One Smooth Stone
Harry T. Cook

By Harry T. Cook
6/5/15
 

 

 

 

One of the most colorful of all biblical tales concerns a Judean lad said to have been quite the skilled lyrist and, as it turned out, an excellent marksman with a sling. With that and one smooth stone, the youth felled the much-feared champion of the Philistine enemy -- a giant of a figure to be forever known as Goliath.

 

David is depicted as rising from a minder of sheep to the throne of the Judean kingdom and the progenitor of the great house named for him, which, according to one tradition, produced a messiah.

 

That the great man had moral difficulties -- to which the ghosts of Uriah the Hittite and his wife Bathsheba could well bear witness -- is not to be overlooked, but his figure in the legends of the Jewish and Christian traditions looms large.

 

The root of his eminence is almost always traced to that day in the Valley of Elah when, as the story goes, David, carrying only a sling and a bag of stones, strode out to do battle with the much-armored and equipped Goliath and won the day -- that whilst Saul's frightened army looked on, jaws agape.

 

That biblical legend came to mind as I read of the wildly enthusiastic reception given Sen. Bernie Sanders by nearly 400 people in the tiny Iowa hamlet of Kensett -- pop. 240. Known mostly for his socialist, independent streak, the Vermont solon was testing the waters for a run at the presidency.

 

When Sanders finally came to his "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore" decision to try for the White House, you could almost hear the guffawing among the country club set of both major parties -- including, probably, some gusty har-hars in the Clinton camp. Fewer people are laughing today.

 

In some ways, Sanders is the David in these frighteningly early months of an election that is a year and a half away. Of the 188 Republicans now in the scrum, none of them is even a Goliath. Nor, perhaps, are all of them put together.

 

They seem to think, though, that the vast post-Citizens United money paid to their campaigns to gain influence are like Goliath's armor, his sword and his shield. Then comes the seriously underfunded Sanders the Socialist with his sling and pebble.

 

Just as the armies on both side of the Elah valley had a good laugh at David's expense, it remains to be seen if Sanders' campaign will be taken seriously by Democrats who are as lukewarm to a Clinton II as some Republicans are to a Bush III. It remains to be seen if Sanders himself is really serious or has entered the race to challenge Mrs. Clinton's much remarked upon inevitability or to prod his fellow senator Elizabeth Warren to jump in.

 

It is Sanders who is the David on this battlefield. Big money will not be bet on him, which in the present climate would hold him back, unless ...

 

... unless the press gets its collective head out of its rectal cavity, stops trying to fill the papers and the air with nervous news about trifles and begins to look not at the personalities, not at every real and imagined peccadillo of all 723 hopefuls, but asks the questions to which millions of Americans would like answers:

 

  • What will you pledge now to do about the voluminous scientific evidence that Earth is warming, that sea levels are rising dangerously, that we are breathing and drinking toxins, that fossil fuels are global death warrants? What would you do about this after Jan. 20, 2017? And how soon?
  • What will you pledge now to do about the vast and getting vaster distance between what the 99% have to live on compared to the 1%? Would you put the might and main of the highest office in this land behind a long-overdue reform of the tax code so that those with much will not have too much at the expense of those who have too little?
  • What will you pledge now to make all income at any amount subject to Social Security deductions, thus strengthening the system to do what it was meant to do in the first place?
  • What will you pledge now to do to counter the baleful effect of the military-industrial complex that President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against long ago?
  • What will you pledge now to do about the continuing racial divide in America that would help Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s vision of nation in which the character of a person, not the color of his or her skin, is what is valued?
  • What will you pledge now to do about restoring truth to the promise etched into the Statue of Liberty about America's welcome to the immigrant?
  • What will you pledge now to do about wringing the money out of political campaigns so that an individual's vote turns out to mean something?
  • What will you pledge now to do about putting much-needed flesh upon the skeleton of America -- its infrastructure, its crumbling school buildings and its public transportation?

 

If I read Sanders correctly, his answers to those questions would be as blessedly clear and unequivocal as politics ever gets. It may be that the hall in little Kensett, Iowa, packed with a third more people than actually live there will become the significant moment in time at which American voters finally got the message about what and who is good for the country.

 

David had but a sling and a couple of stones. With one of the latter it is said that he took down the Big Guy and all he represented. Is it too much to hope that the likes of Bernie Sanders would be called to do that on behalf of his fellow Americans?

 

Bring on the sling and the stone.


Copyright 2015 Harry T. Cook. All rights reserved. This article may not be used or reproduced without proper credit.
 


