Dear Episcomom--

I sympathize, but as I understand it, homework is by definition something that one has to do. My point is that such an assignment allows a lot more spontaneity and self-organization in the way you absorb information than most homework. I had to learn the multiplication tables. I was given no choice. Thank God they forced me, or the further delights of math would have been closed to me.

Of course we should seek and reward truly good and creative teachers. Of course we should be as sensitive as possible to the special needs of students. But some education must be compulsory. There is simply no way around it. And if we try to fault-find and make every such assignment perfect for everybody, the attempt to educate becomes so unwieldy it is impossible to succeed. I spent years as a teacher, and my approach to this would have been to tell those who had a problem with the assignment to come to me and I would design an alternative they could work with.

But I still think the teacher deserves praise for such innovation and good thinking. The correspondent who suggested the inclusion of brilliant women is correct, though.

Wouldn't an election campaign between Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich be an enlivening thing?

Don't see where this supposedly humorous reponse helps the lady in question at all. It shows off your cleverness, but she had an honest question and you gave her no useful information.

There are thousands of tiny signs when a potential relationship is heading down the same old road. The lady is quite right to heed these signs, and quite right not to waste her time.

Perhaps it is not everyone's notion of courtesy, but I feel that being pleasant during the date in spite of the fact there is no chemistry is the right thing to do.

Two points: One date, lasting several hours, is plenty of time for an intelligent and observant person to decide whether the association is worth continuing.

It is always difficult to say no, but it may be done with courtesy in many ways. The basic information to convey to the other person is simple: You're a fine person, but I don't want to have another date. Any reasonably considerate man will take that as a final answer and desist. If nothing else works, simply fail to respond.

And secondly, ameliorate your guilt over rejecting them with this thought: The man you want should be at least as perceptive as you are. If there is no chemistry, he should perceive that as well as you. If he does not, you don't want him. If he does, and persists anyway, you don't want him, because his motives are not honest.

This is just to say that I am, by the way, a man. What, women don't have a right to be picky? What are all you guys scared of? A little rejection is salutary.

And for all the snarky people out there who think the lady is too picky, get real. Of course she's looking for long-term partnership and happiness too. That is not automatically opposed to chemistry. Nobody has a good handle on how to make a lasting marriage. Some choose to pick a "good" match and let love grow. Some go for connection, and hope their estimate of reliability and support is accurate.

Neither method is a guarantee. There are no damn guarantees. The lady wasn't asking how to live her life. She was asking a simple question, how to say no.

"I would rather they grow up to be kind generous unbelievers than sanctimonious blindly dogmatic Christians."

Bravo!

I'm a believer, by the way.

Calhoun: The line you quoted is from Shakespeare, not Burroughs. Listen to the phrasing, the meter. If Burroughs used it he is quoting.

Dear Garrison--

Admire your charity, humility, and wonderful writing ability. As a Southern Baptist child in Mississippi (my Daddy was a preacher and for a brief while I was myself an ordained minister), from the first moment I heard the nativity story I doubted it. I believed the message, nor have I given up reverence, charity, or faith, though my practice is now far from orthodoxy.

The whole virgin birth thing struck me from the first as the sort of fable invented afterward to explain to minds who could not otherwise grasp it how Jesus could be so remarkable.

I have always found the nativity story charming, but more an impediment to faith than a help to it. It is difficult enough to develop and sustain faith and generosity in this dangerous and turbulent illusion we call the world. I choose not to add the to me irrelevant difficulty of crediting a farfetched story.

The essential practice of worship, it seems to me, is the kindness we show. As Paul, that intense believer and misogynist, says, charity is everything. What good is believing a thousand miracles if it does not change the way we behave?

But each to his or her own. If the nativity story helps some with their faith, so be it. After all, I may be wrong.

Dear Mister Keillor--

Pardon the disrespectful use of your first name only in my previous post. It was a slip caused by the deep familiarity awakened in your writing, not intentional.

Several people, including Mr. Tennis, have observed that "normal" people may have onerous responsibilities like caring for a grandparent or meeting a mortgage payment or caring for a loved one with cancer.

This is the human condition, if one is kind. Do not forget that existential artists also deal with such matters. In addition, however, they are unable to concur with, and therefore unable to take comfort from the routine observances. They must construct their own myths, and this is a serious additional difficulty.