The American Spectator : Soto-may-or May Not Be a Disaster

Print Email

Text Size

Reader Mail

Soto-may-or May Not Be a Disaster

6.5.09 @ 6:01AM

Readers pile on Sonia some more. Whither SSM? Left Coast blues. Plus more.

(Page 4 of 4)

HIT THE BOTTOM AND ESCAPE
Re: Joseph Lawler's The Salvaging of Notre Dame:

This dilemma of choosing correctly is as old as Adam and Eve. Notre Dame' Catholicism stands on the nexus between worldly adoration and the word of God. It has to make as choice, for as the good book teaches, "No one can serve two masters, because either he will hate one and love the other, or be loyal to one and despise the other." The administration of Notre Dame has a long and inglorious history of choosing the temporal over the eternal, but as long as one lives, be the one an institution, state or man, a chance of redemption exists. Honoring President Obama may have been Notre Dame hitting the bottom (or so a good Catholics can hope) but many debauched have found their way to glory only after bottoming out. Notre Dame may have time to make new choices, but it would be wise for it to remember that none knows the hour or the day when a choice will be the last one.
-- I.M. Kessel

REDUCTIO AD HITLERUM
Re: Jeffrey Lord's Answering Peggy Noonan: Why Sotomayor Should Withdraw:

There is one very reliable test for racism that I suggest -- take quotes by Adolf Hitler on race, nationality, soil and blood and compare them to what the test subject is saying. The fewer the differences, the more likely that you can safely describe them as a racist. Sonia Sotomayor does not pass this test, there are differences of degree, but too many similarities to be excused -- and certainly not for somebody aspiring to sit on the highest court in the land. It is an appalling indictment of liberalism that somebody so intellectually shallow can be considered for such a position.
-- Christopher Holland
Canberra, Australia

Page: ‹ First < 2 34

Letter to the Editor View all comments (4) | Leave a comment

IMKessel| 6.5.09 @ 8:28AM

Ms. Neely,

One can be held legal, morally and ethically responsible for inciting violence, but the First Amendment (a big deal to the readers of TAS, Libertarians and Conservative) allows for the free exchange of ideas. (The Democrats don’t seem to be as impressed, after all, they are the ones who proposed and continue to support The Fairness Doctrine.) People like Scott Roeder abase and abuse freedom, and a just society imprisons them for their transgression. No one but Roeder and his accomplices are responsible for his violence.

What your letter suggests is that the free exchange of ideas is dangerous. And you are right. Like a weapon held by an improperly trained person, ideas can cause damage, but life itself is dangerous. Maybe, sadly, the minds of the people can be controlled, but the loss of free thought would outweigh the benefits to the nth degree. Ironically, the very people who wish to control the thoughts of others are often the most thoughtless of all.

J.C.Eaton| 6.5.09 @ 12:23PM

Ms. Neely: If your brain-dead observation about universal guilt with respect to Tiller is valid, then you, madam, are responsible for all the liberal pestilence that has swarmed this once great nation. Carry the burden painfully.