Excellent book for anyone planning a long distance hike or for anyone who dreams of adventure. Provides great background information of all three trails. A must read.
Tag Feeds At Technorati
Copyright 2002-2009 by the authors
Tag Feeds At Technorati
Tag Results Are Unavailable
The feed you requested is currently unavailable. Technorati has retired all of the legacy feeds and is in the process of creating new ones based on our new infrastructure. The following new feeds are available now:
Latest Original Articles from Technorati
GoArticles Advanced Search Results
GoArticles.com is an article resource site for Authors, Publishers and Webmasters which provides the best collection of expert articles available on the Web
Selecting Types of Mutual Funds - 5 tips for investors
With the dizzying array of types of mutual funds, its hard to know where you should put your money. In fact there are types of mutual funds for almost any kind of investment portfolio you can imagine ...
Related External Links
Related External Links
Helpful how to revise Reviews And More
Unfortunately, John Danforth is a dying breed: A fully committed moral and conscientious American patriot who truly understands what the term “American patriot” means, and also a Republican. Except for shepparding Clarence Thomas’ Supreme Court nomination, John Danforth is a “moral Prince.” Probably as decent an American and the most decent Republican we are likely to ever meet again. He is an Episcopalian Minister who “lives” his faith daily, and does so through his deeds rather than by wearing it on his lapel. This book is as fine an example as any of what he is and of what his deeds are capable of.
He knows well, and properly abhors, the dangers of religious self-righteousness, and sees a disturbing picture, both in the rear-view-mirror of the past and around the corner into the future. What he sees looking both ways is that a great deal of the divisiveness, both in the world at large and in American culture today, is being caused by the bastardization and misuse of religion – that is to say by politically misguided religious self-righteousness and fundamentalism and the evilness in the hearts of his co-religionists who express it. He is not wrong in suggesting that this impulse towards destructive religious self-righteousness alone has become the single most dangerous and most negative force in the world and in U.S. culture, today.
Never mind the weekly prayer breakfasts on Capitol Hill. Osama bin Laden also prays five times a day before he leads his flock to mass murder. His and the religious rhetoric of the likes of Pat Robinson and Jerry Falwell, as well as that of Ralph Reed and Dr. James Dobson, or even Dr. Frances Schaeffer and “The Brothers,” are all the same rightwing ideological music played in a discordant religious key. In the same vein, the Capitol Hill prayer breakfasts fool no one. The prayers prayed there are also just a meaningless religious ritual, cynical cover for the mean-spirited anti-Christian legislation the legislators in the breakfasts are just about to move to the floor to enact, often as murderous in their greedy intentions as bin Laden’s conspiracies.
I believe that although Rev Danforth’s efforts here are moderate and well meaning, they have somewhat missed the larger point. He seems to be parsing the wrong sentences. The tail of Christian fundamentalism is already wagging the dog of Christian theology. The question his analysis — that “Christians have a choice of being dividers or reconcilers” — begs is this: Can you really finesse matters of moral principles by couching them in a false rhetoric of theology? Or by splitting the moral difference? Which comes first the theology or the embedded ideology? What principles are to be reconciled, and what basis? Like Osama bin Laden’s, is it a “small” or “large” God that is being prayed to in the prayer breakfasts of these fundamentalists, and how do you know which it is if not through their deeds (i.e. in the legislation they enact, or the terrorism they engage in)?
Danforth, now that he has been pushed aside by his own party, has finally gotten a new religion, “the religion of personal awareness,” and only now wants to have his say. He wants us to believe that he has broken the GOP code and has awoken up to the reality the rest of us have known about all along: That his Republican Party is spiraling out of control, headed full-fledged down the road on a fast track towards Fascism. Thus this very gentle critique here will fool no one, for it deals with only half of the negative picture of religious fundamentalism, a vile movement operating under religious cover that is rapidly becoming indistinguishable from mainstream republicanism.
Since he left out the most important subtext of American religion generally, and of republicanism in particular: racism, his critique of the Republican Party then only scratches the surface. By remaining in denial about the historical connection between the twin-interlocked institutions of American religion and American racism, Danforth’s has only partly pulled back the scab of a deeper sore. And in this sense his critique is at least disingenuous; and at worse merely whistling past the graveyard of religious and racially induced Fascism in America.
