April 14, 2003

SOME ARE MORE CHOSEN THAN OTHERS:

GOD'S REAL ESTATE (RALPH PETERS, April 13, 2003, NY Post)
ONE of the greatest blessings enjoyed by the United States is that God hasn't claimed any local real estate. The insistence in so much of the world that one divinity or another cherishes a specific handful of dust remains one of humankind's great curses.

Viewed honestly, the competition between faiths and creeds over sacred ground remains a cancer of the human condition. Whether we speak of millennia of bloody contests for control of Jerusalem or the bloodshed over plans to build a Hindu temple on the site of a razed mosque in Ayodhya, the importance of Karbala in Iraq or the destruction of Sufi shrines by Muslim fundamentalists, competing claims over bits of earth have spawned the world's most enduring and inherently insoluble conflicts.

The amount of suffering human beings are willing to inflict on one another over a corner of dirt is impossible to reconcile with the basic tenets of any of the world's leading religions. Men will fight for their religion, but they will massacre for their religion's totems. And sacred earth is the greatest totem of all, the ultimate idol.

CERTAINLY, some religious groups in the United States value specific pieces of land, from the national shrine of the Virgin in Emmitsburg, Maryland, to the grounds of the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City. But the roots do not run sufficiently deep to tap history's underground rivers of blood and, still more vitally, the sanctified ground is not contested. [...]

THERE are many respects in which the United States differs wonderfully from the old worlds we Americans left behind. But is there any more important advantage in continuing to build our unprecedented multi-ethnic, multi-faith society than the inability of zealots in our midst to convince us that God favors one bit of earth over another?

When our congregations outgrow our churches, temples or mosques, we build anew on a bigger plot, either down the street or miles away in a suburb. Communion in the "little brown church in the vale" has always been a movable feast. This flexibility grants us a tremendous strategic and moral advantage.

Of course, we Americans have strong religious traditions. The vision of a "city on a hill" is part of the fabric of our national being. But that city has never been a physical place, except in the sense of the nation as a whole. The simple fact that God - again, by any name or names - doesn't do real estate in the United States is so great a blessing that one almost suspects that we are - all of us, no matter our faith - truly a chosen people.


We would though have it known that God favors New Hampshire quite a bit more than Vermont. Many of you will know that the two states are separated by the Connecticut River, but few realize that the border is not mid-River but at the low tide mark on the Vermont side. The river belongs to us. Posted by Orrin Judd at April 14, 2003 5:11 PM
Comments

As I live on one side of the Connecticut and work on the other, I am on this question, as on so many others, ecumenical.

Posted by: David Cohen at April 14, 2003 7:33 PM

Race-traitor! Collaborator! Running Dog!

Posted by: oj at April 14, 2003 7:50 PM

Peters's piece is just a polite way of restating

my slogan "Holy cities are hellholes."

Posted by: Harry Eagar at April 14, 2003 9:26 PM

God may favor New Hampshire, but the skiing's better in Vermont.



And what's more likely to put the fear of God into you: swimming in the Connecticut in summertime, or skiing down a double diamond at Killington?

Posted by: Peter Caress, Dartmouth '91 at April 14, 2003 9:43 PM

Skiing is for sissies. We're a snowmobile state. You wanna see fear--get on your skis and hear the snowmobiles coming towards you.

Posted by: oj at April 14, 2003 10:10 PM

Salt Lake City, Canterbury, Rome & Mecca are nice enough.

Posted by: oj at April 14, 2003 10:11 PM

I don't know about Mecca, every haj I take a sporting interest in the casualty figures.

Posted by: pj at April 14, 2003 11:27 PM

Well, Richard Burton described it as lovely.

Posted by: oj at April 15, 2003 8:13 AM

re: River borders



It's not "low tide" but "low water mark". Only estuaries have tides.



The same is the case with Kentucky and the Ohio river border with Ohio and Indiana, and the original Potomac boundary between Maryland and Virginia (In the latter case, the border was adjusted in 1927 to straight lines between points on the west bank). Between Virginia and D.C, it's the high water mark, except where the Feds ceded some landfill on the west side back.



In the case of New Hampsire and Vermont, it took a lawsuit filed in 1915 that wasn't decided until 1933 to settle the matter. New Hampshire claimed the high water mark while Vermont claimed the middle. The Supreme Court split the difference and decreed the low water mark. Also, New Hampshire claimed the boundary followed Halls Stream north to the Canadian border while Vermont claimed "the Gore" because the state boundary continued to an extension of it's northern border/45th parallel to the Connecticut River. Vermont won that one, which explains the little notch.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at April 15, 2003 2:26 PM
« THE GLASS IS HALF FULL, AND WATER'S COMING IN: | Main | YOU TOOK THE WORDS RIGHT OUT OF MY MOUTH...& MANGLED THEM: »