FEAR OF GOD
Re: Hal G.P. Colebatch’s
Those Odd Atheist Bus-Slogans:
I was very troubled reading this article and the links to atheism
to Nazism are not only false but highly insulting. This kind of
article belongs in a church newsletter and not pretending to be a
proper article. I hope that you will move it to the trash can or
at least mark it very distinctly as an opinion. To put such
information forward as truth is hopefully irregular and will not
occur again. Thank you for your time.
Your livid reader,
— D.J. Mealor
Mr. Colebatch wonders about those hostile atheist advertisements
since, as he argues, religion was essential to the birth of
science and may even have nurtured it. That might be, but Mr.
Colebatch should realize that right now there’s a religious war
on science. The main front of that war is the theory of evolution
and if it wasn’t for that war, atheists would scarcely be
thinking about religious people. The very real hostility of
atheists and scientists toward religion is the direct outcome of
that war on science.
For most people religion as well as non-religion are personal
with no need to confront anyone about it. But when religious
people use political means to subvert the scientific method it is
no longer personal. The theory of evolution is as scientifically
established as the theory of gravity, but all over the U.S.
religious people are working to force ignorant biblical
interpretations onto students in schools in complete defiance of
scientific explanations. Religious people should expect some
reaction, and I believe the signs on the buses are part of that.
And it’s only going to get worse. There is a large presence of
scientists and atheists on the Internet with a growing
conversation there about the religious assault on science. If the
religions don’t back off on the teaching of evolution, expect
more recrimination.
— Ron Schoenberg
Seattle, Washington
Thanks for publishing Mr. Colebatch’s great arguments. I would
like to share a different tack, more of an invitation:
My, how Greek we are. Sounds almost Epicurean. But then these
same people have been declaring (and depicting) Christianity to
be equivalent to or even worse than Stoicism.
Maybe we are becoming hedonistic. Or maybe we are just devolving
to the animals that Darwin says we are.
Paul definitely described our natural tendencies as putting us
apart from God. When we intentionally forsake God, it must take a
Herculean effort to truly maintain God’s morality. It is pretty
hard even with God’s help. So much easier to attack the source of
those morals and those who would at least try to uphold them.
Sin brings separation from God. That alone is painful enough. But
it does not end there. Sinful acts actually cause pain to us and
to others. Pain is a natural part of life, but we sure don’t need
to keep heaping more pain upon the world by our acts. And a
natural consequence of hedonistic life is a hollow emptiness.
I give full props to those atheists who can live so as to resist
their natural proclivities that would cause their lives to be
hollow, empty and full of pain.
But I ask all, the good, and those who would try to destroy the
faith of others, to open their minds to the possibility there can
be more than that in this life.
There is true joy through faith, through seeking God and living
the life that God would want us to live. A much deeper joy than
the hollow joys found in lasciviousness. Plus, the Holy Spirit is
a comforter in times of pain.
Like in that “Foot Steps” poem, God will help any and all. He
will even help those who don’t ask and turn away. Deep pain does
tend to make us a little self-centered, but He knows, and He is
good that way.
And He has given us a way to overcome the distance we put between
us and Him, as well as the shame that would drive us away. Like
the aforementioned poem, John 3:16 has become clichéd, but it
does say it very well.
So put aside your pride, your resentment and your grudges. Open
your minds. And check Him out. You may just find that your heart
opens up too, with many wonderful things that will follow.
— James Bailey
STRIANGULATION
Re: Jay D. Homnick’s Doing
the Limbaugh:
Democrats are not “triangulating” Rush Limbaugh, these carefully
poisonous statements are the opening salvos in the justification
of the censorship that is coming. Mr. Limbaugh is being portrayed
as an unfeeling, unprincipled, attack dog who will tell any
monstrous lie in order to advance his own self interest. These
attacks will continue frequently until the economic mess caused
by Messrs. Frank and Dodd is “fixed.” This fix will occur in the
spring of this year. (Please do not look for actual results from
this fix. Democrats are not required to produce any outcomes.
They are required to say they’ve done something in order to get
credit for the accomplishment.)
Thereafter it will be decided to stop the toxic talk of Mr.
Limbaugh. Mr. Limbaugh will be required to surrender a
considerable portion of his airtime to a lying liberal
spokesperson.…
Can you not hear the clarion cry? “This legislation or rulemaking
will NOT be censorship. It will NOT impinge or end freedom of
speech. The purpose of the legislation will be to mend our torn,
ragged National fabric, shredded by the bigoted, hate filled
speech of the Nazi right wing. This Act will heal the vicious
tooth and claw wounds of lies and distortions that separated us
during the criminal presidency of George W. Bush. This act will
encourage the free exchange of ideas that are worthy, and
represent America’s finest values, not the hate filled rantings
of a right wing Nazi.”