His reading of the scriptures, of the tea leaves, and of American history is much too subtle and fine-grained for him to have missed the point that his description of contemporary Republican values, beliefs and platforms are indistinguishable from the platform of the old racist Dixicrats. He can call them “the most conservative of the conservatives” if he wants to, but even without their cone hats, robes, and crosses, we have no trouble recognizing them for what and who they are: the old, common garden variety existential racists. It is they who have taken over the Republican Party. Their illegitimate claims get the same respect and weight as legitimate ones. And this is the real sin of the Republican Party.
Abortion, stem cell research, Terri Schiavo, the so-called wedge issues, are these really the issues that divide the American electorate? No, the only issue that unmistakably matters to the American electorate is the issue of race. Arguably, it is racism, the “Republican value of last resort” the only one missing from Rev Danforth’s list, that is always bubbling up from the American undercurrents, that remains the most potent, the most explosive, the most divisive value of them all. It is racism, lying coiled in the subtext that remains the driving force of the Republican Party in particular, as well as American politics more generally. How can it be properly addressed if it can’t even be placed in the list and acknowledged?
To come out of denial and admit this of course would be to have to face the dragon face-to-face. It would be to admit that the instincts of the republican party remain the same as what these politically inspired racists instincts have been since post-reconstruction; what they were when Strom Thurmond switched from Dixicrat to Republican; what they were when Richard Nixon invoked his “southern strategy;” what they were when Barry Goldwater voiced his most famous epithet against the vices of Danforth style moderation. The Republican Party with or without the “top-cover” of religious rhetoric is not just a matter of splitting hair between being a little divisive or not: It remains a narrow-minded, mean-spirited, backward, racist party whose basic spirit spews a venom that is everything that religion is not.
There is no way to square this circle with a soft politically correct critique such as this book. In short, there is no way to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again, even by a moral Prince of the stature of a John Danforth. Five Stars
I came upon this book by accident. Its title caught my eye, as I’m very interested in both faith and in politics. And, I struggle, myself, with how these can co-exist or can be in balance. So, I decided to read the book to see what I could learn from Senator Danforth’s experiences.
I had not heard of him before. I’ve since learned that he was a three-term U.S. Senator from Minnesota, an ordained Episcopal priest and a former special envoy for peace in Sudan.
He arrived in Washington as a Republican Senator in 1977. Jimmy Carter was being sworn in as our President. The Senate had members on the left and the right, but it also included moderates from both parties. Danforth mentions Republicans Howard Baker, Bob Dole and Jim Pearson (and, later, Javits, Case and Brooks) as being “somewhere in the center of our party.”
He tries to make the case that there are and were core principles underlying Republican unity, such things as legislators (not judges) creating law, limited government, keeping taxes low, limited regulations and that “many of government’s decisions” should be made at the local or state level, not the national level. I’m not learning much to this point. And I don’t learn much when he goes on to say that the Republican Party was taken over by the Christian Right, using the now familiar wedge issues of stem cell research, abortion and gay marriage.
He tells us in this 2006 book that wedge issues “split us apart” and that “Religion is now a divisive force in American politics.” And, he says, we can choose whether we are to be “reconcilers or dividers.” This seems to be the thesis that he wants to build.
He makes point after point about how people should not use God to further their personal agendas, saying that the creation of a political agenda was not the work of Christ. He tells us that Jesus said nothing about government. Instead, he says, “Jesus lets us figure that out for ourselves.” The author gives us a list of what moderate Christians believe in. But, in the end, I think he leaves us with the conclusion that God is not going to enforce any of this and that getting reconciliation to be more prominent than using right-wing wedge issues is no easy task. He does not convince the reader that he was all that moderate, himself. And, he certainly did not turn the tide of the elimination of moderate Republicans in Congress.
To his credit, Danforth tells us in the book of some of his failings. As he pursued both a divinity degree and law degree at the same time, he did not give as much time as he should have to the divinity degree side. He also admits that he took “advantage of the abortion issue for my own political gain for two decades….” And, he formerly believed that homosexuality was a matter of “personal preference that an individual could change at will.” (He tells us that, today, this is not his belief.)
And, to give him some more credit where credit is due, Danforth tells us of the conflicts in Sudan. By the mid-1990’s, the place was a dangerous mess. He points out that this conflict offered Christians a goal of bringing about solutions without getting something in return. Sudan has a trickle of oil, so that could not be the reason for involvement. What it had was the world’s longest lasting civil war, one that had claimed some two million lives. Danforth was asked by President George W. Bush to serve as a peacemaker to the region. He points with pride to a peace accord signed in January 2005, which, unfortunately, was followed by even more troublesome problems in the region of Darfur. The point is that resolving of the conflicts that lead to the 2005 peace accord reflected a United States being a peacemaker in an area of the world that had little impact on the security or economic concerns of our country. This would be an example of true Christian charity.
After reading the book, I’m realizing why I’d probably not heard of Senator Danforth before. I live in California, as a registered Democrat. And, it does not sound like Danforth did much of importance in his three terms in the Senate. So, when in the very end of his book, where he tries to make the argument that “Where Christians have championed wedge issues that divide Americans, they can substitute a search for common ground,” we are wondering why the author, who had the inside track to pull this off, apparently had such little success. And, when he says that Christians can “rebuild our political center and bring us together…as part of the “ministry of reconciliation,” I’m thinking that my best bet in this day and age is probably with former-Senator Barack Obama as our President. And in the process, maybe “faith” can be removed from the political process. Its value certainly has seemed to have run its course for the Republican right.
I enjoyed Mr. Danforth’s book Faith and Politics. His book reflects what a true Christian means, which is Compassion and the Golden Rule of Love for one another. He states, a united America does depend on us. It is the responsibility of people who follow Jesus. It is not a political agenda. It is the ministry of reconciliation.
Excerpt: St Paul challenges Christians to assume responsibility for doing their part to live peacefully in a world in conflict. But when Christians claim special knowledge of God’s truth, when they advance wedge issues, when they divide America between “people of faith” and their “enemies,” Christians become not the means of peace but the cause of conflict. In that case, Christians are far from being powerless. They are powerful contributors to what has gone wrong in American politics.
Senator Danworth sees the problem and is ringing the warning bells. But I do see it a shame that he left the senate when we so desperately need more moderate Republicans in the Senate, more than ever now. America needs these moderate voices to be heard.
Although Mr. Danforth may be an ordained minister it is obvious he is of the “unsaved” variety. Basically we wants the religious right to compromise their values to get along. Compromising values is what makes values worthless. A wishy-washy liberal mainstream protestant but obviously a politician first. The liberal elite will praise this book.
The Moral Values Debate Continues
Can anything good come from the man that played a key role the process that led to the confirmation of staunch conservative Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court? Politics aside, the short answer is yes. Danforth’s background as special envoy to Sudan, where he worked to broker a peace deal ending one of the longest running civil wars in history, puts him in a good position to address the issue of religion as a source of reconciliation. So, too, does his long tenure in the United States Senate which saw the rise of the religious right within the Republican party and its polarizing effect on national politics.
The book will surprise many readers as Danforth speaks most forcefully from his priestly formation and with a prophetic voice against poverty. “Helping the poor is clearly a religious value… From the blistering condemnation of those who ‘trample the poor’ and ‘lie on beds of ivory’ in the book of Amos to Jesus’ consignment of those who do not feed the hungry and clothe the naked to eternal punishment in Matthew, both Old and New Testaments are consistent in their message. Mistreatment of the poor is a grievous sin. So is ignoring them” writes Danforth.
Equally surprising to some may be his more moderate views on issues such as homosexuality and stem-cell research. Both wedge issues that divide the nation and churches as well. Having watched his brother’s life destroyed by ALS, from a personal perspective, Danforth declares with passion “no theologian however learned; no church council, however authoritative; no bishop or archbishop, however holy will ever persuade me that protecting a frozen embryo that will never see the light of day should take precedence over my brother Don. Similarly, Danforth’s show more moderation on the issue of homosexuality and family than most within the Republican party calling a constitutional amendment on marriage “gay bashing”. He writes, “if allowed to do so, without the premature intervention of the courts, the opportunistic interference of politicians and the divisive interference of religious leaders, the vast majority of Americans would work out, in a mutually respectful way, how they deal with issues of sexual orientation. I believe the broad outlines of such an agreement would include the following:
Establishment of the principle that discrimination in all forms, including sexual orientation, is wrong and should be unlawful; Governmental recognition of committed same-sex relationships, including the creation of legal status with regard to property rights, pension benefits, insurance and inheritance; Development by religious groups of ways to bless committed same-sex relationships; A strong emphasis on the importance of committed, long-term relationships and the disavowal of sexual permissiveness, whether straight or gay; The honoring of traditional marriage between a man and a woman.