Readers Write
Re essay of 5/29/15 How To Lessen Religion-Based Strife
 

 

 

Mark Bendure, Grosse Pointe Park, Michigan:

Thanks for this essay.  As always you provided me with thought-provoking moments in an existence typically free of those moments. Wouldn't religion be great without "gods"? Just imagine, a stimulating discourse seeking explanations for life that are beyond our human ability to fully comprehend. Or a world of people who truly followed the fundamental moral principles attributed to deities. Wouldn't religion be such a positive force?   It is just hard to fall in line behind any particular "god" formulation whose worship inspires adherents to abhorrent acts in his/her/its/their name.

 

Georgia Parks, Halifax, Nova Scotia:

This essay struck a blow for progressive religion advocates. It's one thing to be in awe of nature and to know that you don't know everything -- or much of anything. It is another thing for a person to insist that he or she knows all about "God" and beats you over the head with it.

 

Rabbi Larry Mahrer, Parrish, Florida:

I have an idea for you to consider, Harry. It surely has no grounds for strife. In 2009, the 50th anniversary of my ordination, I was asked to deliver the Shabbat Morning (Saturday) sermon at the convention of the National Association of Retired Reform Rabbis, even though I was still working with a congregation. What the blazes did I know that my retired colleagues did not know? There is only one answer to that question: ME. I said to my rabbinic friends: 1. I know nothing about THE GOD OUT THERE, the God of our liturgy, bible, etc, and since I had survived 50 years in the pulpit it was apparent that I did not have to have this knowledge/experience/whatever. 2. However, I said that I did know THE GOD INSIDE. That God talked to me -- sometimes to praise, but much more often to complain about something I had done or said. That GOD INSIDE was my friend, my support, my critic and so forth. Six years have gone by and I am finally retired. But I still related to the God inside. The GOD OUT THERE has no meaning to me.

   

Tom Hall, Foster, Rhode Island:

"Beliefs must be validated by knowledge" -- a key postulate that cannot be too often repeated.


Fred Fenton, Concord, California:

While I agree with you that wars over theology are "a tragic waste of time," I see no reason to think atheists are naive or counter productive in their stubborn adherence to reason over traditional beliefs regarding gods and life after death. Is religion of any sort necessary to a humanistic, caring view of life? I doubt it.

 

Tracey Martin, Southfield, Michigan:

I have a fantasy. I've been appointed the negative in a debate on the existence of god. By flip of a coin, or of a switch, whatever, I go first. "Prove that god does not exist? I cannot." I extend now my open hand at my antagonist. "Your turn. Prove that god does exist. That's what I thought. You cannot either. Let's move on." Your fine analysis details the troubles and traumas of belief in such an unprovable. But a question: Which came first, religion or war? Is the former justification for the latter or the latter the consequence of the former?

 

Richard M. Schrader, Jacksonville, Florida:

We keep chasing around the dusty chambers of our brains to come up with the meaning of life. Meanwhile, computer capacity keeps doubling every two years ("Moore's Law"). And since my retirement twenty years ago, computer capacity is now a billion times greater  than it was in 1995. That was about the time that we all jumped onto the 'Internet.' Now, almost every written word and inscriptions plus a multitude of clues have been "read;" the human genome has been mapped; and our telescopes scan the heavens for evidence of other life or new frontiers, when out tired planet becomes too creaky to support us, or any life as we know it. The great question that faces us humans is: Are we alone? If our inclination is to say yes (Leaving alone the possibility of multiple universes derived from "String Theory" Mathematics); then, we must review our Religious assumptions critically. So far, we, humans, have devised Religions based on territoriality and our need to sustain ourselves, physically and emotionally. But, the conflicts between religions and religious practices have been blood curdling! With each conflict we seem to step 500 years or so into the past. Our only salvation is to look to our computers to ferret out the details of our human existence and experiences (the countless texts, inscriptions, and clues already absorbed by our computer systems), to help us understand ourselves and to map out our futures.

 

Charlotte Riegler, Austin, Texas:

Your wisdom on the "god thing" is very helpful. People use their beliefs as weapons, as in invoking God in opposition to gay marriage or a woman's right to choose.

 

Donald Ferris, Brooklyn, New York: 
A friend sent me a copy of your article about ways to ease inter-religious tensions. Just from scanning the title, I expected to read something about diplomacy. Instead, I read philosophical commonsense. Thank you for it. 

What do you think?
I'd like to hear from you. E-mail your comments to me at revharrytcook@aol.com.