An Interesting Sermon

I am a member of the Universalist Unitarian Church of Peoria.

Last Sunday, we had a guest minister: Roger Mohr. Roger is a tall, broad shouldered guy with a clean shaven head; he is an ex-Marine and looks the part; sort of. He wears a very easy, serene smile on his face. He is currently at the U. U. Fellowship at Burlington, Iowa.

Anyway, I’ve always enjoyed his sermons; here is the one we heard last Sunday (reproduced with his permission). He gives a “quick and dirty” on the Greek influence on the Christian idea of being “born again” and challenges the more secular among us to reach out to those who might find comfort in the religions ideas and myths (“myth” meaning: story or idea that one attaches a spiritual significance to; it doesn’t mean “false” or “superstition”).

This goes well with some comments that Senator Barack Obama made last year, which I blogged about here. Obama’s remarks can be read here.

Now for Reverend Mohr’s sermon:

Born Again Each Morning

Gospel of John 3:1-5
1 Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.
2 He came to Jesus at night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God, for no one can do these signs that you are doing unless God is with him.”
3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.”
4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother’s womb and be born again, can he?”
5 Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.

The Gospel of John is the last gospel to be written, sometime very late in the first century of the Common Era. It is very different from the other three gospels, and many of the themes and stories in John are found nowhere else in the gospels. The reason is that the Gospel of John derives its basic theology from Greek philosophy, rather than Jewish tradition – the stories and themes are directed towards an audience more Greek than Jewish, culturally. In Greek philosophy, especially the neo-platonism that is the basis of John’s theology, there is a sharp distinction between body and spirit, the material and ideal planes of being.

Some of you may remember the allegory of the cave, from the seventh book of Plato’s Republic. In the cave, human beings are chained facing a wall, with a fire behind them, and objects pass through the room between the prisoners and the fire that cast shadows on the wall in front of the prisoners. All they know of the objects is the shadow, not the object itself. This is Plato’s description of normal human consciousness – “to them the truth would literally be nothing more than the shadows of the images.” When a prisoner realizes that the shadows on the wall are not true representations of the objects casting the shadow, he or she begins the process of enlightenment. And if they could free themselves, and escape the cave, they would see things as they are, singular and perfect, on the plane of the ideal. They would be born again, leaving the cave and entering the light.

That is also the meaning of John’s message, attributed to Jesus. In being born again, the rebirth is from a material to spiritual plane of being and consciousness. Now that has a certain allure, I think. The distinction between the real and the ideal, the body and the mind, earth and heaven, is called platonic dualism, and is foundational to western culture, largely thanks to Christianity. And really, the same idea is found in many religions, including Buddhism, Hinduism, even Zoroastrianism. And it is also the core of gnosticism, an early Christian heresy, which I believe is also a direct spiritual ancestor of Unitarian Universalism. Dualism seems to be associated with the creation of cities – the idea that there is a perfect, spiritual order that is in opposition to the ostensible disorder of material nature. Cities exist in tension between order and chaos, the divine and the natural. The spiritual realm is divine, ideal, eternal order. That is the message of Plato.

However, in philosophy, Plato is usually paired in opposition to Aristotle. Aristotle taught that we should learn by direct observation and critical logic, not by fantasizing other dimensions or constructing plausible but ephemeral arguments. In philosophy, some say that we are all either Aristotelians or Platonists. I don’t think I agree. I switch back and forth – I’m AC-DC, bi-philosophical, if you will. I agree with Aristotle and Plato, sometimes both at the same time! How kinky is that? I normally work from an Aristotelian perspective, preferring concrete evidence and solid argument – I live in what some might call the “real world,” the world of sense and critique. But I am also capable of idealism, of imagining a better, truer world, beyond the illusion of the real. And I am blissed out when I find any evidence that the real world is moving toward the better world of my imagination. I’m a plastotelian. Or is that an aristotonist? Anyway, I go both ways – philosophically.

For me, joy is found in growth, progress, evolution. And I think that’s what it means to be a Unitarian Universalist. As always, you are welcome to feel differently. But that’s what I think it means. We are a progressive faith, a belief not in specific doctrines, but in the principle of evolution. Change is the work of God or Gaia or Nature: Why else is everything in the universe in constant motion, from the galactic to the sub-atomic? Motion and change, nothing is ever the same. Every thing in the world is in constant flux, including ourselves. And as the river of time flows in only one direction, we move constantly forward into the future, whether we like it, or not. And often, we don’t like it. To be a progressive is to take the lemon of time and create the lemonade of the future.

