Letters to the Editor
rtf100
Published Letters: 181 Editor's Choice: 8
-
The Greatest Sin of All is Pride
[Read the article: Proud atheists]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's funny that the "proud atheists" have also become "proud sinners". The greatest sin of all is pride as articulated by CS Lewis years ago.
"Now come to that part of Christian morals where they differ most sharply from all other morals. There is one vice of which no man in the world is free; which every one in the world loathes when he sees it in someone else; and of which hardly any people, except Christians, ever imagine that they are guilty themselves. I have heard people admit that they are bad-tempered, or that they cannot keep their heads about girls or drink, or even that they are cowards. I do not think I have ever heard anyone who was not a Christian accuse himself of this vice. And at the same time I have very seldom met anyone, who was not a Christian, who showed the slightest mercy to it in others. There is no fault which makes a man more unpopular, and no fault which we are more unconscious of in ourselves. And the more we have it ourselves, the more we dislike it in others.
The vice I am talking of is Pride or Self-Conceit: and the virtue opposite to it, in Christian morals, is called Humility. You may remember, when I was talking about sexual morality, I warned you that the centre of Christian morals did not lie there. Well, now, we have come to the centre. According to Christian teachers, the essential vice, the utmost evil, is Pride. Unchastity, anger, greed, drunkenness, and all that, are mere fleabites in comparison: it was through Pride that the devil became the devil: Pride leads to every other vice: it is the complete anti-God state of mind."
This is why atheists are reviled...because they are absolutists and a "very proud" bunch.
-
HRC will put a "happy face" on certain things but change nothing
[Read the article: The conservative vision of America, by National Review]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn,
When HRC takes power in 2009 don't be surprised that she continues the Bush policies on eavesdropping, torture, Gitmo, etc; however, she will try to put a "happy face" on some of the more controversial things. Reminds me of Nixon, minus the happy face.
It's clear to me that no Democratic president is going to casually take any of these policies off the table because they are part of the "plan to protect America". If they were to loosen the screws and there is a repeat of 9/11, or worse, the repugs will be back in the WH for another 25 years.
Nothing material is going to change in terms of national security tactics, in fact, it will become more intrusive, not less. I doubt any of this will even become a campaign issue because there is no upside to it. Who wants to assume the political risk?
-
It's all about Israel, not Iran
[Read the article: The Iran hawks]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The US political process is amazing: here we have a panel of candidates and elite media types asking the hypothetical questions about Iran and the most obvious Iran scenario is not raised. What will the US do if Israel attacks Iran and Iran (i) launches a major missile attack on Israel and (ii) closes the Gulf to shipping (iii) Hezbollah attacks Israel from Lebanon (iv) Revolutionary Guards pour into Iraq and confront US troops on the ground?
The Israelis have a long history of preemptive attacks. Look at Syria last month, look at Iraq in 1981, and above all, look at the 6-day war in 1967. Israel is not afraid to pull the trigger (like last year in Lebanon) because they believe they have fewer options on the table. If Israel believes that the new Democratic president will not cover their backs and flanks, they could panic and attack with minimal provocation.
-
@ Rodian
[Read the article: The Iran hawks]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You suggest that the US has always "been there" for Israel and has influence over their actions. I beg to differ: leading up to the 1967 war, LBJ told Abba Eban in the Oval Office that the US would NOT support Israel either militarily or diplomatically if they attacked Eqypt unilaterally, but a week later, Israel did attack first and Johnson was freaked out because he was up to his eyeballs in Vietnam and could not support another front. Also, the Israeli air force almost sunk a US Navy vessel in the Mediterranean sea not entirely by accident. Because they thought the ship was spying on the Israeli forces in the Sinai.
My point is that once a certain chain-reaction begins the US or anyone else may not be able to put a lid on it.
-
@ Scathew
[Read the article: My husband is groping my sister]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree with Scathew who says that even though folks get drunk one can still exercise some judgement, at least about hitting on your sister-in-law. LW does not begin her letter with much background on the drinking history of her husband. Most readers will conclude, however, that he is a total alcoholic, period. Having said that, LW's main issue is alcoholism, not philandering. The marriage will depend on whether he can give up the booze.
-
Nobody really is watching
[Read the article: Here's what waterboarding looks like]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Nobody is watching the weekly debates because the 2008 election has been over even before it has started. Hillary has a lock on it and she will not blow it like every other Dem candidate I can think of since, well, the other Clinton. I suppose there will be suspense leading up to HRC giving the nod to Bill Richardson as the VP. It's all very predictable as Hillary wants it to be. The repugs are in a real "mess" and they know it. These guys are basically idiots and an emabarrassment to themselves. No matter who they put up, they will lose by 20 points to HRC.