Danforth acknowledges the fact that “nothing has matched gay marriage as an example of the emotional heat created by the mixture of religion and politics” but does not acknowledge the difficult fact that too many of our citizens just don’t want to talk about it.
While I do not agree with many of his positions, I was among the hundred or so people who attended the public launching of Danforth’s book at the Chicago’ Union League Club last Fall and gained a sense of Danforth’s humility. That humility comes across well in “Faith and Politics”. Consistent with his citing Paul’s admonition in his letter to the Philippians “to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, Danforth later writes in a quasi-creedal statement writes “while I am a believing Christian, I acknowledge the distance between God’s reality and our perception of that reality. I do not believe that any faith, including my own, monopolizes human understanding of God. I believe that God created and embraces all humankind, and that religious bigotry against anyone is more than uncivilized, it is in opposition to Christianity.”
We may know Danforth the politician, but this work made me wonder what we may have missed of Danforth the priest.
Read this book first. For one thing, someone considering a thru hike of one of the three major north/south trails of America has to decide which one, or at least which one first. This book provides a general overview of the those three trails, but in itself will not be sufficient to plan any of them. That’s not a fatal flaw in that when you actually get ready to plan a specific trip, you would want to buy a single book dedicated to that hike that you could carry with you the whole of the trip.
Really, my only criticism of it is that I wish it had more photos. Most of those that are in here are grainy black and whites that just don’t do justice to their subject matter. I would have paid double for something a little more photo journalistic.
“Hiking the Triple Crown” is an awesome volume. If you’re not familiar with any of America’s three great Wilderness trails, this is a head-first dive into refreshing waters.
Even those who consider themselves pseudo-expert hikers, well-read on these thru-hikes (like myself), will find delightful insights when seeing them presented back-to-back-to-back like this. For example, many PCT- and CDT-hikers tend to refer to the Appalachian Trail as “that wussy trail back East” because of its shorter mileage, lower elevation, and the fact that you really don’t need a map because of crowds and blazed markings. However, she explains that the AT is actually the most difficult of the three when it comes to frequent steep climbs and rocky footpaths. Having only hiked sections of the PCT and CDT myself, I never knew that. Ground-leveling comparisons like that (no pun intended) abound through the text.
Being one of the few people ever to have finished the whole Triple Crown, Karen brings great perspective to the nature of America’s greatest trails that few can claim to have. A fantastic book for anyone interested in ANY of these trails.
Excellent book for anyone planning a long distance hike or for anyone who dreams of adventure. Provides great background information of all three trails. A must read.
This is a fine overview of the three major hiking trails that criss-cross the United States. The major focus of the book is on the renowned Appalachian trail, with most of the text devoted to the AT. The Pacific Crest Trail has some useful information, though the chapters on this trail are shorter and less detailed. The Continental Divide Trail is given more sparse coverage, because the trail is not yet completed and is not attempted by very many hikers, except the very bravest souls.
This book is recommended for people who are not in the immediate stages of planning a thru hike. If you’re planning on tackling any of these trails, specific books on each individual trail is the way to go. There is too much general information here for those seriously considering a hike in the near future. This book is fine as an overview and to give you a sample feel of each hike, but is less successful for one planning a hike in the coming year.
The writing is excellent and the book is riveting in sections. For all those obsessed with hiking any of the grand thru trails in America, this is an excellent and recommended resource.
For those of us out there who dream of tackling one (or all!) of the triple crown trails, this book is an awesome resource. Karen Berger is realistic and frank yet encouraging in her advice to long-distance hikers.
Berger’s love of these magnificent trails is what makes this book–klike her other books, especially “Where the Waters Divide”– shine; she obviously has a profound respect for these national treasures and realizes the importance of making others aware of them as well. It’s easy to read, has some great photos, and offers shorter hikes to those less inclined to set off on a 6-month thru-hike. The book is useful as both a general hiking reference tool as well as in the planning stages, especially for the At and the PCT; it is also useful for those who wish to do shorter hikes on any of the triple crowns.