THE EARLY RETURNS

Writing the last blog about the healing powers of Religion was not easy for me. I yanked the first published post hoping nobody had seen it. It took four more revisions to finish it.

One reader beat me to the punch and had read the post before I pulled it. He encouraged me to resubmit the post while acknowledging the difficulty of the subject.

He did so by translating Danish philosopher, theologian, and psychologist Soren Kierkegaard (a blessing in itself) and supported his position by including a a photo by Martin Stranka, a renowned photographer whose photographs are said to "exist in that space between dreams and waking, those split seconds when a person has a foot in both worlds."

The reader apparently spent his time in college actually studying while I struggled with determining why there is an expiration date on sour cream.

His translation - that humans can feel something deeply but cannot translate those feelings into words - was right on the mark for me.

Religion is a tough subject for many including those who teach it, as confirmed by a letter to the editor of USA Today from a Rabbi from Tennessee . He suggested the reverend, Oliver Thomas , still hadn't answered his question, "Why Religion?", the subject of my revised blog.

Now, in all fairness, neither Thomas nor the Rabbi had much space within which they could expound on their differing philosophies. The Rabbi did appear to be a little more critical than Thomas who had suggested that the clergy: "Keep your eye on the ball. It's not so much about this doctrine or that, Mass or The Lord's Supper or even Ramadan or Yom Kippur."

The Rabbi seemed more offended by this recommendation than had Chevy Chase advised him to "be the ball." Not sure the good cleric would buy that philosophy regarding the "powers of the universe" either. And, that's okay. It brought a response. He got involved.

While one could easily have come away from this Tennessean's Letter to the Editor with the feeling that he had confused Oliver Thomas with Oliver Hardy, at some point he might have confused him with Thomas Hardy too.

The Rabbi was upset. This last sentence should not be confused with the Harry Kemelman mystery, "The Rabbi Slept In." - while not necessarily a bad idea. He appeared to be upset with Thomas's conclusion : "Religion makes it easier to be decent because religion pushes us to be better human beings."

In his rebuttal the Rabbi attempts to refute this by dwelling on the mistakes of religious leaders who obviously did not become a better person. Apparently he missed Rabinnical school when the topic of the day was faulty syllogisms.

There is no reason to suggest that the synagogue over which the Tennessean Rabbi pontificates is being robbed of spiritual guidance. He may be an excellent teacher - but, that is not the focus of the column Thomas wrote. He was suggesting that there may be a need for leaders/teachers in many of our houses of worship to rearrange their priorities and honor the posit of man's search for meaning.

It is this position, which both Thomas and I embrace, that suggests the result could be a drastic improvement in our ethical values and less reliance on the meaningless defense mechanism, "Well, everybody else is doing it!"

The Rabbi not only didn't appear to "be the ball", he seemed to have missed it completely.

There were only two letters and the second was from a man from Texas, who claimed to be an atheist and who believed that "religious myths are an invention of those seeking power and wealth."

He refutes Thomas's theory by reference to his "wife's" cat, "It doesn't have any religion and never gives it a thought. The cat knows why she's here; she eats, sleeps, chases little things that jump and seems very content."

One can see why he may be reluctant to refer to the animal as "our cat", while still admiring his communication skills with animals - if not people.

Not sure which of the two respondees appeared to be the more threatened.

Me? I'm going to go talk to our Chihuahua. "Keep them cards and letters coming in. "