2007
Week 3
January 20, 2007

Hi --

We have introduced 705 bills and are ready to roll. It is difficult to put into words how that transition feels. We move from the disorganized explanation of our bills to one another and seeking cosponsors for some of them, to the measured, disciplined floor discussion of bills which the committees have approved as we go. Hearings proceed each afternoon for the next few weeks. A large proportion of bills are not approved and we will run out of time on others. All the law requires is that we adopt a budget.

My bill to further restrict the use of alcohol by minors was the center of a flap that had every senator getting emails this week. I will describe it a bit, not to discuss the issue, which is being handled, but to continue my little lesson on what happens to bills on the journey.

This is a tempest in a tea pot, which occurs often. I received over 100 messages on wine in religious ceremonies. Not one Jewish family asked if the bill affected Jewish Passover meals in the home, when a glass of wine (or grape juice for young children) is shared with the meal to express thanksgiving for the fruit of the vine from God's good earth.

Four denominations regularly use wine in ceremonies. I heard from only two, but they made up for the rest. There is no proportionality of responses on a touchy issue. Those who are upset are far more likely to speak up than those who are pleased. Interestingly, messages at the office were more upset and at home more pleased.

One older man said he had gone to mass regularly for years and had not received enough wine in all that time to cover the bottom of a glass. (Many priests use only the wafer except on special occasions.)

Two Catholic men, also older, marveled at the fuss, offering my initial thought that we should, in law, ignore the minimal use of wine in ceremonies. Each said he was a hopeless alcoholic until 20 years ago, when he regained hope and has not touched wine since. One sat there, looking down at the table for a long time, then said, "Don't these people have anything else to think about? Have they heard of world hunger? Child abuse?"

Other messages complained that the bill would make lawbreakers of our youth. Adults are not breaking the law and that is not changed, but when they insist that youth take a sip they are teaching disrespect, which bothers them.

On Tuesday, the W-H printed my op-ed and an article giving more background on the issue, but also had an editorial slamming me for being "tin eared" by saying the churches could just use grape juice. I strenuously objected. Certainly I had selective hearing (as does any of us with our ideas) when I said early on we should ignore the use of wine in communion. But I as a pastor (or senator) would never tell a pastor how to conduct the eucharist. Especially as a pastor. Oh my. That is an insult. Better smile when you even tease a pastor about it! What I said was that many churches have an alternative for pregnant women or recovering alcoholics, like grape juice or the wafer only, and if they have an alternative they should consider offering it to teens. That is their call, not mine.

A couple of persons have taken a shot at reporters for skewing the message. I do not buy that at all. Reporters have a tough job and I have always found that they keep probing for the defining question on a complex issue. In this case, I in the interview did not speak of the insult of trying to convert a pastor, as the idea of interfering in church polity is unthinkable and was not in my mind. The reporter is not a pastor and cannot be expected to know what I automatically assume when I do not say it. I do think an editorial writer should pause before asserting what I think.

Again, the point of these comments is that the challenge of communication applies to all of us. This is a great specific example of how difficult it is to read someone else's motives.

Every senator, county supervisor or city council representative gets heated rhetoric on what each of us thinks -- when the critic has not made the effort to find out what we think or how we are motivated in a vote (as a reporter clearly does). On the communion issue, for example, I am told by email I have no respect for the constitution (it is a document almost sacred to me), that I am un-American (Well, that is easy to say), that I do not respect churches (!), or that I am secretly trying to beat up on kids as payback for my son's paralysis.

On all complex issues, like schools and water rights that are dancing around us this session, we simply cannot put it all in law. We set the parameters -- the outside limits -- within which good people who are close to the issue can make decisions. We all agree that alcohol is a danger to youth, indeed a poison. A child who drank a large bottle of mouthwash would have pulmonary arrest and die. Do we have to say that?

What I am hoping for in this issue is a reformed attitude of parent, pastor, family member and neighbor -- that they will help youth understand the serious threat to brain, health, driving and life. (More arrests is never my goal.) Bills can state a consensus, but only the public can adopt it.

End of civics lesson. End of subject.

Cheers

Lowen

P.S. A few have pointed out that the phone number for blocking tele-marketers is also available for land phones, and there is not a clear deadline. However, the info page does note that cleared phone numbers are published at various times, mostly by web.