Election day was not my most productive, out of two so far, for the novel writing month. I let myself get distracted with politics (on Facebook). Once I had voted — first thing in the morning: although third to submit my form to get a ballot, first to send the ballot through the machine, and Janet was second on both fronts — I found a cute little picture of a button that said “I am too poor to vote Republican” which more or less summed up my view of the corporate money funneled into the party of No (as of today, I have been told by every source, the majority party in Congress, so we donʼt want to forget their established log of obstructionism). I think that when I put that picture up as my display pic, some friends were displeased. Oh, well, it will come down later yesterday (I am writing about noon on Tuesday) or early-ish today. And the resultant debate was interesting, too.
Obviously, then, I donʼt know how the elections have turned out. The polls havenʼt even been open half their scheduled time yet here in Iowa. I am not optimistic, dreading that the disinformation spewed by blogiots and FoxGnaws may have had its intended effect. Democrats are no prize, either, too wimpy to claim the high ground or boldly advance genuine principles. When folks talk about entrenched interests, maybe we need to mean the two parties and their corrupted and ineffective system (completely extraneous to the Constitution, by the way). No more Republicans or Democrats!
But itʼs a new day as you read this. The elections are over, and I donʼt know how things have turned out.
I did notice that my sparring partner, Daniel, has attempted (off this blog, on his own) to answer our recent debate about undermining the Constitution (Article VI and the First Amendment) to gratify his personal so-called religious desires. He tries to misread Jeffersonʼs letter to the Danbury Baptists to support his unconstitutional notion that religulous ideas should dominate the federal government. However, Jefferson begins the content by saying clearly, “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship…” He is staking the ground strongly: matters of conscience are solely matters of conscience, which is where, within oneself alone, oneʼs relations with God, if such, are constrained. In other words, religion has no more direct influence on government than government may infringe upon free practice of religion — utterly undercutting any nonsense about “Jefferson indicates that a man’s religious values are free to infiltrate the government…” Itʼs the precise opposite: Jefferson indicates first the principle that conscience is personal rather than public to reassure the cold-shouldered Baptists of (Puritanical) Danbury that government will never revoke the First Amendment by imposing a religion on all the minorities that make up the people of the United States.
But I already replied to him on his site (at least three times, in fact). You can read my comment here, even though some peculiarity of Danielʼs comment system stripped away my own link back to the “Faithful Facts” discussion last Thursday. (I added it in a second of my comments.)
And putting together this bit of writing, my Facebook observations, and the reply to Daniel should comprise enough of a post for now (especially since I have to actually write some on my novel yet Tuesday).