SUNDAY, AUGUST 31

After a twenty-eight year partnership
Joe Brooks and Doug Walker were married this afternoon.
Great Celebration!

In California......another reason to vote NO
on Proposition 8.

Today I shot a couple of photographs and fooled with them using
Adobe Photoshop. One of the Urban Trees down by the harbor
has a bicycle sculpture on top of a pole. I couldn't resist the bicycle
any more than I could resist the flowers earlier in the week. . I've
included a couple of shots of the sculpture below. If I were to give
a name to the composite, altered image above, it would be "JOY."

I've already made the pole disappear In these two photos shot from below. I had to decide between the actual color of the wheels or a black and white version. I decided black and white gives me more of a feeling of movement...
\

Can you believe it! This is graffiti... under Interstate 163
where the highway crosses the San Diego River...At least
eight feet high and fifteen feet in width. What a shame it
can't be lifted off the cement piling and transported to a
museum... but, of course, it won't happen; and it will be
enjoyed only by the few of us vagabonds who venture into
San Diego's out-of-the-way places, where common sense
and the people who say they love us tell us not to go.

Wednesday, August 27Tuesday, August 26Monday, August 25Sunday, August 24Saturday, August 23Friday, August 22

AFTER SHOCK AND AWE

NO EASY WAY OUT...

One of my favorite cartoons is Walt Kelly’s drawing of Pogo looking at himself in a mirror. The caption is “We have met the enemy and it is us.”

The United States attacked and invaded the nation of Iraq on February 15, 2003, approximately a year and a half after the destruction of The World Trade Center in New York by Al-Qaeda Terrorists. President George W. Bush’s stated reasons for the Iraq war were that President Saddam Hussein was a known supporter of terrorism, i.e. Al-Qaeda, and that he had developed weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical, and biological) which he was likely to put into the hands of terrorists for use against the United States and its allies. The apparent intention of the American President and his close advisors was to take out Saddam Hussein and liberate the Iraqi people from his reign of terror, find and destroy Iraq’s stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and the industrial system that presumably had developed them, and to immobilize the Iraqi terrorist organizations that were presumed to be part of Al-Queda’s world-wide network. Revenge was also clearly one of the President’s motives for his “shock and awe” attacks on Iraqi. In a CNN interview in 2002 he said, “Oh, yes, I hate Saddam Hussein. I don’t hate a lot of people. I don’t hate easily.” Six days later at a fundraiser in Texas, Bush said, “There’s no doubt he (Saddam) can’t stand us. After all, this is the guy that tried to kill my Dad at one time.” (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war.talk/) He was referring to an “alleged" plot by Iraqi intelligence to assassinate Bush’s father. Whatever Bush's compelling personal motives were, his spokespersons went before Congress and persuaded the majority of both Republicans and Democrats to give assent to his war; and the United States, the most powerful nation in the world, with a population of 300,000,000, unleashed it’s war machine on a small nation of 27,000,000 souls that had already endured two decades under the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.
-----------------------------------------------
Revenge killing is not a new phenomenon. A shocking and awful mass murder that took place nearly 4000 years ago is described in detail in the Book of Genesis. Two brothers, sons of the Patriarch Jacob, went on a killing spree that left every adult male dead in a small city not far from the 21st Century killing fields of Iraq.

Considering Jacob’s importance to three of the world’s great religions, I have been struggling to make sense of the Biblical story about the murder by his sons Simeon and Levi of all the men in the city of Shechem about 4000 years ago. Of particular interest is Jacob’s reaction to his sons’ great crime. The murders were committed after Jacob returned to his homeland from a two-decade, self-imposed exile. The story is found in Genesis, Chapter 34 through Chapter 35, verse 6.

Jacob had recently traveled back from a place called Paddan Aram, which four millennia ago was in what is now Syria. Primarily to get away from his brother Esau, who was understandably angry at having had the family birthright and his father’s blessing stolen from him by trickery and deception, Jacob had gone at the suggestion of his mother to Paddan Aram to try to find her brother, who, she said would help him. Most people know the story of how Jacob found his Uncle Laban and fell in love with his cousin Rachel. He agreed to work for his uncle for seven years so he could get her for a wife but was tricked by Uncle Laban into sleeping with Rachel’s elder sister Leah, so he had to take her instead of Rachel. He was still very much in love with Rachel; so he made a deal to work for another seven years so he could also have her for a wife. The story tells how he also took two slave girls as wives (some records say they were half-sisters to Leah and Rachel). After twenty years or so in exile he had become a prosperous man in his own right. He decided to go back home to his father’s land with his four wives, his sons and daughter, his herds of cattle and sheep, his slaves and all his other possessions. It was a big move. It was a long way back to the area that is now Palestine, Israel, and Jordan; and after resolving some of the issues with his brother Esau, who turned out not to be somebody who held a grudge, Jacob headed up to Shechem, a small city north of Jerusalem.

