books read much better without all this information into the sexual orientation of the characters, or how many partners or whatnot. This has been what separates the books from the stupid fan fiction circulating the internet. The line has been blurred and the stories themselves will suffer from it.

The Pendragon is currently engaged in reading one of the most enjoyable books I have read in a very long time. Jon Meacham's "American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers and the Making of a Nation" is an enjoyable look at America's religious history that surprisingly succumbs to neither extreme interpretation. Meacham argues that the American gospel--"literally the good news"--is that religion informs our public life without dominating it. While many of the Founders and many public leaders throughout history have been orthodox, or semi-orthodox, Christians, they have used their faith to heal wounds, not create them. Meacham wins points for admitting the Christian worldview of many of our leading statesmen, but he also notes that they championed religious freedom, promoting something he calls "the public religion of America," a belief in God that is left free to the conscience of every man, woman, and child. This, he believes, is something to be celebrated. He also takes a hard swing at the leftist crowd that would have us believe the Founders were all atheist and agnostic and wanted nothing to do with Christianity. The "separation of church and state" was intended to protect religion from the state, not the state from religion. In this view, America was never a Christian nation, except insofar as it was a nation made up of Christians. This will no doubt lose him points with the religious right, but the Pendragon agrees--is any nation really a Christian nation? God saves individuals not entire nations. So Meacham urges Americans to embrace their public religion--full of belief in "Nature and Nature's God" as the Declaration of Independence would have it--but recognize the value of religious freedom beqeathed by many who were themselves believers. People must be free to choose their own way. Any religion must prove itself to the people--the government will not thrust it upon them.

This is a welcome lesson from history as we face the 2008 election. Meacham recounts the story of how William Howard Taft was attacked by his opponent William Jennings Bryan in the 1908 election (Sam Brownback flashbacks anyone?) for his Unitarian beliefs. (I now add Taft to the list of the unorthodox which includes Jefferson, the Adamses, Lincoln and Reagan.) Outgoing president Theodore Roosevelt, himself a committed Christian in the George W. Bush mold, lashed out at Taft's accusers, saying, "The only questions should be, Is he a good man? Is he fit for office?" Amen and amen. The reason any raising of Mitt Romney's Mormonism troubles the Pendragon (and the cover story of last week's "Newsweek" did just that) is that I am far from sure Christians should want a religious litmus test applied to presidential candidates. Today, we may be rejecting a Mormon--how far before we reject a Catholic, a Jew, an evangelical? Secularists love to see Romney scuttled by Christians--they're one step closer to applying a non-religion litmus test of their own. The question should be, Is he a good man? Is he fit for office? The answer to both questions is, "Yes." A president is not a spiritual leader. But while we are floating around the subject, should anyone who denies that Jesus is the Christ be head of a huge global Christian denomination? No, of course not. Yet Bishop Spong is the Archbishop of Canterbury, author of several books on how the Bible can't be trusted. Should the leader of one of the world's fastest growing Christian sects be publicly admitting that anyone who lives a good life can go to heaven, regardless of whether they accept Jesus or not? Certainly not. Yet Pope John Paul II said just that in a speech in 2001. In those cases, it is indeed a travesty to have people who deny the fundamental truths of the Gospel in those positions. Yet people are less worked up about that than they are about having a Mormon for president. The question asked of any presidential candidate should be whether their faith makes them the sort of person we want to have for president. If you have honestly answered in the negative about Romney, then by all means do not vote for him. But if you agree that he is a good man and fit for office, do not let his faith hang you up. Mormonism spurs on a man who is patriotic, upright, committed to his family, a hardworker, frugal and well-organized. Why can't he be President?