|
|
John Ashcroft as Attorney General. (12/26/2000)
On December 25, 2000 A. D.,
which stands as the final birthday of the Christian Savior at
the precise end of the second millennium, and falling just seven
days prior to that terminal point, the Sun (of God?) was eclipsed
by the Moon. At virtually any other point in the past two thousand
years, such an event would have sparked a heated theological debate
about whether or not the eclipse signaled the beginning of the
end of the Christian era, a possibility I am not at all unwilling
to entertain. In most primitive European ideology, the moon was
perceived as a feminine spirit essentially at odds with the masculine
point of view of Christianity, which is one reason the Christian
hierarchy was always so willing to burn witches, and to have the
moon eclipse the Son of God on the final birthday of the Savior
at the exact end of the final year of the millennium would have
been taken as a sign, rightly or wrongly, that the power structures
controlling natural forces in the universe had shifted from masculine
to feminine domination. The sign of the eclipse would have spelled
out the doomsday of Christianity and would have marked the inevitable
coming of the AntiChrist.
As fate would have it, January
6, 2001 marks the day of the Feast of the Epiphany, which celebrates,
symbolizes, and fixes the anniversary of the day on which Christ's
divinity was revealed to the world. That is also the day on which
the founding Fathers of American democracy specified that all
newly elected members of the House of Representatives should be
sworn into office just prior to receiving the final and certified
votes of the Electoral College that determined who the next President
of the US was going to be after the general election was held
for that office every fourth year. Of course, as it turns out,
George W. Bush's right to that office will be declared publicly
and officially at a kind of political, if not wholly secular,
Feast of the Epiphany on the anniversary of that ageless event.
One cannot help but wonder at the curious way time works itself
out in first giving us a solar eclipse on the last birthday of
the Savior at the end of the second millennium which, symbolically
at least, can be said to signal the end of the masculine domination
of the world that Christianity has represented for two thousand
years, just 13 days before George W. Bush is elevated, by official
and public acclaim, to the highest office in American democracy
and that on the day, again symbolically at least, which marks
the anniversary of the Epiphany. The Fathers of American democracy
knew that January 6 was the day of the Feast and meant by that
choice of date to suggest that the presidential validation by
the House of Representatives conferred something like a secular
divinity, God's favor so to speak, on the person elected to that
office.
If one were inclined to read
the signs, as Christians everywhere used to do, would it not be
appropriate to say that George W. Bush's epiphany is just as likely
to symbolize a manifestation of anti-divinity as it is to signal
something else, given the fact that it is scheduled to occur just
13 days after the eclipse of the Sun of God by the moon at the
very end of the second millennium? And what other kinds of signs
are there that might support such a reading of current events?
I will, of course, overlook the fact that seven Supreme Court
justices, each of whom can be said to represent one of the seven
seals that were opened to usher in the reign of the AntiChrist,
ruled in such a way as to insure that George W. Bush would become
the 43rd President of the US, where 7 x 6 = 42 (and where 7 +
6 = 13), making him the first of 7 x 7 US Presidents to hold that
office, where numerology of this sort is surely ridiculous and
wholly beside the point; but, will instead focus attention on
the fact that he has elected to nominate John Ashcroft as the
next Attorney General of the United States.
Reading signs is a difficult
and perilous occupation, surrounded on every side by dangers of
misinterpretation guided only by the blind ignorance to the will
and intent of divinity that afflicts the pitiful talents of human
intellect when given the task of comprehending that which by definition
cannot be understood. I say that only to caution the reader against
taking anything else I might say with a grain of salt, since I
am as likely to be in error as I am to stumble blindly across
a single fragment of truth in anything that follows here. The
nomination of John Ashcroft as Attorney General in the George
W. Bush administration, while perhaps not the worst thing that
has ever happened in the history of Western civilization, where
only his confirmation by the Senate can exceed the problem his
nomination represents, is nevertheless a troubling indication
that the Bush administration intends to lead the political institutions
of this country in every direction but the best one. I say that
because John Ashcroft has been characterized, and has proven himself
to be, a militantly devout Christian who necessarily elevates
the Rule of God, a concept which cannot even be vaguely defined,
above the Law of Man. That is a problem because the position of
Attorney General of the US is not a religious office; rather,
it is a position that has everything to do with the conduct of
human relationships as they are defined by legal prescriptions
of long-standing tradition and nothing whatsoever to do with anything
that resides in the realm of how Christians define the way God
intends for us to behave toward one another, as if that notion
can even be expressed outside dictates of pure supposition, if
not blatant superstition. Enforcing the US Constitution, which
is precisely what the Attorney General does, has never fallen
into the hands of a religious bigot.