Near Shechem, soon after Jacob’s group had pitched their tents and led their livestock out to graze, Dinah, his daughter by Leah, decided to go “out to see the daughters of the land” (King James Version of Genesis 34:1) The New English Bible says, “ Dinah, the daughter whom Leah had borne to Jacob, went out to visit the women of the country.” It isn’t likely that she went along, for to wander alone into a strange city would have been inconsistent with the customs of the time. However it was, we are told that in her walkabout she came to the attention of the son of the ruler of the place. Some interpretations of the Hebrew text say this handsome prince raped Dinah. The text isn’t clear. He is said to have dishonored her, which could mean that he slept with her by force or by seduction. She would have been dishonored even if he had only touched her tenderly or kissed her. What is clear is that being a woman she was someone else’s property, not legitimately available to the young man Shechem or to anyone of his tribe. We are told that whatever were the circumstances of their first liaison, “He remained true to Jacob’s daughter Dinah; he loved the girl and comforted her. So Shechem said to his father Hamor, “Get me this girl for a wife.”

Hamor and Shechem went to Jacob and told him that Dinah was staying at Shechem's house and that Shechem wanted her for a wife. Hamor said he was willing to pay whatever price was asked. After some expressions of displeasure and some wrangling on the part of Dinah’s father and her brothers, they finally agreed to the deal on the condition that Shechem and Hamor and all the other adult males in their city must consent to be circumcised. Shechem and Hamor agreed, and all the men of the city were circumcised in one day.

Jacob apparently thought the deal was fair. Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, had another thought. While the men of the city were still in pain from their circumcision operations, the two brothers went into the city and slaughtered Shechem and Hamor and every other adult male. Talk about SHOCK and AWE! All of the other tribes in the region were terrified.

Not satisfied with wholesale slaughter of the men, the sons of Jacob went and pillaged the city. The text says, “ Then two days later, while they were still in great pain, Jacob’s two sons Simeon and Levi, full brothers to Dinah, armed themselves with swords, boldly entered the city and killed every male. They cut down Hamor and his son Shechem and took Dinah from Shechem’s house and went off with her. Then Jacob’s other sons came in over the dead bodies and plundered the city, to avenge their sister’s dishonour. They seized flocks, cattle, asses, and everything, both inside the city and outside in the open country; they also carried off all their possessions, their dependants, and their women, and plundered everything in the houses.”

Jacob’s reaction seems to have been more concern for himself than for the actual atrocity his sons had committed. He said to them, “You have brought trouble on me, you have made my name stink among the people of the country, the Canaanites and the Perizzites. My numbers are few; if they muster against me and attack me, I shall be destroyed, I and my household with me.”

So Jacob packed up his tents and headed out of the region. He went south, first to Bethel, which was northeast of Jerusalem, and then finally on down south of Jerusalem to Ephrathan, which has been known as Bethlehem for more than two thousand years.
---------------------
Why do I tell this story alongside the story of the Iraq War? I tell it because in my travels I have found that the war has made my country's name stink in the world. Where do we go now? When do we go from Iraq? What do we do after we go? How do we restore our good name in the world?

By May 1, 2003, with the “shock and awe” phase of the war over in Iraq, but with war still raging out of control, President Bush announced that the mission had been accomplished. More than five years have passed since that time, and the two presumptive candidates for the office of president of the United States are not at all sure how the country should go about extricating itself from the conflict that is almost certain to go on for years. In 2003 When George Bush announced that his mission had been accomplished, 139 American military personnel had been killed. Today, more than five years later, with the conflict in Iraq barely abated if at all, more than 4000 Americans have been killed and more than 30,000 have been wounded. No one knows for sure how many Iraqis have been killed and how many have been wounded, but the number is frighteningly high.
In the history of mankind violence seems always to lead to violence which leads to more violence. Implying that God is on one side or the other in any war is a repulsive idea. When will we ever learn?
---------------------------------

MID-AUGUST CONVERSATION

HEY, WAKE UP! I NEED TO TALK ABOUT SOMETHING.

