Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader wishes all of you, his loyal readers, a very Happy New Year. He hopes that you are all well and not too hung over. Your Maximum Leader, as is his habit, didn’t do too much to celebrate New Years. Indeed, for many years the extent of his celebration consisted of hanging around with his best buddy Kevin. We would watch movies, and then switch over to Dick Clark at about 11:55. We’d watch the ball drop in Times Square, then we would go back to watching movies until we drifted into the clutches of Morpheus. Now that Kevin is in Korea, our old plan is not practical. So, your Maximum Leader stays at home with is family and watches movies and then switches to Dick Clark at about 11:55 and watches the ball drop.

Pretty exciting huh?

Excursus: Your Maximum Leader isn’t sure how he should feel watching Dick Clark. On the one hand, Clark has made great progress since his stroke a few years ago. But on the other hand, your Maximum Leader feels badly watching him. He is overwhelmed by a feeling of being voyeuristic when watching Clark.

You know who your Maximum Leader misses on New Years Eve? Guy Lombardo and his Royal Canadians. He went out and bought a copy of Auld Lang Syne on iTunes to satisfy this nostalgic feeling.

Anyhoo, your Maximum Leader generally does indulge himself with a bottle of Pol Roger on New Years. But this year he opted to go with an Italian sparkling wine from Veneto. It was very good (he should say it is very good, as he hasn’t quite finished the bottle yet). The Processo he bought is dry with undercurrents of fruit (apples or pears). This sparkling wine has the benefit of only being about $17 a bottle - as opposed to the $50 a bottle your Maximum Leader is used to spending on the Pol Roger. Your Maximum Leader isn’t sure that he is enjoying the Italian wine as much as he has enjoyed the champagne in the past; but it is still pretty tasty.

Speaking of tasty…

The Almond encrusted pork loin was quite delicious. Your Maximum Leader took is massive pork tenderloin (featured in the post below) and cut it into thirds. He went ahead and prepared two of the three pieces for Christmas. He and his family wound up eating one third on Christmas day. The other prepared third was itself divided into thirds and divied up between your Maximum Leader’s in-laws, parents, and hungry self.

The third portion of tenderloin is thawed out and waiting to be prepared tonight. Your Maximum Leader hasn’t heard from anyone on a good preparation (NB to Mrs P: You teased me with a promise of recipe…). So he thinks he will do a typical rosemary and garlic marinade for a few hours then roast.

In unrelated news, Your Maximum Leader should tell you all that he’s been thinking recently that there is some big question in his life to which he knows the answer. The answer is (apparently) Venice. Yes, the city in Italy. He isn’t sure what the question is, but feels that Venice is the answer.

Anyhoo…

On to New Years resolutions. Your Maximum Leader will share a few of his with you all.

In 2008 your Maximum Leader will bring peace to the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem.

In 2008 your Maximum Leader will compete as his own nation in the summer Olympics in Beijing. He will not finish lower than fourth in every event. He will accomplish this feat by using his heretofore unknown ability to warp the time-space continuum.

In 2008 your Maximum Leader will win every Nobel Prize available when he completes his “Grand Unified Theory.” This theory, which will be ultimately be confirmed by scientists from the Gamma-Zeta 294 system 8,433 years from now, will unify all practical questions of physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, and literature. The key to the unification of science will be the proto-electroneuquark partical - also known affectionately as “The Maxy”.

In 2008 your Maximum Leader will end global warming by meditating for 72 hours straight under a blossoming tree surrounded by dancing wood-nymphs.

In 2008 your Maximum Leader will be elected President of the United States without receiving a single popular vote. He will win a unanimous vote of the Electoral College. After his inauguration in 2009, Canada, Great Britain, Mexico, Brazil and Lichenstein will voluntarially surrender their national sovreignty to your Maximum Leader and the Mike World Order shall begin.

In 2008 your Maximum Leader will wish the previously dreamy Jennifer Love Hewitt a happy married life; he will move on to the passionate Lola Astanova as the object of his platonic affections.

In 2008 your Maximum Leader will try to improve the quality (if not quantity) of blog posts here at Naked Villainy.