One can say here that I have
chosen too harsh a word as characteristic of John Ashcroft's ideological
position. I defend that choice, however, on the simple ground
that the first article of Christian faith holds forth the notion
that if you are not a Christian, if you do not accept Jesus Christ
as your savior, then the Christian God has already condemned you
to eternal death. According to the Rule of God, then, as opposed
to the US Constitution, which John Ashcroft has made clear he
will enforce over and above the Law of Man, anyone in America
who is not a Christian has committed a capital crime against God
and society and punishment for that offense is death. Do I mean
to suggest then that John Ashcroft as Attorney General will begin
a program of genocide against non-Christians, since certain justification
for doing so exists wholly within the apparent dictates of the
Rule of God, which his faith embraces as absolute truth, even
if following such a course certainly contradicts the Law of Man
he will swear to uphold after his confirmation by the US Senate?
When a conflict of interest between the Rule of God and the Law
of Man arises, especially where the person judging the conflict
is a devout Christian, an element of doubt about the validity
of such a judgment cannot help but project itself into the wisdom
of making such a nomination in the first place. As an act meant
to unify and not divide an already sundered electorate, Ashcroft's
nomination falls so far short of what it claims to be that any
sensible person cannot view it as anything other than an affront
to the very principle of impartiality, to fair and even-handed
judgment, that must attend the essential function embodied in
the appointment and in the eventual activities of an Attorney
General.
From a native American point
of view, and one which everything here is meant to reflect, the
nomination of Ashcroft is little more than what one would expect
of any President of the US and his predilection to the potential
persecution of non-Christians, whether real or imagined for the
future, is nothing more than an expression of the status quo,
since, as a people, we have already endured 500 years of Eurocentric
genocide directed against us and our culture and do not now expect
that tradition to change by virtue of any election or appointment
that might be made. In fact, from a purely selfish point of view,
nothing could be better than the appointment of John Ashcroft
as Attorney General. This is true because whatever divides Europeans
in the Western hemisphere, whatever sets them at each others throats,
so to speak, can only be of essential benefit to native Americans.
The path George W. Bush is looking down seems to be one that will
divide more than it can possibly unite. I cannot feel any apprehension
about that.
Looking a little deeper into
the potential for division in the months ahead, the issue of school
vouchers is one that ought to play out very well in furthering
the divide that separates classes in America. One function of
the Attorney General is to warn Presidents, and Congress, when
a potential bill expressing his agenda stands in violation of
the US Constitution. Any school voucher program which provides
money from the US Treasury to pay tuition for children whose parents
want them to attend religious schools must be read as a violation
of the First Amendment because it clearly prohibits the federal
government from interfering in the establishment of religion.
The federal government cannot promote any religious institution
by providing monetary compensation to it in any form whatsoever
just as it cannot also levy taxes against it. George W. Bush is
apparently unconcerned by the fact that school vouchers violate
the US Constitution and has appointed an Attorney General who
also supports, apparently, and by virtue of the fact that he is
a devout Christian, having the federal government subsidize religious
education. On that single ground alone John Ashcroft violates
his oath of office before he even swears to it. And just to put
this in proper perspective from a native American point of view,
the federal government has in the past supported religious education
for a chosen segment of the population with devastating effects
on the children who were supposed to benefit from it. Christian
missionaries were given federal money to establish schools for
native American children-schools meant to convert them from pagan
to Christian belief systems. What that did was destroy native
American culture. It was part of the genocide practiced against
us for the past 500 years. My point in bringing it up here ought
to be obvious, and certainly reflects the intent of the First
Amendment-when the federal government interferes in the establishment
of religion, nothing good can come of it.
A number of other problems also arise with the plan to subsidize private education in this country. In the first place, the amount of the gift the government is likely to make to parents who want to send their children to private schools, and who will choose to send them to public ones if choice means what I think it does, will not be large enough to pay the burden of private school tuition. It will unquestionably ease the burden for people who can already afford to send their children to private schools, since they will pay less of their own money with a voucher, but it will not be enough to cover the expense for people who cannot afford that luxury now. Hence, only the wealthiest people in America will benefit in any way from a school voucher program. This fact, furthermore, is absolutely inevitable for another reason; that is, there are no classrooms available in private schools now in which any child can be taught with or without a school voucher. The only children who will be able to attend private schools next week, after the voucher program is set in place, will be the ones who are already enrolled in private schools now. Since there is no room for more students in private schools, only the wealthiest parents will be able to use the voucher because no one else will be able to find a classroom for their child in a private school. What that means, of course, is that the school voucher program is nothing more than another hidden tax break for the people in this society who need it less than anyone else does. In fact, the people in this culture who now pay more tax than they can reasonably afford are going to be forced to subsidize the educational expenses of the people who can already afford to send their children to private schools, while their own children remain trapped in public schools that have even less chance, and significantly reduced means, to educate them properly. The children of the rich will benefit at the expense of the children of the poor, which seems incredibly unfair except for the fact that the whole point of what George W. Bush means when he says that no child will be left behind is precisely that. Put differently, what Republicans mean when they say that, as time will or will not verify in the actions of George W. Bush, is that no child who really matters will be left behind. Everyone else will be left to fend for themselves.