As I hesitantly extended my hand to greet last week’s acclaimed guest before his press conference, I could not help but think to myself, “So, this is what the touch of Satan feels like.”

Admittedly, Pat Buchanan has been in the political arena for a (too) long time, and as a one-time, third party presidential candidate, he has the potential to offer unique insight.

However, last week, this man proved to be sly at best, and (as a very astute person pointed out) “the closest thing to Hitler allowed in this country” at worst.

During his political sermon last Wednesday, Buchanan offered considerable criticism of the Iraq war, but little criticism or demand for responsibility on the part of the man who initiated it. Nevertheless, the transparency of his supportive opposition to the very unpopular war was painfully obvious.

He exuded a notion of “what’s done is done” and now, as patriots, we must support the very imbecile who, he admits, plunged our country unnecessarily into a region of sectarian violence and “created a haven for al-Qaida terrorists.”

In essence, Mr. Buchanan attempted to empathize with the 76 percent of Americans who are unhappy with the Iraq War and simultaneously gain their empathy for support of his beloved PR-damaged Republican party. In two words: damage control. Whether or not he truly believes what he’s spouting is of little consequence. If he can rally the support of the disenchanted American people, then mission accomplished.

As a member of the Feminist Majority Foundation and National Organization for Women, my favorite part of the evening was when Mr. Buchanan prefaced a portion of his speech with, “this may sound a bit sexist,” then proceeded to detail how women just don’t have the natural oration skills that men do. I almost gagged – quietly, as that is the inherent feminine sound level. Just ask Roseanne Barr, Oprah Winfrey or Nancy Pelosi.

No doubt the power of suggestion was a key component for Buchanan when discussing ’08 presidential candidates. Again, his staunch assurance of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s ability to pin down the Democratic nomination was vapidly transparent. According to recent polls, more than 50 percent of the country remained steadfast in saying that there’s no way in hell that they’d vote for H.R. Clinton, so naturally opposition would love for her to garner the Dems’ nomination – her chance for victory nationwide seems quite unlikely.

Anti-immigration is a political notion I may disagree with, but in the end, can understand when I manage to force myself to wiggle into those shoes. However, in Buchanan’s case, his anti-immigration tirade quickly disintegrated into rampant racism, in which he criticized those who dare to keep their customs, language and culture in this country of multiculturalism.

Buchanan seemed disgusted by (legal) Hispanic immigrants’ failure to assimilate into proper Americans. My question is simply this: What is a proper American? Are we not defined by our diversity?

Perhaps the fact that SDSU is located in one of the reddest states in the country happened to be overlooked when selecting this racist misogynist to speak at the Griffith Honors Forum. Bottom line: His overtly biased insight offered little diversity to an audience bombarded with similar notions every day.

#1.883542:1309593895.jpg:grandorff,catherine.jn.jpg:Catherine Grandorff, Connect the Dots:

Perhaps it’s just my relative location, but lately, I’ve heard “founded as a Christian nation” rather a lot, whether from FOX/CNN news (I’m convinced they’re the same) or just some brainwashed shmuck. Despite popular nonsense, the founding fathers of the U.S. took painstaking care to keep their new government as secular as possible. After witnessing a corrupted system of interlocked church and state, where questioning the government was blasphemy, it’s little wonder why they and their supporters desired secularism.

The Bill of Rights maintains, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The Treaty of Tripoli underlined this notion, stating clearly, “The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” Endorsed by President John Adams, the treaty passed the Senate unanimously.

This was the 339th recorded Senate vote, but only the third unanimous vote in the Senate’s history. No record of any debate or dissent exists.

By refusing to mandate any particular religion, the founding fathers ensured U.S. citizens would not be prosecuted for their beliefs, as the state was to be secular in every sense. Imagine the outrage if our present day Senate would so strongly uphold a similar notion of freedom.

Despite how religion seems to flourish under these standards (84 percent of Americans consider religion a very important part of their lives-Gallup Polls), current studies show that though Americans may believe in religious liberty, there is growing support for blurring the line of church and state.

These views simply aren’t compatible, unless one thinks a religious government would protect the rights of religious minorities, which has always been the case in the past (the Roman Empire, the Inquisition, Islamic fundamentalists … ).

The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports that 52 percent of Americans value freedom of religion over all their other First Amendment rights. Eighty-three percent said they would not support a national religion, and 59 percent believe it’s important to understand others’ religious beliefs.

However, “Only 49 percent think keeping religion and government separate is either unnecessary or should be less strictly interpreted,” said the Times-Dispatch

To me, Americans are sending an extremely mixed message. They don’t want to separate church from state, but they want religious liberty. They don’t want a national religion, but they want the government to be involved in religious matters.

People need to connect the dots and realize separation of church and state assures religious equality for all, no matter their views of the cosmos, if they think that a man was born of a virgin and rose from the dead or that a tiny teapot orbits the earth. No matter if they have faith in reincarnation, no matter what.

Maintaining separation enables our government and public sector to act freely from agendas religious groups may have and supposedly do what is best for all citizens of all views. The “wall between church and state” so guarded by our forefathers must be allowed to stand with reverence in order to allow the beloved “freedom of religion” to continue to flourish as it has. And that, I believe, is exactly how George Washington, and not George W. Bush, would have it.

#1.883542:1309593895.jpg:grandorff,catherine.jn.jpg:Catherine Grandorff, Connect the Dots: