Letters to the Editor
David P. Graf
Published Letters: 36 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Salon's Disingenuous Justification
[Read the article: Abu Ghraib and Salon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]While sharing your disgust for what happened at Abu Ghraib, Salon's justification for publishing these new photos was completely disingenuous. We know what happened in that prison. We know that the Bush administration will not take responsibility for its actions there. We know that publishing more photos will not change that. We know that people have died becuase of these photos. And so, what was the point of publishing them?
Don't even get me started on the ethics of putting the lives of our people serving in Iraq at even greater risk. Add to that your use of a jouralistic fig leaf to dodge the wrath of the same fanatics by refusing to publish the Danish cartoons.
I say to Salon's Editors - HAVE YOU NO SHAME!
-
There's a bit more to faith...
[Read the article: I'm a Christian turning agnostic]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Cary Tennis wrote that "reason, not faith, is the bulwark of democracy." Not so. We are giving our assent to a statement of faith whenever we agree with the statement - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." After all, there's nothing in nature, reason or science which says anything about equality and rights. Indeed, there's far more of exploitation than liberty in the history of mankind. These "truths" may have been self-evident to Jefferson and the founders. But, they were acting on faith in the same way that religous people do when affirming their belief in God.
-
Perhaps, we need to rethink the rules
[Read the article: Jobs to where the need is greatest]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think we forget that economics is simply a set of rules designed to an end. That is, we work not for the sake of work in itself, but for the benefits it brings to individuals and society. There's nothing sacrosanct about the rules. They can be changed and have been changed throughout history. For example, at one time slavery played a key role in the economy of our nation. Many people saw nothing wrong is the domination of one group of people over another. Blacks deserved it because they just weren't fit for anything else and slavery brought them the benefits of being exposed to white man's civiilization. Sounds absurd today, doesn't it.
And so, we shouldn't be intimidated when today's advocates of globalization talk about how it's the fault of American workers for losing their jobs to cheap labor overseas. We shouldn't accept that it's a good thing that communities, states and even nations can be devastated by the rules that guide the world's economy. Nor, should we accept that the rules are set in stone.
I can understand that attitude when it comes to religious dogma. But, woe to us when we apply blind faith to the workings of the economy. When economists respond to the bad things happening to people by reciting mantras like "globalization is good", they've made the mistake of confusing slogans with solutions.
Well, I am a conservative Republican who thinks capitalism is a good thing. But, that doesn't mean that everything done in the name of capitalism is a good thing. All I'm saying is that when the game isn't working for people, then it's time to rethink the rules.
-
The danger of confusing Christ and Country
[Read the article: Sinners in the hands of an angry GOP]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When I read about the hate and bile at this conference, it made me wonder if they had forgotten all they learned in Sunday School and church over the years. You can't square hate with Christianity. Jesus said that outsiders would be able to tell who his followers were by their love. The Apostle Paul wrote that nothing we do is of any value if we lack love. He also warned Christians to not use the "weapons of this world" for God's purposes. The Apostle Peter said we should be gentle and respectful in our dealings with others. The Apostle John warned us that we can't claim to love God whom we can't see if we hate our brothers and sisters whom we see (at times) all too well. The brother of Jesus, James, made it clear that our anger doesn't lead to righeousness.
It's a shame that it's gotten to the point in my dealings with skeptics and inquirers that I have to spend time convincing them that one can be a Christian without having to also become a conservative Republican. I am a conservative Republican, but I recognize the difference between Christianity and conservatism. Evidently, many of the people at this conference have confused the two.
-
Staying the course...
[Read the article: Bush's Card trick]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Staying the course is not a good idea when you're heading over a cliff.
-
Victory???
[Read the article: Judge upholds pharmacist's termination]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When the day comes that you are no longer free to follow your conscience, remember how you slimed this pharmacist for doing just that. I say this even though I have no sympathy for his views at all.
-
The same mistake made over and over again...
[Read the article: The disbeliever]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What's the difference between Sam Harris, Jerry Falwell and Osama bin Laden? Not much. All three are true believers. You see that in their contempt for the targets of their wrath. It's easy to lay the blame for the problems of the world at someone else's door. Falwell blames secular humanists. Osama blames the Great Satan. Harris does the same with religious believers. And why not? The technique works. Just ask Ann Coulter.
Simply put - you don't solve problems by blaming someone else or some other group. Instead, you deal with the problem itself.
-
Nonsense is nonsense
[Read the article: The disbeliever]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Tobbar wrote "Logic right back atcha! Can your omnipotent being create something that he cannot unmake? Zing!" In effect, you're asking if God is capable of creating nonsense. One might be pardoned for thinking so given the popularity of TV shows like "American Idol", but the answer is "No"! By definition, it's logically impossible for an immovable object and an irresistible force to both exist at the same time. They exclude each other. To think otherwise is nonsense.