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
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
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
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
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
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
Share this Article
Like this Article
Print this ArticlePrint Article