Watch carefully. A lie told often enough, by enough unprincipled
leaders, will do the duty of truth.
— Jay Molyneaux
North Carolina
In your article on Rush, you said, “Goldwater’s continued
presence in the Senate was something Johnson counted on to round
up moderate Republicans.” How was that possible? Goldwater left
his senate seat to run for president in 1964 and he didn’t return
to the Senate until January, 1969, when Johnson was already
leaving the White House after the voters in New Hampshire and
Wisconsin said, “No More Years!”
— Michael Skaggs
Murray, Kentucky
WANNA BET?
Re: Daniel J. Flynn’s Hell
Hath No Fury:
Excuse me, I am but an uneducated hick from NC but it is articles
like this that chap my “xxx”. We are in a horrible mess here in
the ole USA. Your acerbic and erudite knowledge of the history of
the Kennedy Dynasty might enthuse your staff there at TAS but it
is just a bunch of worthless poppycock by an over educated
Dunhill. In fact we are in a mess because of you over-educated
dunghills of all stripes in the democratic and republican
political beltway sewage field.
Nero fiddling while Rome burns, is what you are up there at TAS
and NRO and HE and the rest. We are up against it my man. Get a
grip. I bet the lot of you don’t own a decent rifle and square
shot, must less a hunting dog. The Kennedys do not matter. Teddy
boy does not matter. Obama does not matter. Yes I said it. THEY
DO NOT MATTER. It is the press, my friend, not to put too fine a
point on it.
The Press which is running us into the muck and mire of
socialism. An the lot of overeducated “pus faces” that inhabit
Wall Street, bank leadership, union leadership and politics.
Education and the press has run this country down. Down into
Stalin and Lenin’s pockets and panties.
You all up there are turning into a bunch of shirtwaists and
bilious boonies. Get a grip. Show some stones.
Excuse me. Just had to get it said.
— Katherine Lambert
WHAT’S LOVE GOT TO DO WITH IT?
Re: Brian Broker’s letter (under “Compassionate Plea”) in Reader
Mail’s Bushwacked,
Part III:
Brian Broker trots out a version of the old abortion as
compassion argument: “…faced with a difficult pregnancy and the
possibility of a life for the fetus/baby of profound sickness and
pain a loving mother is confronted with an impossible choice.” He
goes on, “Their desire to choose [abortion] stems not from
self-interest but from a profound love for their unborn child.”
He ends saying that we should count ourselves fortunate we aren’t
in that loving mother’s shoes and have compassion for those
mother’s who have to make abortion their choice.
It is difficult to know from his letter exactly what Mr. Broker’s
broader point is. Is it the availability of abortion should be
curtailed in most instances but reserved for those special cases
such as the one he outlines? Or is it that if you allow some
abortions then you must allow them all? Is he saying that the
“hard case” abortion he relates in his letter is in fact
emblematic of all abortions?” Mr. Broker doesn’t say and one
suspects that silence may be deliberate.
In fact, Mr. Broker has constructed his argument to frame the
abortion issue as a matter of heartlessness vs. compassion. That
is, the pro-abortionists are the kind hearted champions of those
mired in the human condition while Pro-lifers are the
narrow-minded, two dimensional, self-righteous s.o.b.’s who set
themselves up to render cold judgment upon their fellow brothers
and sisters with no acceptance for human frailty. Somehow, we are
to relent and change our views because this hypothetical mother
is wringing her hands all the way to the abortionist’s table.
All our anguish and handwringing shed little light upon whether
abortion is an injustice toward the unborn. There is no question
that life is complex and messy and much of the time we have no
solutions but only tradeoffs. But we complexify far too readily
when a simple question gets to the heart of the matter. Direct
answers often mean a harder life to live, doing what we don’t
want to do and going where we’d rather not go.
Women who are seeking abortions are human beings and as such they
have the whole array of thoughts and responses. Some do feel
anguish while others are indifferent. Some are horrified while
others can’t believe this is what all the shouting is about. Some
feel remorse and regret afterward while others look upon their
abortions as a positive good. Rarely are any of these truly evil.
Rarely are their consciences dead. But are they misguided?
Perhaps the truth is that terminating a gestating life for
whatever reason is not their choice to make.
— Mike Dooley
QUACK POLITICS
Re: Joe Bialek’s letter (under “Count Me Out of the Cult”) in
Reader Mail’s Bushwacked,
Part III:
I have just read Mr. Bialek’s letter captioned “Count Me Out of
the Cult.” I am compelled to write in to say that I believe that
Mr. Duck would have defeated the Republican candidate by a wider
margin than Mr. Obama. Personally, I would have cast my ballot
for Mr. Duck.
— Reid Bogie
Waterbury, Connecticut