But I still feel some sympathy with the Gospel of John’s message. I believe in being born again, seeking new knowledge and new insight, beyond the veil of the obvious and the conventional. Really, that’s why I am a minister. I believe that we each have the opportunity and the responsibility to transcend ourselves. For me, to be a minister is to support the work of progress, wherever and however it presents itself. But more emphatically, with absolute conviction, I believe that I have the responsibility of transcending myself, whether others do, or not. That is my fundamental mission, as a person – to transcend myself, to evolve, to progress. I may not always succeed. In fact, I kind of suspect that Lisa might have noticed my occasional backsliding. But I am aware that my primary mission is to evolve, as a human being. I agree with John: I must be born again.

Yet a popular Christian view of this morning’s text suggests that being born again is a “once and for all” experience. Not that all Christians believe that, or that the passage has always been interpreted in exactly that way. Gnostic Christianity taught that there were many levels of enlightenment, many rebirths. Being born again was a process of learning, not a singular transformative experience. But for many people today, salvation is something that happens one Sunday morning, when the preacher invites folks to come forward and accept the Lord, or even at baptism, as an infant. Many of the people who claim to be Christians are claiming that sort of salvation, even though their lives reflect the teachings of Jesus about as much as I resemble Mahatma Gandhi – excepting the hairstyle, of course. For many people, Christianity is an excuse, not a challenge. And their way of expressing the Christian principles of love and peace is bigotry and warfare – in Jesus name. Born again? Please. Every morning and every night, I pray the prayer of the heretic: “Lord, save us from your followers.”

And then a voice answers, maybe a still, small voice within, maybe a booming bass like thunder, maybe a gentle alto whispering in my ear: “The Lord helps those who help themselves.” Lots of people say that’s their favorite verse from the Bible. Of course, it’s not actually in the Bible, but who ever reads the Bible, anyway? The Lord helps those who help themselves. Progressives often have no more claim to spiritual superiority than our opponents. In fact, despite the fact that we are blessed with an abundance of intellectual, spiritual, and relational resources, we sometimes seem to be even more self-centered and self-satisfied than our fundamentalist friends. We lose ourselves in our individual desires and struggles, even though we have at our disposal all we need to create both better selves and a better world. Too often, despite every advantage, we fail to even help ourselves, much less anyone else.

I think the reason that so many progressives neglect our spiritual lives lies in a flaw in the scientific worldview that many of us hold. I have said before that my world is fundamentally scientific, so I am pointing at myself here, as much as anyone. But I still believe that every perspective blinds even as it enlightens. As science ascended to dominance in the nineteenth century, a major philosophical premise was logical positivism – the idea that all meaningful language referenced identifiable material objects or processes – words like soul and God and spirituality were meaningless because they did not have an identifiable material referents. And so they were discarded by progressives, and left on the rubbish heap of history – meaningless, useless, and obsolete.

Or so we thought. But many people still had a use for them, especially people from less advantaged positions in society, and people whose orientation was more emotional than intellectual. And conservatives, who had a use for those people, learned to use those old, meaningless words, too. Indeed, by letting people know that progressives considered those words worthless, conservatives were able to make those who cherished those words feel threatened by their more intellectual neighbors. There is some truth in the idea that at one time we were the enemy of much that most people held dear.

You see, positivism – that idea that meaningful language must have objective material referents – was not an unmitigated good, and not of infinite utility. It’s true, science relies on clarity and observable, objective data. But human beings are not purely rational beings. Indeed, we’re not even mostly rational beings. Human beings are primarily emotional and relational beings – even the most intellectual of us are driven not by cogent material logic but by compelling subjective and affective experiences. We are much less rational animals than we are rationalizing animals – we use reason to help us to satisfy our emotional and physical needs. Thus science is a servant, not a master. And when science began to dominate rather than serve, it became oppressive, even as orthodox Christianity had been before. Progress, if understood as the growth of the absolute authority of science, really was the enemy of the people: A totalitarian ideology where emotion and imagination were imprisoned and interrogated in order to force their submission to logical, scientific scrutiny.

Imagine the secret police of science – doctors, psychologists, social workers – breaking down the doors of every comforting rationalization, every psychological defense, every emotional sanctuary, and every relational connection, in a ruthless quest for what was called the Truth – the objective material reality demanded and enforced by totalitarian science. Now I want you to understand that I believe in the benefits of medicine, and psychology and social work – much of what you hear me preach in this pulpit is grounded in science rather than religion. But nothing, and nowhere, and no one was safe. Indeed, even the most ardent rationalists are very often terrified to let anyone inside their emotional world, for fear of the torments of a scientific inquisition. You see, scientific positivism denied the meaning of all non-objective language – including love. And reason without love is cruel. It leaves us alone, frightened, broken, and cold, falling eternally through the dark abyss of space and time.

And those who did not enjoy the privilege of refusal – the poor, the minority, and the marginal – suffered most. Where did they find refuge? Religion, of course. There was a reason why religion tried to suppress science. Religion is about feelings and relationships, emotions and traditions, whereby believers are connected to one another and to the past, as well as the future. Science challenged religious authority, and positivism dismissed all spirituality as meaningless and useless and obsolete. Of course the doctrines of orthodox religion are false – in a sense, all religions are lies. But they are not intended to be objectively true, so much as they are intended to support a complex web of relational and emotional interconnections and experiences. Religion was, and is both the guardian and the beneficiary of that emotional and relational web.

So over the course of the twentieth century, many people turned to religion to protect them against the growing, and frankly, abusive power of science, and religion was only too glad to claim to offer that protection. Afterall, the sociologist Max Weber pointed out that all institutions, like organisms, seek self-preservation. Religion was losing its authority, but it found a new purpose and vitality in protecting the emotional and relational world of the most vulnerable members of society. Moreover, the forces of the status quo, those who benefited most from the present social and economic structure, were only too glad to support religion, in return for an ally against change. Thus, the unholy alliance of the oppressed and their oppressors against progress. In a sense, the war in Iraq is little more than two emotionally disturbed children acting out in a school classroom – fundamentalist Moslems and fundamentalist Christians begging for attention and affirmation. And by the end of the twentieth century, progressives, disillusioned by their own critiques, frustrated by resistance, and stretched on a rack of their own making, lost faith in their own movement.

But we, as Unitarian Universalists have kept our progressive faith – or more accurately, successive generations of UUs have discovered new faith, after outgrowing the faiths we were born into. As I have said before, about 90% of all UUs are converts. Unitarian Universalism is a faith renewed and repopulated every generation. And today, many new UUs tend to be highly idealistic, followers of Plato rather than Aristotle. We believe in a better world, which we imagine but have never seen, and we struggle to find our way to that ideal world. It is just outside the cave, if only others would follow us, right?

But I think we do have reason to be proud of our faith: We have a message that can heal the relationship between science and religion, reason and emotion, critique and connection. Our sources reach from reason across to religion, but also across the divisions between religions. We affirm the goal of world community, with peace, liberty, and justice for all. Why? Because we also affirm respect for the interdependent web of existence of which we are all a part. You see, our faith is not about triumph over our adversaries. Maybe there was a time when it was, but that’s not our message now. Our message today is that we are all connected, that emotions do matter, and that reason has a place in helping to create connections and human well-being. We are the voice of both love and logic. Both love and logic.

I believe that when we hear the voice of the fundamentalism, we need to try to focus our attention below the hysteria and speak to the vulnerability of the people that are being exploited by religious conservatives. That doesn’t mean that we should yield on questions of fact. The world was not created in six days six thousand years ago, and it is a disservice to children to teach them such foolishness as fact, or even as a plausible alternative truth. This is the sense in which religion is a lie, and I believe that it is malicious to teach lies to children – especially lies they are supposed to continue to believe when they are grown up.

According to Archaeology magazine, 49% of Americans don’t believe that the earth evolved over millions of years: Poof! The Earth just appeared one day, and a few days later it was all done. Fifty one percent believe that humans and dinosaurs lived on the planet at the same time – just like in cartoons. Of course, what really annoyed the archaeologists was that 85% of Americans believe that archaeologists study dinosaurs. Archaeologists study ancient peoples. Paleontologists study dinosaurs. Hell hath no fury like an academic misclassified. But still, when we tolerate the encroachments of the Christian right into our educational system, we are not supporting diversity, we are encouraging ignorance.

