way back, pew by pew, collecting moneyrnand checks, and then disappearing behindrnme. When the priest raised hisrnhands and they swept back up tlie aisle tornthe altar, one of the men had the boy onrnhis hip, the plate in his other hand. Atrntlie altar, tlie toddler’s head snapped forwardrnto watch as the priest took the offering,rnlifted it to eye level, and spoke in arnloud voice. Tall candles in silver holders,rna golden cross, dark, decorative wood behindrnthe priest, stained glass above theirrnheads: The little boy was enthralled. Irnthought of my own son, similarly captivatedrnat a few months’ age when a man inrna gown had taken him from his mother tornnib a damp cross on his forehead. Whatrnare they up to? What is this all about? Ifrnthe man with the offering plate had spokenrnto him as they went forward, tlie littlernboy would have thought the ride mundanernand restrictive. The man’s silencernand refusal to look at him made all therndifference.rnThe man who had spontaneouslyrnpicked up the boy was wearing the onlyrnother tie in the room. Only a very poorrnChristian would have thought that therernwas sometliing a little too prim about thernman, a little too dapper—my thoughtsrnprecisely. Worse, I wondered if his hairrnwere dyed, tlien decided he was wearingrna toupee. Watching as he handled therntoddler with such skill, I regretted myrnwandering mind. Acting like a man, thisrndapper congregant had brought about arnmoment of grace.rnAs for the boy, I had mixed feelings.rnHe had been quiet, demanding no attentionrnfrom the rest of us, going about hisrnexplorations—his work—with great seriousness.rnHis face conveyed his joy inrnthose daring forays away from his mother,rnand who wouldn’t share it? He wasrncharming now, but in another year, orrnperhaps just another week, the scene willrnbe quite different. Loud talking, crying,rndemands: hi six montlis, he will be two,rnand what he wants will interfere withrnwhat the adults are doing. We will needrnto respond to him differently then; leftrnunchecked, spontaneity becomes selfishness,rnand curiosity doesn’t grow into reverencernor awe. If you want a boy to developrncompassion, sometimes you havernto tell him he’s not the center of the universe.rnIf you want him to consider somethingrnsacred, he needs to hear there isrnsomething more important than he is.rnThe day before I visited that church, Irnhad been at the mailbox in my buildingrnwhen two teenage girls came up and demandedrnto know if I needed anyone tornbaby-sit for me. “Do you have any kids?”rnNo introduchon, no greeting—they justrnstarted firing questions at me, at a volumernI considered a shout. If I had needed anyrnbaby-sitting, I wouldn’t have entrusted itrnto these two. Manners have their flaws asrnoutward and visible signs of inward andrnspiritual states of mind, but I intend tornkeep using them in forming my judgments.rnPerhaps someday, though, I’ll learnrnnot to judge men by their toupees. Therndapper gentleman had worked an exercisernfrom another textbook, this one concerningrnthe civilizing of the barbariansrnwe call our children. He knew that thernboy’s explorations—his need for adventure,rnhis sense of frin—had great potentialrnfor good, if only some way could bernfound to sweep them up into sometliingrnolder and larger. There was love and arnsharing of the little boy’s joy in that decisionrnto carry him forward with the otherrnofferings to the altar. There was also, inrnthat sagacious ignoring of him as the menrnwalked up the aisle, a demand that thernboy begin the great struggle of living a lifernwith some discipline.rnWhen a boy takes appropriate stepsrnaway from his mother, he should be encouraged;rnboys must move away fromrntheir mothers in order to become themselves.rnBetter the prying away be done byrna church than by other boys or the wrongrnkind of adult. In action — the properrnmode of communication with a smallrnchild—the man with a tie had given thatrnboy a powerful message. We are doingrnwhat men do, and it takes precedence overrnwhatever you might want. Now be quietrnand pay attention, and you can be part ofrnit, too. A proper man’s message for boys.rnBrian Kirkpatrick vmtes from Baltimore,rnMaryland.rnLetter FromrnBritish Columbiarnby Jeremy LottrnTolerance, FinallyrnThe implosion of the right-wing officialrnopposition Alliance Party under its youngrnevangelical leader Stockwell Day dominatesrnthe headlines of most of Canada’srnpapers and feisty tabloids: Will the “gangrnof eight” dissident Alliance MPs be hungrnout to dry? Will Stock get drummed outrnover some Zionist-sounding remarks thatrnset the tender Canadian sensibilities sornon edge? Will that toad Joe Clark, leaderrnof the squishy center-right ProgressivernConservatives, capitalize on the Alliance’srndisarray and bring his party backrnfrom the near-death experience of thernlast two elections? Will this keep thernright split for the next decade, ensuringrnLiberal dominance? Inquiring mindsrnwant to know.rnIn the rest of Canada, that is. BritishrnColumbia is preoccupied with its ownrndrama. After a decade on the outs, thernB.C. Liberals are back in power—andrnthen some. Unlike the last election,rnwhen the Reform party split the B.C.rnconservative vote and returned the NewrnDemocratic Party (NDP) to office for arnsecond fragic temi, Gordon Campbell’srnparty won a decisive 77 of the 79 ridingsrnon May 16 with 56 percent of the totalrnvote.rnAs impressive as that victory soundsrn(imagine a U.S. Congress with 425 Republicansrnin the House and 96 in thernSenate), it’s actually a lowball figure.rnActing NDP Premier Ujjal Dosanjh’srnconcession of defeat a week early deflatedrnsome of the anger voters had for the NDPrnand suppressed turnout: The Liberal’srncommanding early lead in the polls wasrncut from 70 to 56 percent. Of course, thernVancouver media’s constant hand-wringingrnover what a clean sweep would meanrnfor the state of democracy in British Columbiarndidn’t help matters. Down to onlyrntwo seats (neither including Dosanjh,rnwho was defeated in his riding), the NDPrnis no longer allowed any governmentrnfunds or recognized as the official opposition.rnThe common sentiment in thernprovince is “good riddance.” As onernreader wrote in a local paper the day afterrnthe election, “So we didn’t elect 79 GordonrnCampbells after all. Dam.”rnThrough a strange electoral quirk,rnB.C. Liberals are, in the designation ofrnVancouver Sun columnist Vaughn Palmer,rn”grits in name only.” They may belongrnto the same party as Prime MinisterrnJean Chretien (technically), but theyrnwouldn’t be caught dead acting like him.rnIn fact, on fiscal and privacy issues, Camprnbell’s Liberals ran to the right of America’srnCOP. Though the B.C. Liberalrnleader occasionally threw the randomrnbone to his party’s history of public worksrnDECEMBER 2001/43rnrnrn