About something? Remember, I know what’s going on in your head. I live there, too. You’ve got yourself really worked up about what’s happening between the church and the world.

I DON’T KNOW IF IT’S FAIR TO SPEAK OF SOMETHING HAPPENING “BETWEEN” THE CHURCH AND THE WORLD. ISN’T IT MORE APPROPRIATE TO SPEAK OF IT AS SOMETHING HAPPENING IN THE CHURCH IN THE WORLD, NOT BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE WORLD?

Maybe. The almost two-thousand year history of the church is a story of constant conflict and compromise, of separation and reconciliation. What’s bugging you most about the conflict this time? Maybe we’d better focus this time on reconciliation.

FOR SOME TIME, I’VE BEEN TRYING TO RECONCILE WHAT I THOUGHT AS A CHILD... ACTUALLY WHAT I THINK I WAS TAUGHT, AND WHAT I NOW THINK I KNOW TO BE TRUE. THERE’S A BIG DIFFERENCE. MAYBE IT’S A MISUNDERSTANDING... INTERESTING WORD, “MISUNDERSTANDING.”

Some misunderstandings are very hard to set right. What’s the big misunderstanding that’s bothering you?

WHEN I WAS A CHILD, I GOT THE DISTINCT IMPRESSION FROM SUNDAY SCHOOL TEACHERS AND PREACHERS AND FROM MY OWN PARENTS AND THE PARENTS OF MY FRIENDS THAT THE BIBLE WAS AN INSTRUCTION MANUAL, A BOOK THAT WOULD ALWAYS INFORM ME, CHAPTER AND VERSE, HOW TO DO ANYTHING... AT LEAST, ANYTHING THAT HAD TO DO WITH PEOPLE. IN FAIRNESS I COULD SAY THEY MEANT RIGHT, BUT THEY WERE WRONG. I’M CERTAINLY NOT THE FIRST CHRISTIAN TO NOTICE THAT A LOT OF THAT STUFF WE WERE TAUGHT JUST ISN’T TRUE; AND I DON’T REMEMBER ANY VOICES THAT SAID, “IT ISN’T SO.” I THINK OUR PARENTS DIDN’T LET US GET NEAR ANYBODY WHO MIGHT BE INCLINED TO SAY IT ISN’T SO.

You’re being harsh. The Bible itself doesn’t claim all its stories literally happened. The Church does that. It has been The Church in its many forms over the centuries that has insisted the angels and the devils and the forms of God in its Bible stories are all absolutely accurate descriptions of real beings; so don’t go gettting angry at the Bible. There are many books that inform us on how to relate to others. The Bible is one of the best. You’re thinking the people who taught you believed the stories are all true. In a sense perhaps they are true; but maybe it would be more accurate to say they deal with truth. A story doesn’t have have happened, it doesn’t have to be biographical have truth in it. The stories I love most from great literature of the world are in a sense true. Alexander Solzhenitzyn died this month. He told stories that had in them so much truth about religion, philosophy and spirituality that they will always be read by people who are truth seekers. Вичная Памят. It doesn’t matter if Ivan Denisovich was an actual person any more than it matters if the woman drawing water at a well in a Jesus story was a real, live person. The truth of Ivan’s experience informs me and helps me know something about how I may get through rough days with honor. Jesus' stories are built around important kernels of truth. The stories inform me. So I don’t agree that we were deceived by those people who taught us when we were children.


DON’T GET ME WRONG. I HAVEN’T FALLEN OUT OF LOVE WITH THE BIBLE. WHEN I GOT HOME FROM CHURCH ONE SUNDAY RECENTLY, I REREAD THE STORIES IN THE BOOK OF GENESIS ABOUT ABRAHAM AND ISAAC AND ISHMAEL AND JACOB AND ESAU AND JOSEPH AND HIS BROTHERS. WOW! WHAT POWERFUL LITERATURE! I LOVE THOSE STORIES. I LOVE READING AND HEARING THEM.

The people you mention from the Book of Genesis are all men. What about the women?

