Letters to the Editor

• How 'bout We Kill All the Lawyers First...

  [Read the article: "The Da Vinci Code"]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  and THEN trash critics of all kinds? Two of the greatest classes of killjoys on the face of the earth. Well, except maybe for ACLU lawyers. Some of them anyway. But, like religion, both groups (critics and lawyers) make their money telling us what we ought to think so we don't have to run the risk of hurting our little brains or risking our immortal souls (or gaining one) by actually thinking for ourselves. And the guy DID get something published that he wrote, and I was impressed, and people read it, and a great groundswell of discussion HAS taken place, and this seems to be what troubles you the most, Brad. That the "wrong" people will have the "wrong" discussions about this topic. Like that's worse than NO people discussing ANYthing? And of COURSE evangelical Christians aren't gonna read it and discuss it except to the extent that they can rile up a lynch mob of some sort! Those aren't the people who "need" to be reading and discussing this. It is the very people who are sincerely looking for meaning and have been raised in the church and cling to it in desperation even when it doesn't make sense. Wouldn't it be nice if that stuff COULD make sense? Well through Dan Brown's clumsy-but-entertaining-for-some attempt at writing, some of THOSE people are starting to rethink what they've taken for granted and are looking at it in new ways. It is Tillich's New Possibility in nascent form, slowly taking place. That would NOT suit those who breathe easier in a totally faithless and hopeless environment any more than it would those who must control their brother's

  thoughts and feelings and, well, control their brothers and sisters, period.

  Does that make any sense to you or did I just strike a painfully hip nerve?

  Permalink Thursday, May 18, 2006 05:35 PM

• Great Job! Now Start Modelling Your Damn Role!

  [Read the article: Return of the brainless hussies]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  Like some others, I found this article pretty well balanced, meaningful and clear. So why am I, resident curmudgeon, even commenting on it? Well, it's this one phrase that seems to have resonated with so many respondents: "Role model." Thanks, you guys over there on the left, for giving us meaningless terms like "role model" and "self esteem" to beat the downtrodden common volk over the collective head with, dangling preposition and all. The only "role models" must be people who have achieved fame, notoriety, advanced degrees and perhaps even martyrdom? Must they all be politicians, scientists or activists (that was redundant, I know) in order to be worthy of "modelling" one's self against? What about a simple set of values which makes one a good and decent person, whether it be the girl who does your nails or the guy who changes your oil because you can no longer figure out how to and besides, you no longer find it "OK" to get your own hands dirty? Could it be an ordinary person with extraordinary virtues? Hell, we are ALL role models. The curse exposed in this article is that those with the least to offer often are the most exposed to the young and impressionable and, of course, vice versa), and that is only, as one respondent pointed out, because they SELL, and this is a commercial-industrial culture in which we live and move and have our specious being.

  So what how does one counter such an overwhelming influence on our young? One thing comes to mind: GET TO KNOW YOUR YOUNG before you eat them. Invest in them a set of values and virtues that will make them want to better the world as a by-product of their existence. Oh...that's what schools are for. I forgot. Given the choice between being Britney Spears or Condoleeza Rice, what the hell do you think most young girls would choose?

  Permalink Friday, May 19, 2006 01:32 AM