There you have them. Your Maximum Leader is pretty sure he can keep up with at least two of them…

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader sees on the news wires that former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has gone and crossed the Tiber. Apparently, Cherie Blair is Catholic. The Blair children are Catholic as well. The article goes on to say:

Political commentators have also suggested Blair had been unwilling to make the move while he was still in power because some lawyers believed that 19th century laws could actually prevent a Catholic from becoming prime minister.

It was also thought a conversion could have provoked a conflict with his role in appointing Anglican bishops and he might have also felt the need to tread carefully while mediating in the Northern Ireland peace process between the province’s Catholic and Protestant communities.

European Union Trade Commissioner and political confidant Peter Mandelson said Blair was “not an exhibitionist” about religion but was “a man who takes a Bible with him wherever he goes and last thing at night he will read from the Bible.”

However Ann Widdecombe, an opposition Conservative member of parliament who converted to Catholicism herself, said Blair would have had to have changed his mind on a number of issues such as abortion and civil partnerships for gay couples.

“If you look at Tony Blair’s voting record in the House of Commons, he’s gone against church teaching on more than one occasion on things for example like abortion,” she told the BBC.

Playing the Devil’s Advocate here… Wouldn’t one say that Blair’s past voting record doesn’t really matter in this context… He was Anglican afterall. Wouldn’t one hope that his heart be in the right place from now on?

Your Maximum Leader admits that he can see the troubles that a “Catholic Politician” could face when political issues are imbued with religious issues. It comes down to that old government class question, should the politician represent the view of his constituents (on the whole) or should the politician do what his convictions tell him to do - constituents be damned. All too often politicians (John Kerry and Ted Kennedy first come to mind here) say that they have strong personal faith, but their job is to do what is best for the nation. Perhaps your Maximum Leader is being squishy here when he says that he understands the argument they are trying to make. He doesn’t argee with it, but he sees what they are trying to do. (Is that squishy? Is that something akin to sophistry?) Your Maximum Leader isn’t in the business of warning politicians about the motes in their eyes; the plank in your Maximum Leader’s eye is quite severe and doesn’t allow him to be too critical. Even if he were mote-less, he will leave final judgement in such matters to the appropriate Authority.

Your Maxmium Leader wishes Mr. Blair all the best in the rest of his life’s journey of faith. He hopes that Mr. Blair finds comfort, strength and wisdom in the Catholic church.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader realizes that many of his readers will not be logging onto their computers (at least not for blogging purposes) much over the next few days.

In case you don’t make it back here (although you should), your Maximum Leader wishes you a very Merry Christmas.

Or Mele Kalikimaka if you prefer.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader was working himself up into a lather over the plight of Gillian Gibbons. You know Ms. Gibbons. She who allowed her children (by which your Maximum Leader means the children she taught in school - not her biological children) to name a teddy bear after the prophet Mohammed.

At first your Maximum Leader was hoping that Gordon Brown would send a group of Royal Marines to the Sudan to rescue Ms. Gibbons before any sentance would be carried out upon her. But then it seemed as though the need for a military solution to the problem was averted when the Sudan pardoned her and allowed her to leave the country.

Your Maximum Leader is happy that Ms. Gibbons was not punished for a seemingly minor infraction (so minor in fact that in the civilized world it would not be an infraction at all). But at some level he wanted to strike a blow against this wild fundamentalism that seems to infect Islam around the world…

Of course, he’s found himself agreeing completely with that which Rachel wrote over on her fine blog.

Oh that we had more Charles Napier’s in the world.

Carry on.

Your humble Smallholder is both a Christian and an evolutionist. The first because of faith and the second because I can think logically.

I’ve often thought (and I have no theological grounding in this) that the story of the apple isn’t really about one particular woman choosing to try the forbidde fruit, but an analogy to the point where our brains evolved to the point that reason and not instinct drove our actions. The apple, I thought, was a symbol for free will. And then we could make moral judgments (in the Bible we knew we were naked). You don’t condemn a crocodile for eating a man. You do condemn Jeffrey Dahmer.

Over at Jason Rosenhouse’s Evolution Blog, commentor (commentator?) James McGrath has an interesting observation. Perhaps the point of evolution was the creation of free will.

