I fervently wish the pope had a wife and daughters. I fervently wish Muslims didn’t treat women and girls as subhuman chattel. Neither, as a consequence, will ever know real romance; and lacking the experience of real romance neither has any claim or access to wisdom.

Now that it is freely being spoken in some quarters, it becomes increasingly clear the pope knew exactly what he was doing in stirring up Muslims, bringing them out in the open for the world to see they are not believers in a “peaceful” religion, but quite the contrary. Nor should it be ignored Muslims are to be “forgiven” for every manner of duplicity and lies to “infidels,” the claims of being “moderates” being an example in order to gain the advantage, the very enormity of poverty and ignorance among so many Muslims giving their leaders ample opportunity to advance this despicable doctrine of Islam, even to the continued warring among themselves.

And it is a legitimate question as a point of comparison why the president of Iran gets a pass at “Wiping Israel off the face of the map” by Muslims, and not a few others who are not Muslims, but the pope is vilified by so many for his remarks. Muslims danced in the streets over The Attack on America and there were no Muslims being renounced for this by any Muslim nation, nor even here in America, but it is as Jesus pointed out “Every tree is known by its fruit.”

But to listen to the hysteria being raised by the pope’s remarks you hear some saying he is a “Nazi” while others are saying the same of the president of Iran, and even of Bush by some of his detractors. That term “Nazi” is a real convenience to those attempting to smear others and rally people to their point of view.

Alas, those tossing the term of Nazi around have the Swastika denied them. Next to the symbol of the Christian cross, the Swastika is most well known; and unlike the symbol of the cross Hitler’s design of the Swastika with those striking and contrasting colors of black, red, and white and all this symbol came to stand for never fails to evoke a pronounced response far beyond that of the Christian cross. And were it not allied inextricably to Hitler and the Nazis any politician or tyrant would give their firstborn to have such a representative symbol that so stirs the passions. But then, most politicians and tyrants lust for a symbol like KKK, another symbol guaranteed to stir the passions.

After beating up on the snake in one B.C. strip eliciting a really cute quip from the battered reptile, the “fat broad” is left asking herself, “Why is it the snake always has the good lines?” Just so with the Swastika, Nazi, and KKK; but while Nazi and KKK are freely bandied about by those attempting to tar others with the brush not so with Hitler’s Swastika— that one, gentle reader, is handled as though it were plutonium!

But what many fail to grasp is the element of romance Hitler was able to attach to the Swastika. He succeed in making it a symbol of romance, of love and devotion throughout Germany; and while many Germans were not caught in its romantic and mystical sway, many millions, and not all of them Nazis by any means, were so taken. But all Germans were taken with the power the Swastika came to represent. And beyond the bounds of Germany, many in other nations came to view the Swastika in the same way, and even now these many years after the Nazi era it continues its mystical and nearly hypnotic power to sway passions.

That such an interpretation of “romance” attaching to the Swastika is a corrupt one is a given. But this is the “romance” of the religion of Islam as well. What Muslims lust for is the mystical, nearly hypnotic power of the Swastika, but that is denied them as it is to others. It most likely will remain the powerful symbol of Hitler and the Nazis, and one that remains untouchable all pretenders notwithstanding.

As to real romance, this is unknown to those like the pope and Muslims even as it was to Hitler. And in a statement that provokes many a denial I stand my ground in saying emphatically you must have a wife and children to really know romance. That excludes Hitler and the pope, and it excludes Muslims because they treat women like subhuman chattel.

You don’t explain “romance” to anyone that has never known romance; and beyond this limitation it would be like trying to explain the colors of a sunset or the scent of a forest. At that, I have come to wonder whether any man without daughters can possibly know the real meaning of romance?

Since my “Birds” book is one of romance it has elicited not only comments from those who appreciate it, the great majority being women, but from some that simply could not understand it when not damning it. For example, I write it is only to be expected fathers who love their children will, nevertheless, treat their daughters quite differently than their sons. Therefore, boys often grow up with the perception their sisters were treated with more love and affection from dad, that little girls receive preferential treatment from their fathers. But as I told my own sons, they will never learn why this is so unless they have daughters of their own.

The best part of what women represent of real value as one half of humankind I learned from my daughters. Fathers never know how to deal with these precious little “aliens” known as “daughters.” These little angels begin life as strange creatures beyond the kin of a father. Harper Lee did a masterful job of describing the attitude of Atticus toward little Scout. She quite obviously had recalled the difficulty her own father had dealing with her as a little girl.

However, the lessons little girls teach their fathers have everything to do with the subject of romance. And men without daughters to teach such lessons can never hope to fully understand the subject, let alone master it since grown women cannot teach this to men because only the innocent purity of little angels can teach such lessons to men. Understanding this Harper Lee has little Scout dispersing that lynch mob, something Jem and Dill as boys could not possibly have done. While Harper Lee has little Scout finally understanding there are some things only women can do, she also has Scout beginning to understand “there might be some skill involved with being a girl.”

In one of the most clearly defining moments of “To Kill A Mockingbird” little Scout is thinking her father couldn’t do a day without her. And Scout is right. Atticus could never be the kind of man he was, a defender of the innocent, a defender of right and justice without the lessons he learned from Scout. Men without such little angels are not able to learn such lessons of grown women since they cannot teach such lessons to men. And when it comes to the subject of romance it is this holy and sacred, this truly mystical distinction between fathers and daughters and men and women that only little angels can possibly teach men.

In the divine plan, as I believe it to be, sacrificial love is to be taught adults by their children. It is in the care and nurture of children adults are to learn the meaning of sacrifice without feeling they are sacrificing anything. This is the most profound expression of giving without thought of receiving in return. But there is a further distinction between girls and boys and the lessons of love being taught fathers by their daughters; the distinction of the real meaning of romance.

While writing the Birds book I was fully aware many men do not have daughters. And of those that do, many never have the kind of sacred relationship with their little angels God intended that would teach men their proper role as men. To explain, there is a very good reason the prophet Nathan was sent with this story to confront David about his sin with Bathsheba:

“And the LORD sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor. The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds: But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter. And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man's lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him. And David's anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the LORD liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die: And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity. And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man… And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD.”

David was a “bloody man, a man of war” the Lord had called him, a man that had not only killed many in battle but had the blood of Bathsheba’s husband on his hands. The “Sweet singer of Israel” was not easily touched by murder and mayhem, the evil that men do. But the Lord knew when he sent Nathan to David with the story of the poor man’s little ewe lamb, this was the way to reach David’s heart and inflame, “greatly kindle” his utmost outrage and anger! Notwithstanding David being a bloody man and a man of war he had daughters that had taught him the value of these little angels; he had learned the lessons only his little girls could teach him.

The greatest inspiration of poets and artists remains beautiful women. But the sad and tragic fact of humankind is that too few men have learned the lessons only the little “ewe lambs” can teach; and as a consequence too few men today and throughout history have any real understanding of romance, the result being too few men are possessed of wisdom.