Letters to the Editor
C. Mosby
Published Letters: 304 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Reactions to Pete's Onion article blog
[Read the article: Area man mistakes Onion story for reality]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Beyond the obvious humor of this incident, it’s also troubling to recognize the core problem that Pete’s initial reaction (and continuing reaction) to the Onion’s article illustrates. The sad, but inescapable, fact is that Pete seems to represent the intransigent, calcified mentality manifested in the recent history of political advocacy in this country. That is: Establish an issue position, demonize the opposition, proselytize and recruit for support; while ignoring, distorting or marginalizing all rational disagreement and alternative viewpoints. This seems especially evident where there is any opportunity for wrapping a layer of religious “conviction” around the issue. The entry of bloggers like Pete into the discourse (and the pathetic state of the MSM) has only accelerated the downward spiral of any rational process potential that may have previously existed. The calcification of the mindset leads to desperately seeking out “documented” support for the beliefs and positions advocated (Ann Coulter, anyone?). Credibility is not questioned if the “support” is consistent with the belief. This episode is an object lesson on the prejudiced position that demands reinforcement and is inconvenienced by any degree of skepticism or countering facts. Despite the volume of responses from people who are amazed and amused at Pete’s response to what should have been an obviously satirical article; is anyone really surprised?
-- C. Mosby
-
On a Mission from God
[Read the article: Abortion under siege in Mississippi]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The first paragraph of this article presents a frightening picture of where this country could be headed.
It is convenient and mentally unchallenging to assign motivation for action (or inaction) to religious “conviction”. So many of the cruel, inhumane and intolerant acts in history have been justified by selective interpretation of religious teachings. These interpretations are frequently at odds with other teachings in the same religious dogma. Much of this behavior has also been self-serving to other interests of those claiming the religious “conviction”. This unfortunate history gives rise to some disturbing questions.
Does anyone else see the creeping parallel between the widening expansion of so-called Christian influence in this government (and the eventual outcome if not reined in) and the state of affairs in countries like Afghanistan where the theocracy-motivated Taliban ruled and is still a factor? Has anyone noticed the intractability of positions taken by opponents (See the Israeli- Hezbollah hostilities as recent evidence) where religious “conviction” is a factor in the equation resulting in the conflict? Is anyone disturbed by the increasing degree to which attempts to exert so-called Christian influence on the shaping of public policy are occurring under this administration?
Merriam-Webster defines theocracy thusly:
1. government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided
2. a state governed by a theocracy
Does anyone remember that George W. Bush has been quoted as stating that he was driven to seek the presidency by divine guidance and has gone to war on “orders from God”?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37944-2003Jun26?
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2005/092905Hussain.shtml
Does anyone else think that such statements have the potential to intensify attacks on U.S. troops in places like Iraq?
Does anyone believe that a dissenter in this country is going to be significantly better off than a dissenter in Afghanistan under the Taliban if the apparent objective of Christo-fascists (Thanks, Mrs. Dendrio) is achieved?
-
Re: Fenella's last post
[Read the article: Israel's debacle, courtesy of Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Fenella, Fenella, Fenella!!!
Get a grip, please!
You “don’t think most african americans care for the survival of israel”? You “don’t think that hipanics (sic) care about it”? “they don’t have that traditional connection as other americans”?
What is “that traditional connection” you speak of? Covert winking at Nazi atrocities against Jews before, during and after World War II? Sanctioning and subsidizing of escaping Nazis to South America? Membership in the KKK? Where are your facts to support what you think?
You postulate that “those groups are increasing in number”. Further, you speculate that if you compound that phenomenon by “add(ing) to them a lot of anti semites”; the result could be “that isreael (sic) is lost”?
This is exactly the kind of attribution of motivation (or lack of motivation) to groups and classes of people based on ethnicity, religion or cultural bent that has historically driven right wing philosophy in support of its objectives and has contributed heavily to the cause of continuous turmoil in the world. When all else fails, fear “of those different from us” is the always available and trusty weapon.