THE STORIES COME FROM A DISTINCTLY PATRIARCHAL SOCIETY, SO THE MEN ARE THE HEROES. HOWEVER, THE WOMEN IN THE STORIES ARE AMAZING. MOSTLY YOU HAVE TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES TO DISCOVER JUST HOW AMAZING THEY WERE. THE EMPHASIS IS ON THE MEN, BUT THERE’S A LOT TO LEARN ABOUT LIVING FROM THOSE WOMEN... FOR EXAMPLE, TAKE THE STORY OF ESAU AND JACOB: WHAT’S BEST TO DO OR NOT TO DO IN A CRITICAL SITUATION INVOLVING SIBLING RIVALRY? A MOTHER WHO FAVORS ONE OF THE SONS OVER THE OTHER MADE ALL THE DIFFERENCE... A DIFFERENCE IN THE HISTORY OF A NATION THAT IS STILL STRUGGLING TO KNOW ITS IDENTITY EVEN TODAY ALMOST FOUR THOUSANDS AFTER ESAU AND JACOB AND REBECCA WERE SAID TO HAVE LIVED. SO... O.K., THERE’S TRUTH IN THEM EVEN THOUGH THEY’RE NOT NECESSARILY TRUE STORIES.

I like to think those stories are not given to us so we can go out and do things the way Jacob did. I don’t like to think of you going to meet an angel or anybody else for a wrestling match down by the river... because under our special circumstance, I’d have to go with you; and I don’t want to wrestle an angel or god or whoever it was Jacob tussled with all night. The State of Israel today gets its name from the Jacob story, so it must be important. No wonder he got his hip out of joint. I’ve got my nose out of joint just thinking about it. I think it’s important for us to look closely at the story of Jacob getting the birthright and the blessing even though he was not the eldest son of his father and his father’s principal wife. There’s a lot to be learned from that story. For one thing, we are reminded that there are better ways of getting a blessing than by cheating and lying. I think it’s important to know that Esau got screwed, and to see that it wasn’t right...even if their mother was Jacob’s accomplice in the matter.

I can guess where you’re going with this discussion today. Remember I was with you yesterday when the group at church met to talk about the confusion over same-gender marriage... and I’ve been with you every second for seventy-three years, so I can tell when you’re determined not to let an issue drop.

YEP! I CAME AWAY FROM THAT DISCUSSION WITH A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE. I CAN SEE MORE CLEARLY NOW THAT CALIFORNIA’S PROPOSITION ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT IS NOT ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY AT ALL. THE SUPERIOR COURT JUSTICES AREN’T TALKING ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY. THEY AREN’T TALKING ABOUT SEX AT ALL. SO WHY DOES THE CHURCH CONTINUE TO GIVE THE IMPRESSION THAT IT’S PROBLEM WITH SAME-GENDER MARRIAGE IS THAT BY OPPOSING PROPOSITION EIGHT IT WOULD IMPLICITLY GIVE APPROVAL AND PERMISSION FOR MEN TO BUGGER EACH OTHER AND FOR WOMEN TO DO WHATEVER IT IS THEY DO TOGETHER IN BED. FOR PETE’S SAKE, NO FOR GOD’S SAKE, WHEN ARE THE BEARDED FATHERS AND SAINTLY MOTHERS WHO MAKE THE RULES GOING TO SEE THAT WEDDINGS AND MARRIAGE ARE NOT ABOUT SEX AT ALL.

Maybe that’s where our society has gone most wrong. Maybe people have actually come to believe that weddings and marriage are about sex. It’s probably the easiest way to explain why so many marriages fail.

O.K. So what’s your new insight?

I REREAD THE CALIFORNIA SUPEREME COURT’S RULING THAT GAY COUPLES IN CALIFORNIA MUST BE GRANTED THE RIGHT TO MARRY. THE COURT HAS SAID THAT GAY PEOPLE ARE INDIVIDUALS FIRST AND GAY SECOND, JUST AS HETEROSEXUAL PEOPLE ARE INDIVIDUALS FIRST, BEFORE ANY CONSIDERATION OF HOW OR WITH WHOM THEY HAVE SEX. THE COURT’S RULING IS ABOUT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS NOT ABOUT SEX. HERE’S WHAT THE COURT SAID:

“THESE CORE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS INCLUDE, MOST FUNDAMENTALLY, THE OPPORTUNITY OF AN INDIVIDUAL TO ESTABLISH--WITH THE PERSON WITH WHOM THE INDIVIDUAL HAS CHOSEN TO SHARE HIS OR HER LIFE--AN OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED AND PROTECTED FAMILY POSSESSING MUTUAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND ENTITLED TO THE SAME RESPECT AND DIGNITY ACCORDED A UNION TRADITIONALLY DESIGNATED AS MARRIAGE.”