Yet I am also saying that we have to make sure that we are speaking from love and concern for the children, and for our conservative neighbors, rather than anger. Religion has very often spoken out of the resentment and fear of the oppressed. But reason can also speak our fear and resentment as progressives. Both reason and religion are malicious when they speak out of anger rather than love. And the anger of progressives at the masses reflects the anger of an elite against the oppressed, whether we like to think of ourselves as an elite, or not. And when we use reason as a tool of our anger, we enter an abusive relationship with people less privileged than we are. I have lived as a poor fundamentalist and as a prosperous progressive – I am here to tell you, prosperity is much better than poverty, and it’s a lot easier to trust the future when it looks bright from your point of view.

And therein lies the rub. The power of fundamentalism lies in its ability to channel all of the fear and anger and anxiety of the oppressed – and that’s a lot of negative energy. We may be able to use that same source against our opponents temporarily – the 2006 elections, for example – but we will never prevail without a more positive message and method. We have to demonstrate our commitment to emotional and relational connections, even as we encourage them to open their hearts and minds to change. That is the real challenge of progress – to affirm both change and connection. As an aside, that is exactly the same issue we face when we want progress as a congregation – we have to affirm both change and connection. But we don’t do that with logic – it must be done with love. It may be difficult, and sometimes it is necessary to speak hard truths, even in love. But if there is to be real, lasting progress, there must also be love.

And so what my message this morning is pointing towards is this: To be born again as a UU is to continuously renew our commitment to the cultivation of love. There is no final exit from Plato’s cave, no once and for all salvation. I do believe we have to be born again. And again. And again. The process of personal growth can improve the world.
Only by challenging ourselves can we discover more and more what it means to be human, and find all that we, as human beings are capable of becoming. Yet as we go, we as Unitarian Universalists, proceed on many fronts, and draw from a wealth of resources. We cultivate our minds, using our powers of reason and gathering new knowledge, so that we increase our understanding of ourselves and others, the Earth and the cosmos. And we deepen our learning from the wisdom traditions from around the world, so that we hear the voices of the past. But first and foremost, we cultivate our practice and experience of love. First and foremost, each and every day, let us forever learn to love. And so let us be born again, each morning.

I will close with a reading from Kahlil Gibran.

Love has no other desire but to fulfill itself.
But if you love and must needs have desires, let these be your desires:
To melt and be like a running brook that sings its melody to the night.
To know the pain of too much tenderness.
To be wounded by your own understanding of love;
And to bleed willingly and joyfully.
To wake at dawn with a winged heart and give thanks for another day of loving;
To rest at the noon hour and meditate love’s ecstasy;
To return home at eventide with gratitude;
And then to sleep with a prayer for the beloved in your heart and a song of praise on your lips.


February 1, 2007 Posted by | Friends, Peoria/local, politics/social | 3 Comments

Past Couple of Days

Workout notes: yesterday, routine 2 mile walk on the treadmill (25:10 or so), 3100 yard swim which featured 10 x 100 on the 2 (1:37, 36, 36, 36, 35, 35, 35, 34, 36, 36).

Today: yoga class and a 2000 yard swim, which featured 10 x 50 on the 1 (47, the rest 46’s with a couple of 45’s), and 500 pull in 8:17.

Light hearted yoga note: I found this to be very funny:

A bit more on yoga: I worked some on warrior I last night.

warrior i
This yogi (from some place in Germany) shows the pose. The thing to notice is his pelvis; notice that the pelvis is tilted in the correct manner (i. e., the “brim” is facing up and not tilted forward).
Nick at the boards explains it well:

Because of the past posts, I won’t go into the pose too much, but my observation is that most students flex the pelvis too much-try putting the index finger on the brim of the pelvis at the front, bend the front knee, and you will probably find that the brim of the pelvis drop forwards and down-the pelvis is over-flexed.