I still think that one can make a better case for why a God of the sort traditionally envisaged by Christian theology (not necessarily popular thought in that tradition) would create through evolution than for some other method. If God’s aim was to create free beings, then it is unclear how else that could be accomplished. If one creates a first ‘Adam and Eve’ as adults, then they must be pre-programmed with all the things humans learn growing up. If they are created as infants, then what? Raised by wolves? Raised by angels? Evolution certainly makes sense as a process that can produce this end, even though it is clearly extremely wasteful in the process.

Interesting…

Greeting, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader has been feeling like crap the past few days. Fall allergies probably coupled with some sort of cold bug that the Villainettes brought home. He hasn’t felt up to much when given the choice between watching baseball or football on TV and something else…

Your Maximum Leader read that Ted had the sad task of putting down his dog, Sam, two days ago. Ted and his family are in my thoughts.

While sitting thinking about what Ted had to do, your Maximum Leader thought that if you are a “pet person” you really set yourself up for regular heartaches. Your Maximum Leader is a pet person (a dog man frankly). And now that he is thinking about it, he’s suffered a lot due to the death or disappearance of his pet. If you are a dog lover, you can expect that every 8-12 years (or longer depending on the breed) you are going to have to deal with the trauma of your beloved pet dying. That is pretty hard. There seems to be some sort of cosmic injustice that relegates our pets to such short life spans compared to our own. This is not to say that the joy a pet brings isn’t great during the pet’s life — it is. But it is more to say that you take the joy knowing there will be heartache as well.

As your Maximum Leader was typing this he realized that his dog, Maia, is 7 years old now. She is a black lab/whippet mix. We rescued her from the SPCA in Virginia Beach a few months after we had to put down Muffin, the dog Mrs Villain brought to our marriage. It seems like only yesterday that Muffin was vibrant and active. Your Maximum Leader remembers (also like it was yesterday) the day we had to put Muffin down. That day capped off the worst Christmas season your Maximum Leader ever had. He remembers the day we got Maia. He also is now thinking that depending on the longevity of the breeds involved, Maia is likely half-way through her life. That has made your Maximum Leader feel a little melancholy now.

He’s going to stop typing and start brushing his dog for a while. It will cheer him up, and probably please Maia greatly as well.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader looks out the Villainschloss window and sees the sun is setting. That means that the Jewish High Holy Days (or Days of Awe) are about to begin.

Your Maximum Leader is not Jewish, but he will stop to think about his actions (or inactions) over the past year and ennumerate those things for which he ought to seek atonement.

He listened yesterday to an NPR program (Speaking of Faith - a program to which he is a regular listener in fact) about the Jewish High Holy Days. It was very educational. Here is the link if you would like to listen yourself.

Your Maximum Leader wishes his Jewish readers the best during this most sacred time of the calendar.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader has a Bible. In fact, he has a number of Bibles around the Villainschloss. The Bible in question is a large “Family” style Bible. It probably weighs 15 lbs. It is bound in leather and gilt. It was purchased by his maternal Grandmother from a sale of such Bibles held at the family parish (St. Michaels for those of you who care) after Vatican II wrapped up.

This Bible was always the source of wonder and amazement for your Maximum Leader when he was a young villain. Alas, he didn’t read it quite as much as he should have (although he did read quite a bit). He was fascinated by the reproductions of great art throughout the Bible. Every great story had some work of classical art to illustrate it. Sometimes the artist chosen to represent a particular story wasn’t what your Maximum Leader would have liked. But often the art was some Renaissance master work.

One particular image always captivated your Maximum Leader. It was the image of Salome and the head of John the Baptist by Caracciolo. (Here is a link to the work.) It captivated him in a number of ways. First off, the subject matter itself if pretty gripping. Captain of the Guard presenting a human head on a silver platter to a beautiful woman is not your daily fare of imagery. This painting’s most gripping element is Salome herself. How she looks at the viewer. Your Maximum Leader doesn’t see lots of emotions in the face of Salome that he finds in other renderings of the image. In this painting he sees knowingness in the face of Salome. She looks at you and her expression and eyes call out and say “See what I’ve done? Do you know my power?” Her mother’s face is smiling, she is pleased (of course) to see the grisly trophy. (Afterall, it was Herodias who convinced Salome to ask for the head of John the Baptist.) In Caracciolo’s painting, Salome is collected and completely nonplussed. In a way that makes her quite terrifying.