That’s straight forward stuff (no pun intended). So the individual citizen is guaranteed rights under the United States Constitution without qualifications or euphemisms, and before any consideration of the individual’s sexual orientation... or race or color or age or gender or... It seems pretty clear.

A PERSON IS AN INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN FIRST BEFORE ANY CONSIDERATION OF ANY OTHER PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS... AND THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES EQUAL RIGHTS WITHOUT QUALIFICATIONS. A PERSON EXISTS AS AN INDIVIDUAL BEFORE ANY CONSIDERATION OF HIS OR HER SEXUAL ORIENTATION. WHAT THE CALIFORNIA COURT HAS SAID IS THAT EVERY INDIVIDUAL HAS THE RIGHT TO “THE OPPORTUNITY OF AN INDIVIDUAL” TO CHOOSE ANOTHER “PERSON’ TO “ESTABLISH A FAMILY” ...PERIOD. HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES WHO MARRY AREN’T REQUIRED BY LAW TO REPRODUCE IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED FAMILY. A FAMILY CAN BE TWO PEOPLE... I KNOW A BEAUTIFUL FAMILY OF JUST TWO PEOPLE, A MOTHER AND HER DAUGHTER. I KNOW COUPLES WHO HAVE CHOSEN TO HAVE NO CHILDREN, AND I KNOW COUPLES WHO HAVE REMAINED JUST TWO-PEOPLE FAMILIES BY CHOICE. ALL OF THEM ARE FAMILIES. ALL OF THEM ARE FAMILIES ACCORDED FULL RIGHTS BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND SOME OF THEM ARE PARTICIPATING MEMBERS OF THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH OF AMERICA. THEIR INDIVIDUAL CITIZENSHIP AND THE LEGITIMACY OF THEIR MARRIAGES OR THEIR DOMESTIC RELATIONSHIPS ARE NOT DETERMINED BY HOW OR WHEN OR WITH WHOM OR IF THEY ARE SEXUALLY ACTIVE INDIVIDUALS. THE NOTION THAT CITIZENSHIP OR LIGITIMACY OF THEIR RELATIONSHIPS MIGHT DEPEND ON THEIR SEXUALITY IS ABSURD.

Oh, I get it! You’re sayng the Church’s ruling in its Book of Discipline is based on a misunderstanding of homosexuality: that the Church sees homosexuality as an activity, that gays are people who have chosen to behave badly. As a hedge the church includes gays in its general membership and even as minor employees (just as women were allowed partial participation before their full emancipation) because it apparently still considers homosexuality a condition that can be fixed if the gay person really puts his/her mind and prayers to it. In a spirit of mercy and openness the Roman Catholic church chooses to call homosexuality an “objective disorder." It's apparently O.K. to be "it" as long as you don't "do" it. The Methodist Book of Discipline doesn't put a specific name to it, but the intention is the same.

I know what you’re thinking. Don’t say it.

O.K. I WON’T SAY IT. I WILL SAY THAT WHEN THE CHURCH SEES GAYS AS INDIVIDUALS, AS WELL-ADJUSTED, NORMAL INDIVIDUALS, THE SAME AS HETEROSEXUALS, THE DISCUSSION BECOMES A DIFFERENT ONE. THE QUESTION IS A MATTER OF HOW WE TREAT INDIVIDUALS WITH AN INVOLUNTARY, DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC ALONG THE LINES OF GENDER OR RACE. FOR ALL MY PROTESTING AND INSISTING ON CHANGE, I'M NOT GOING TO LEAVE THE CHURCH. IT'S AN IMPORTANT INSTITUTION. IF ALL OF US LEAVE WHO ARE DISMAYED BY THE CHURCH'S RELUCTANCE TO CHANGE, IT IS NOT LIKELY EVER TO COME DOWN ON THE MORALLY RIGHT SIDE OF THIS ISSUE. I'M GOING TO HANG IN THERE, EVEN THOUGH I FIND IT DISTASTEFUL, EVEN ABHORRENT, TO CONTINUE MEMBERSHIP IN AN ORGANIZATION THAT PERSISTS IN MAKING SUCH A GRIEVOUS ERROR IN MORAL JUDGMENT... WHEN EVEN THE STATE IN WHICH IT EXISTS HAS CORRECTED ITSELF. IF THE CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY A MAJORITY VOTE REVERSE THE COURT’S DECISION BY CHANGING THE CALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTION, THE METHODIST CHURCH WILL HAVE BEEN COMPLICIT IN THAT REVERSAL. HEAVEN FORBID!

VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 8.

ERRATUM:

In my BLOG entry of July 31 entitled "Where the Church Get’s It
Terribly Wrong," I got it wrong. The telephone conversation I mention
in the BLOG was actually an exchange of e-mails. The statement about
the use of the social hall at First United Methodist Church in San
Diego came to "Party A and Party B" not from the senior pastor but
from another staff person. The senior pastor has contacted the
district superintendent who says he believes the social hall may be
used for receptions.

The Book of Discipline states, “Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual
unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be
conducted in our churches.” The senior pastor stated in e-mails of
August 5 and August 8 that “elsewhere it (the Book of Discipline) says
we are to offer pastoral support and guidance to all people, with the
exception of doing same-gender services.”

THE WAY SOME PEOPLE SEE THE DRINKING FOUNTAIN AT WILSON SCHOOL

Salute! Just spouting off. Mike Duggan

I see a smiling policeman waving. Liz Cogdill

I see a traffic cop! Rachael Damm

Looks like a policeman, wearing his officers hat, looking down at a child and smiling. Ginny Burnight

Is that Ralph Kramden (Jackie Gleason) from the Honeymooners (circa 1950's)? Jim Miles

Well, I see either a policeman or a postman! Liz Respess

A crossing guard? Marla Stevens

Another SS officer who needs to be deported!!! Bob Smith

My friend, I am so anxious to know what else you see in the water fountain :)). Антон Гуленцов

I am not sure what you are seeing, but I see a soldier, with his hat on and his left arm raised in salute to his commander. Trevor Price

I guess I don't get it. Ben Bachmeier

Looks like a one armed traffic cop... John Baker

I believe so. Jackie... Jackie Cooper

Wonder where this traffic directing officer is on duty?
At least he's smiling ;-)... Carol Green

It looks to me a little like a traffic cop from the rear, smiling and holding up his left hand to stop traffic... Taylor Hill

I see a little man waving or possibly a police man directing traffic. Braithe Landry

SIDEWALK SPLATTER IN FRONT OF WILSON MIDDLE SCHOOL
where I am doing volunteer teaching this week.
I never cease to be amazed at how much
fine stuff the world has in it. This random
"work" was done by people passing
on their way to somewhere...
people who didn't even know
they were doing it.....
and the eucalyptus abstract a few days ago
occurred naturally day by day, year by year
on a tree as it grew......

IT'S ALL WONDERFUL.

EN MEMORIUM

ALEKSANDR SOLZHENITSYN

I remember clearly when I first heard of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. I was a high school English teacher in a “provincial” town in the Central Valley of California. I paid attention because Solzhentsyn was described as an obscure, middle-aged, unpublished high school science teacher in a provincial town in Russia. He came to the world’s attention in 1962 with the publication of his first book, “One Day in the LIfe of Ivan Denisovich.” The book couldn’t be bought on the streets of Moscow, but it was available in Yuba City. I read it and was awed by the book and by the man. Though relatively short, the novel was clearly a masterpiece which belonged on the shelf with the works of other great Russian literary giants. From the time that first work was published, he deserves to be mentioned along with Tolstoy, Dostoevesky, and Pushkin when writers and speakers name Great Russian authors. Even when the people and circumstances he describes in his stories were unbearably ugly and mean, the novels are infused with a spiritual quality and patriotism that is found in the work of those other great literary masters. In 1970 he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature. He lived in the United States during his years of exile; but when it became possible after perestroika for him to go home again, he went back to Russia where he died on Sunday, August 3, at age 89.

I am moved even now when I read his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, which had to be delivered to the awards ceremony in Stockholm as a written piece. He couldn’t accept it in person because he knew that if he left he wouldn’t be allowed to return to his country even to bring out his family. He said ordinary people were obliged “not to participate in lies.” He said artists have a greater responsibilities. “It is within the power of writers and artists to do much more: to defeat the lie!” Solzhenitsyn didn’t shirk his responsibility.