Now try to lift the pelvis up before you bend the knee-you should find that this also extends the back leg further, which is good. As you proceed to bend the front knee, the posterior tilt of the pelvis will become harder to maintain-only bend the knee as far as you are able to maintain the pelvic tilt. You will probably find that your previous foot and leg positions are now detrimental to you attaining good posture-modify the foot position to compliment what you are doing at the pelvis.

When done properly, the brim of the pelvis is pulled away from the front of the front leg, and away from the front (or inside) of the back leg. Go to a class and you will see that most students would actually pinch their index finger between the brim of the pelvis and the front of the bent leg. This should also help to provide adequate stability through the sacro-iliac and lumbo-sacral joints, helping in turn to stabilize and provide better movement opportunites for the body as a whole-much better shoulder motion is available with a spine that is elevated by the hip action.

The other great thing is that now the front foot is pulled backwards, and the back foot is pulled forwards, meaning that you are held in a state of tension through the core muscles of the torso. This means that the joints of the legs are better protected, and the muscles that cross the joints get a better workout-the posture becomes a therapeutic exercise.

This is a bit irritating, but some in Peoria are still gushing over our visit from “The Decider”.

Smiles linger after Bush visit

LaHood, others detail planning behind Peoria, Caterpillar events

Thursday, February 1, 2007


PEORIA – Though President George W. Bush ended up nibbling on a bit of dry wheat toast at the Sterling Family Restaurant on Tuesday, the breakfast break could just as easily wound up elsewhere.

Tim Butler, district chief of staff for U.S. Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Peoria, said their office gave the Secret Service and other presidential planners advice on places to grab a bite, but the final decision was made by government officials.

“It was mostly set up by the White House,” Butler admitted Wednesday. “Jubilee Cafe and One World were on our list. I think there were a few others in Bartonville the White House advance team were looking at.”

LaHood acknowledged knowing the owners of the Sterling Family Restaurant and having dined there a few times, but said “I asked the president where we were going.”

LaHood added he and his staff came up with a list of about 25 people who could have dined with Bush.

“In the end, it was really their (White House’s) decision,” he said, adding he doesn’t pretend to know how the final cut was made.

One day after the president’s visit, business at Sterling Family Restaurant was booming. […]

Gag me with a spoon. I am finding out that what I am most irritated by is the way that this small town hick paper is playing this.

On the other hand, many of the “common folk” aren’t that impressed!

Here is how Bush’s visit to a local diner is described:

In Peoria this week, many patrons found their pancakes more interesting. Except for the click of news cameras and the clang of a dish from the kitchen, the quiet was deafening.

“Sorry to interrupt you,” Bush said to a group of women, who were sitting in a booth with their young kids. “How’s the service?” As Bush signed a few autographs and shook hands, a man sitting at the counter lit a cigarette and asked for more coffee. Another woman, eyeing Bush and his entourage, sighed heavily and went back to her paper. She was reading the obituaries. “Sorry to interrupt your breakfast,” a White House aide told her. “No problem,” she huffed, in a not-so-friendly way. “Life goes on, I guess.”

Gee. I guess Peoria is the bellwether of the Midwest.

When I listen to WMBD and certain commenters on this blog, I would have got the impression that everyone was either in love with the guy or were thrilled he was here.

Hat tip to the Peoria Pundit.

But back to those with a platform; note this photo of our Congressman Ray LaHood, along with The Decider and Dennis Hastert (among others)
LaHood with Bush

Joke: what is the shortest distance between two points? Answer: to find out, get a ruler and measure the distance between LaHood and “The Decider’s” heads.


Rest in peace, Molly Ivins. You and your writing will be sorely missed.

I’ll round out this post with a couple of other items.

One: beware of what the press reports. The press was trying to say that Senator Kerry choked up when he announced that he wasn’t running for president in 2008. In fact, his voice cracked a bit when he described his return from Vietnam.

Kerry’s speech, which was mocked in the press for being poorly stage managed (it was too wordy, pundits complained), was also badly mangled by scores of major news players who concocted the phony storyline that Kerry had shed tears of regret while announcing his plans to sit out the 2008 race.

Kerry did no such thing, but reporters and pundits went ahead and manufactured the narrative that the “emotional” and “choked up” senator became “tearful” as he publicly “let go of his White House dreams.” None of that was accurate. Kerry did become temporarily emotional, but not while he was discussing his political ambitions.

