to mankind by way of a blues tonality.nUnfortunately this album proves thatnthe current representatives of the Chicagonblues genre have lost that sublimenquality. The musicians seem to exertnthemselves to express show-biz demandsnrather than basic human concerns andnafflictions. Their instrumental paucityn—woefully influenced by rock, a bastardizednform of jazz music in itself—nsubstitutes primitive harmonic improvisationnfor the mastery of the melodicnimprovisation used by the great instrumentalistsnof the 20’s, which, at thatntime, elicited a sort of genuflection fromnthe white symphonic establishment, innrecognition of the riches of black musicality.nThe grassroots simplicity of ManRainey’s or Bessie Smith’s message gavenway to lowbrow, vulgar, phony folksiness,nwhich was also appropriated fromnthe white rock singers of the 60’s, withntheir fake “populism.” To credit Chicagonwith this style of blues does a disservicento the blues legacy of that city:nafter all, it was in Chicago that KingnOliver played the “Wabash Blues,” Armstrongncut some immortal sides with hisnHot Five, and Mama Yancey sang “MakenMe a Pallet on the Floor.” DnH()I.I:MI( s & K( ii.v(;i:snGod and the Constitutionnby Bertram LippmannAn editorial in the Chronicles ofnCulture (Vol. 4, No. 4, July 1980) saysnthat “the Pilgrims came to this countrynbecause they did not want theirnchildren to learn untruths about God.”nThat’s true, I thought as I read it; truenfor the Pilgrims—but not for me. ThenPilgrims believed they knew the truthnabout God. Unfortunately, many of usntoday (always conscious of our debt tonthose British ancestors, and gratefulnthat it was they and not the Spaniardsnwho made the first permanent settlementsnin North America) do not knownwhat the truth about God is. Therefore,nin this era of Carter and Reagannand the Moral Majority, it occurred tonme to concern myself a bit, now thatnwe conservatives seem to have gainednsome political power, that matters ofnGod and religion should not splinter us.nMy purpose here is not to attack religion.nPeople in the Christian Westnhave given up the practice of attackingnreligion with nonreligion. But it wouldnbe particularly unfortunate if the iden-nMr. Lippman teaches English at QueensnCollege in New York.ntification of God with morality shouldncome between me and the Chroniclesnof Culture, to which I was first attractednby the editor’s unmitigated contemptnfor communism and for those in freencountries who don’t share his—and myn—total enmity to it. This unequivocalncondemnation, akin to Christ’s fornblind guides and whited sepulchres andnexpressed in brilliantly ironic languagenwith a concomitant appreciation of ourndemocracy, should be enough to insurenour continued fraternity. I value thenChronicles of Culture only slightlynless than Solzhenitsyn. He too callsnup, calls back, calls upon religion, thenorthodox form of Christianity. I believenI understand why he does so, and Inthink I understand the invoking of religionnin the Chronicles. My understandingnis not compassion or tolerancenor condescension. The fact is simplynthat I can enlist in Solzhenitsyn’s—nalas!—shrinking army, and I can subscribento the Chronicles, without recoursento religion. Solzhenitsyn is annoble and towering human being, butnwe do not look to him for the meaningnof democracy. The meaning of Americanndemocracy is in the Constitution, whichnallows those who wish to follow Godnnnto do so, but such Americans are notntherefore “more equal” before the lawnthan the nongodly. The Constitutionndoes not ask anyone to reject or abandonnreligion; it simply says, in effect,nthat we do not need it. Religion wasnpresumably relegated to a place outsidenthe Constitution because it is so elusive,nso much the creature (and the victim)nof hermeneutics, of exegesis, of verbalnmanipulation, of the thaumaturgy ofnthe Logos.nWhere shall we learn the truth aboutnGod? In a recent issue of Chroniclesnof Culture, Professor James Thompsonnfinds that one Jeremy Rifkin “exposesnthe shallowness of his grounding inn20th-century Christian thought.”*nWhich Christian thought.’ Is it Earth’sn(“Real socialism is real Christianity”)nor Heidegger’s (assuming one can bensure what he really is saying) or Kiing’sn(who seems to be apologizing for beingnunable in conscience to apologize).” Orncould it be Chesterton or Maurrasnwhose thought we should follow.” Perhapsnit is Unamuno, an “existential”nChristian of renown, who said thatn”faith in God consists in creating God.”nHe was a great lover of God, but henbelieved that civilization began withnslavery—the enslavement of one mannby another—and that “there is muchnmore humanity in war than in peace.”nAre these the views by which Rifkinnshould be guided.”n*Elsewhere, George L. Murphy, a scientist whonis a candidate for the priesthood, has declarednthat “theological defects [!] were built intonNewtonian physics from the start.”n•45nMay/Jone 1981n