Quite terrifying indeed.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader and Mrs P’s biorythms must be in sync. (Excursus: Does anyone ever talk about biorythms any more? Do you remember those cheesey machines in malls in the late 70’s where you put your birthday in to the machine with a quarter and got out that card telling you how your day was going to go? Hummm…) Your Maixmum Leader had a pork post, and Mrs. P had a pork post. Admittedly, hers was much more entertaining and informative…

Your Maximum Leader will now step into some heretical areas (Father M - please get your rosary ready…).

The Smallholder and your Maximum Leader were musing the other day on the telephone about pork. We were discussing the glories of bacon actually. Then it popped out of Smallholder’s mouth… “You know,” he said. “That bacon isn’t perfectly healthy for you must be proof against the concept of a omnibenevolent God. Afterall, if God really loved us he’d let us eat all the bacon we wanted.”

Your Maximum Leader, as longtime readers know, is not an adherent to the concept of an omnibenevolent God (at least the omnibenevolence that most people think of). But in the broadest sense your Maximum Leader agreed with the Smallholder. Of course, God must favor Christians because there is no dietary injunction against pork and pork products. On the other hand, the fact that there is bacon at all should count for something. Bacon (and beer, according to Ben Franklin) are proof that God does love us and want us happy.

If only that love were less cholesterol laden…

At some point when your Maximum Leader has some time, he’ll have to come up with a porcine theology post…

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader and his good friends, The Smallholder and the Minister of Propaganda, got to talking about athesim, faith, culture, and reason during our all to short visit two weeks ago. The conversation we had is one that has still been floating in and out of your Maximum Leader’s mind when he has had free time for contemplation. In our conversation the Smallholder and Minister of Propaganda were both espousing ethics and social behavior as governed by reason. Your Maximum Leader objected saying that faith and tradition and custom have an important role to play.

The Smallholder and Minister of Propaganda asserted that while tradition and custom have a role to play - reason should trump custom and tradition. Smallholder pulled out the faith-based/traditional bias against homosexuals and homosexual marriage as a case where reason would show that our society’s behavior in this area is unacceptable. Your Maximum Leader changed the context of the debate somewhat by saying that the problem of reason alone is that reasoned arguments rely on the acceptance of premises. Once you accept a broad premise, it is possible to reason away some pretty awful stuff. Then your Maximum Leader brought up the case of the Downs Syndrome baby. Can one construct a reasoned case whereby the aborting of a child with Downs Syndrome is acceptable? The conversation started to get interesting when the Smallholder and Minister of Propaganda started to disagree with each other based on the assumption of certain premises.

It was getting very interesting when we three were suddenly interrupted by the more pressing issue of what beers to purchase for ourselves to consume. Alas, we didn’t get back to ethics again… (But the beers were quite good!)

In a moment of strange serindipty, an interesting piece appeared in a recent Washington Post. The piece by Michael Gerson is called “What Atheists Can’t Answer.” Allow your Maximum Leader to cite the major thrust of Gerson’s piece:

If God were dethroned as the arbiter of moral truth, it would not, of course, mean that everyone joins the Crips or reports to the Playboy mansion. On evidence found in every culture, human beings can be good without God. And [Christopher] Hitchens is himself part of the proof. I know him to be intellectually courageous and unfailingly kind, when not ruthlessly flaying opponents for taking minor exception to his arguments. There is something innate about morality that is distinct from theological conviction. This instinct may result from evolutionary biology, early childhood socialization or the chemistry of the brain, but human nature is somehow constructed for sympathy and cooperative purpose.

But there is a problem. Human nature, in other circumstances, is also clearly constructed for cruel exploitation, uncontrollable rage, icy selfishness and a range of other less desirable traits.

So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between good and bad instincts? Theism, for several millennia, has given one answer: We should cultivate the better angels of our nature because the God we love and respect requires it. While many of us fall tragically short, the ideal remains.

Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma. It cannot reply: “Obey your evolutionary instincts” because those instincts are conflicted. “Respect your brain chemistry” or “follow your mental wiring” don’t seem very compelling either. It would be perfectly rational for someone to respond: “To hell with my wiring and your socialization, I’m going to do whatever I please.” C.S. Lewis put the argument this way: “When all that says ‘it is good’ has been debunked, what says ‘I want’ remains.”

Some argue that a careful determination of our long-term interests — a fear of bad consequences — will constrain our selfishness. But this is particularly absurd. Some people are very good at the self-centered exploitation of others. Many get away with it their whole lives. By exercising the will to power, they are maximizing one element of their human nature. In a purely material universe, what possible moral basis could exist to condemn them? Atheists can be good people; they just have no objective way to judge the conduct of those who are not.

In his essay, Gerson seems to point to one of your Maximum Leader’s all-time favourite arguments against a purely rational basis for ethics. Namely, human selfishness and self interest. The Hobbesian in him smiles widely whenever we have to confront our basic animal nature — and are shocked by what we see.

Of course, your Maximum Leader doesn’t believe that tradition/custom/faith is the end-all/be-all of ethics and morality. But he does rely upon it rather more than would the Smallholder or the Minister of Propaganda. Your Maximum Leader, whenever the discussion turns to a purely rational basis for ethics, is always reminded of the passage from Burke that can be paraphrased by stating that logical arguments are all fine and good until you disagree with the outcome of the argument. (NB: Your Maximum Leader wishes he could find the passage to cite, but he can’t. If you are familiar with Burke’s Reflections and can give the citation, your Maximum Leader will insert it.)

Your Maximum Leader should, by way of fairness, point out that Christopher Hitchens reponds to Gerson’s peice with his own. It is, like all Hitchen’s peices, a good read. You can find it here.

In an odd way, this discussion also lends itself to the discussion that our dear friend the Big Hominid is having about the nature of “God’s plan.” Certainly human suffering is a great argument against a benevolent Diety or divine plan. Some of the same underlying issues are also brought to bear on the nature of ethics and behavior.

Food for thought, and perhaps a more detailed posting…

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader has been too busy trying to do Maximum Leaderly things (and fatherly things, and reading the draft of the immigration bill) to write a cogent post. So, when intellectual rigour (which hasn’t been seen too much around here for the past few months anyway) in posting isn’t possible - there is always the inane.

So… Your Maximum Leader saw a quiz over on Big Stupid Tommy’s site. It is an quiz to determine what type of an atheist you are. Your Maximum Leader took the quiz… Here are the results…

The results actually surprised him. For you see… Your Maximum Leader is not now, nor has he ever been an atheist. He took the quiz with the full intention of scoring as a theist. Of course, when you start taking a quiz who’s purpose is to classify you as something you’re not; you ought to expect to take issue with the results. But your Maximum Leader was surprised nonetheless by the outcome.

Your Maximum Leader knows he has “issues” when it comes to his religious life. But his issues are all grounded in doubt, he still falls easily into the larger judeo-christian-western tradition. He’s thought about blogging more about religion and his own beliefs, but it is hard for him to open up about it. Rest assured however that your Maximum Leader is no atheist or even agnostic. Regardless of the quiz results.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader wonders if you had read the latest out of Llanpumsaint, Wales? No? Imagine that.

It seems that Llanpumsaint has a particularly devout Hindu community. The Llanpumsaint Hindu community is favored with owning their own sacred cow. Yes… A real sacred cow.

The cow’s name is “Shambo.” Shambo means (if you trust the news wires) giver of joy… It seems as though Shambo is not only a giver of joy, but a carrier of bovine turberculosis. As a carrier of bovine TB, Shambo ought to be “culled” - which is a polite way of saying “killed.”

The believers at the Community of the Many Names of God, think that Shambo should be given a repreive since he lives, not on a farm, but in a religious compound. The wire story implies that Shambo would not come into contact with other cows in the area and pass along his infection.