Granted, the incident was relatively minor, and Kerry himself is no longer the Democratic Party’s standard bearer, which likely explains why the dishonest coverage of his speech received so little attention. But for observers who want to understand the media’s mindset as the next White House run unfolds, they’d be hard-pressed to find a more telling and alarming example than the coverage surrounding Kerry’s straightforward proclamation last week. […]

Not surprisingly, the nasty Kerry narrative was launched last week by Matt Drudge who posted the wildly inaccurate headline “Kerry Tears on Senate Floor,” which in turn linked to a misleading Financial Times report about Kerry’s speech. The FT article incorrectly reported that Kerry had been “choking back tears” as he spelled out his campaign plans.

Adopting Drudgespeak, journalists quickly echoed misinformation about Kerry’s presidential announcement:

* The Boston Globe painted a very dramatic picture, labeling Kerry “tearful.” The paper emphasized that Kerry, “choked back tears on the Senate floor” as he made his statement.
* The dispatch from Connecticut’s Hartford Courant was even more vivid, with readers informed that Kerry teetered on an emotional breakdown: “Choking back tears, he could barely get out the words.”
* The Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz emphasized, “The Massachusetts senator, his voice breaking, disclosed that he would, in fact, not be a candidate for president in the next election.”
* MSNBC’s Tucker Carlson mocked Kerry’s “teary” campaign speech and told viewers it was “sad to watch John Kerry cry up there today.”
* Roger Simon, a columnist for the newly minted Beltway news outlet Politico, wrote that Kerry “tearfully” bowed out of the 2008 race.
* The New York Daily News reported an “emotional” Kerry had been “choking up a little as he let go of his White House dreams.”
* A New York Sun editorial reported, “Senator Kerry had to choke back tears as he announced, on the floor of the Senate, the end of his long quest for the presidency.”

Not one of those descriptions was accurate.

For the record, at no point did Kerry shed any tears on the floor of the Senate last Wednesday; he simply did not “cry.” Rather, during a single sentence Kerry became emotional and his voice caught. The press’ key distortion though, was that the single sentence had nothing to do with running for president again. Instead, Kerry was momentarily overcome with emotion when he noted that the misguided war in Iraq threatened to undo everything he had fought for since his return from Vietnam more than three decades ago.

Senator Harry Reid’s voice did crack a bit when he spoke of how Kerry was repeatedly lied about, but that was after Senator Kerry had spoken.

Lest you think that I am making this up or taking someone else’s opinion at face value, see the clip for yourself. Note that it is lengthy, but it also makes an excellent short lecture on the Iraq situation complete with some appropriate background information.

Obama again

Senator Obama is indeed sensitive to issues that affect minorities. One of these is voter suppression. For example, in the 2004 elction in Peoria, cards were mailed to people living in heavily African American neighborhoods which had a law badge and claimed that people who had outstanding warrants ran the risk of getting arrested at the voting places.

Senator Obama is on top of all that and is introducing a bill to deal with such matters.

Those of you with ridiculously detailed memories may recall that back in November 2005, I diaried about Sen. Obama’s Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2005, which was designed to prevent political operatives from doing things like telling voters that if they didn’t pay their parking tickets, they’d be arrested at the polls, or that if you had a family member who had been convicted of a crime, you’d be ineligible to vote.

But that was 2005, and we weren’t in charge, and the bill didn’t go anywhere.

Welcome to 2007, where today Sens. Obama and Schumer introduced the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007, a bill which is largely the same — except for the new parts which are different, largely in light of the deceptive practices unleashed in Maryland’s 2006 Republican campaigns.

You can read the text of the bill here (fixed). Basically, it makes it a crime (and allows a private right of action) for anyone to, within 60 days before a federal election:

* lie about the time, place or manner of the election;
* lie about voter eligibility, whether regarding an individual’s eligibility or general qualifications to vote;
* lie about the party affiliation of someone running in a primary; or
* lie about an endorsement by any person or candidate.

To be liable, the speaker must know that the information is false, and intend that the commucation prevent someone from exercising the right to vote, intend to “confuse or unduly influence voters”, or intend to “damage the integrity of the election process”.

February 1, 2007 Posted by | Peoria/local, politics/social, swimming, yoga | Leave a comment