Meditations From A Mundane Mind, Part Two

More deep thoughts with Mark Dayton:

So in the march of so many years, for myself, in the midst of so many defeats and disappointments, I’ve searched for a faith that I could have faith in. I’ve struggled to gain a little understanding of what is senseless and incomprehensible. I sought meaning in what might actually be meaningless or ultimately become meaningless, because I need meaning in my life.

I’ve learned that to become effective in public affairs, you have to become a realist. But to remain effective you have to remain an idealist. And I need reminders and consolation and inspiration. Which is why I like the Bhagavad Gita, which I take metaphorically in its references to warriors and battles and wars, not literally. But I like that Arjuna is a warrior, a trying, doubting, questioning, agonizing mortal, facing something big that he is feeling not ready for and wondering if it is the right thing to do; if he can do it, and even whether he will survive it.

Notice the existential struggle recorded in this passage. Evidently ignorant of his own Presbyterian past, he struggles mightily "to gain a little understanding of what is senseless and incomprehensible." (For myself, that struggle was reason enough to cease being a Marxist.) But he soldiers on, "I sought meaning in what might actually be meaningless or ultimately become meaningless, because I need meaning in my life." Which certainly explains his dogmatic religious fervor in his pursuit of liberal political goals.

This struggle naturally leads all good Presbyterians to . . . . . Hinduism. No Adam and the serpent, Cain and Abel, Moses and Pharoah, David and Goliath, King David and Bathsheba (a Clinton favorite), or Jesus and the Pharisees for our thumbkin theologian. No, it is straight to "Arjuna and His Mighty (But Metaphorical) Sword". Perhaps he may have been able to find a suitable text for this homily in the story of "Joshua and the Battle of Jericho", but that was just a bunch of marching, horn blowing, and obdience to God, with Joshua "facing something big that he is feeling not ready for". But then Joshua wasn't much of "a trying, doubting, questioning, agonizing mortal". One can understand this, if one considers that the Bhagavad Gita works much better conversationally than "The Passion Of The Christ" at Kenwood, Upper East Side, or Brentwood dinner parties.

(Try substituting "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" for "Bhagavad Gita". It works very well in this passage and one can easily envision the senior Senator saying it with a straight face. One assumes he delivered the rest of this homily with a straight face. I know this is juvenile, but given the subject, is that inappropriate?)

(Hat tip to Dayton v. Kennedy and Powerline)