Frankly, this story works on a whole bunch of levels… Your Maximum Leader, generally a law and order type, is all for culling the beast if it poses a contamination risk to other livestock. That is the law afterall and you just can’t allow known carriers of infectious diseases to go around infecting other cattle. Then there is the sanctuary element of the story. Now your Maximum Leader knows that no secular democracy recognizes the ancient privledge of “sanctuary” as we have all learned it from novels and film. But deep in your Maximum Leader’s little autocratic heart, there is a soft spot for “sanctuary” in churches.

(Excursus: It seems as though the US military does offer, to some extent, sanctuary to terrorists in mosques. This is one type of sanctuary with which he does not agree. Of course, militarizing a mosque (or church) generally would void any claim of protection the holy space should offer.)

So, should Shambo receive sanctuary? Should Shambo be allowed to live out his (reduced - presumably) days in the Community of the Many Names of God?

Well… No… Shambo should be culled his community should find a new sacred cow.

(NB: This post was hard to type. If one wasn’t careful in typing “Shambo” one might wind up with another name that could cause one to be unfairly accused of being a racist.)

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader was just reading the latest from Robbo on the meltdown of the Episcopal Church. The first line of the creed Robbo posted reminded your Maximum Leader that there is an image with which Robbo needs to become familiar…

Buddy Christ…

You can get your Buddy Christ dashboard figure here. Or you can upgrade to the Buddy Christ bobblehead here.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader was looking over the news wire and noticed this little tidbit from the Reuters news wire: Religious bias colors doctors’ views: survey.

That seems, to your Maximum Leader, to be a rather stupid headline. The very premise of it is quite silly in fact. This has always been a peeve of your Maximum Leader. One would think that anyone who is serious about their religion would have biases that are informed and shaped by their religious experience. If religion predisposes a person towards a particular set of moral beliefs - and one would certainly think it would; then one can’t help but act according to their religion in the performance of their daily routine.

An interesting portion of the article:

They [the researchers] found that 85 percent of those surveyed believe religion or spirituality is generally positive, but only 6 percent say it often changes “hard” medical outcomes, reflecting some sort of miraculous healing.

About three quarters of those surveyed say spirituality helps patients cope and believe it gives them a positive state of mind. About 7 percent, however, said it often causes negative emotions such as guilt and anxiety and some 4 percent think patients use spirituality to avoid taking responsibility for their health.

Your Maximum Leader found that last line interesting. 4% using religion to avoid taking respoinsibility for their health. Your Maximum Leader knows some people like that. Indeed, if one queries your Maximum Leader’s good friend the Smallholder, he (Smallholder that is) would possibly weave a story for you about your Maximum Leader’s fatalistic streak concerning organ transplants and such. (Your Maximum Leader, while an organ donor himself, feels that he would not likely accept an organ donation in the event that he should need one. Now there are many extenuating circumstances that could affect this completely hypothetical situation, but the broad statement is correct. Additionally, your Maximum Leader would not accept genetic treatments that would allow him to live a longer and healthier life. Perhaps this is a subject for another post…)

But your Maximum Leader digresses…

It seems odd to your Maximum Leader that people would assume that some sort of professional, like a doctor, would not allow his religious beliefs to affect his work. Of course, no conversation on this topic would be complete without discussing that most inane subset of politicians. You know the ones who are “Catholic” but support abortion rights. It seems to your Maximum Leader that such political types should go either one of two ways. The first is to admit that they are not a particularly good Catholic because they disagree with the Church’s moral teachings on this matter. The second is to say that they are against abortion and would act accordingly insofar as the office they hold and influence such things.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader was contemplating a recent gospel reading. The reading was from the Gospel of John. It is the story of the adulterous woman in John 8. In case you have forotten the passage, it reads:

3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court,

4 they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act.

5 “Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?”

6 They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground.

7 But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”

8 Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court.

10 Straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?”

11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you, either Go From now on sin no more.”

Now. Your Maximum Leader doesn’t mean to give the impression that he is not seriously considering the lesson; but…

What do you think Jesus was writing on the ground?

For some reason your Maximum Leader has been stuck wondering what Jesus would be writing on the ground. Your Maximum Leader’s speculation has ranged from the serious (perhaps he was actually writing out the Law in the sand) to the ridiculous (a la Dan Brown “Jesus + Mary Magdelene 4ever”). He will probably lie awake (again) thinking about this tonight.

Carry on.