Posted 4 months, 16 days ago in 
Loading ...
I have disagree with a couple of points The Daily Sentinel made in its editorial concerning the demand by a few to end invocations at city council meetings.
I do agree with the editorial in that the Atheists of Western Colorado group needs to get a life. What I disagree with is the statement that “their (the atheist group) agenda is no different from that of any evangelist. They are on a mission to force their beliefs on the rest of us.” If the editorial had said “a few evangelists,” I would not dispute that. I, however, do not know of one evangelist who even begins to think that they can force by law, the love and salvation that is offered up by Jesus on any one.
MARK SMITH
Grand Junction
182 Responses to “No evangelist believes he can force the law”
Posted May 23rd, 2008 at 12:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr Smith
At some point you may decide that it is necessary to discover the origin of the “group of 13″, funding etc. It may be helpful to you to go to Koinonia Church (GJ) web page and check out all of the links. If you discover any information from any source that you feel might be helpful to others, please post online addressed to one.voice. We will see that they get it.
Posted May 23rd, 2008 at 12:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I have known a tiny handful of atheists to be evangelical in trying to convince others that what they believe is true; they are a minor annoyance.
That is nothing compared to the throngs of well organized evangelical “Christians” who are intent on instilling their beliefs into the law of the land, devastating lives in the process. The quest to ban gay marriage is a prime example.
Posted May 23rd, 2008 at 12:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh yeah and one.voice … why don’t you go rent some more spy movies.
Posted May 23rd, 2008 at 1:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
This letter by Mark Smith is so far removed from the truth that at first I thought he was trying to be satirical. The perpetual push to instill Creationism as part of the curriculum in our schools is by itself enough to give the lie to Smith’s statement to the effect that evangelicals do not engage in that behavior. (Of course his actual statement said that he did not know any evangelicals who engaged in that behavior and that may be literally true, but beside the point).
Posted May 23rd, 2008 at 1:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Jeezus help us. What a ridiculous letter from our former Sheriff. Beware - these are the people who get elected in Mesa County. So says Ricky, “When the first settlers landed on the shores of this continent, they gave thanks and prayed.” Was that right before they slaughtered the native Americans?
And I’m certain all 900 of the faithful prayed right before pounding the KoolAid in Jonestown, Guyana. No doubt the warehouse church thumbsuckers pray heavily when John McCain’s spiritual mouthpiece (Pastor Rod Parsley) routinely calls Islam “the greatest religious enemy of our civilization and the world,” claiming that the historic mission of America is to see “this false religion destroyed.”
Fortunately there is a ray of hope for America, as Christine Wicker (veteran Texas newspaper reporter) found out after hearing the latest Pew survey on the USA religious landscape: when she started looking into the numbers on church attendance, she found that researchers could vouch for only 18 percent of Americans being regular churchgoers—less than half the accepted figure.
“The idea that evangelicals are taking over America is one of the greatest publicity scams in history,” Wicker concludes, “a perfect coup accomplished by savvy politicos and religious leaders, who understand media weaknesses and exploit them brilliantly.”
So, the Religious Right, I mean Wrong, are clearly the VOCAL MINORITY with way too much time on their hands.
Posted May 24th, 2008 at 6:49 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Is it “religion” itself that is at issue or is it the use to which some would put religion? It is, I would submit, the latter.
Some become offended when I say: If you have to tell me that you are a “Christian” in order for me to know, you are not “Christian”, at least anything resembling what I learned of what constitutes the essence of “Christianity”. And that requires a very large dose of humility, something that is found sorely lacking in those most vocal about their “Christianity.” Quite frequently, the exact opposite it the truth. Their cry is “I am Christian and therefore superior.”
Religion can be imposed upon others in several ways, directly and indirectly. The direct method would be to “legislate” it. Some, such as Mike Huckabee, a former candidate for the Republican nomination for president, Mr. Huckabee, would have no problem with doing so. Others are not so direct.
The other method is the indirect one. That occurs when some would use their “religious” convictions as the basis for laws. The method may be different but the results would be the same, and so would the consequences.
As to public prayer, I would ask the following question of those who would engage in it: Are you engaging in “public prayer” because you are “Christian”, or are you doing so to have others believe that you are? Given the behavior of many following such public invocations, it would appear that many are engaged in the latter.
The Daily Sentinel editorial writers also need to exercise extreme care when referring to “tyranny” by a minority. There is also “tyranny of the majority” which, as many have forewarned us, in no less onerous than one imposed by a minority.
Posted May 24th, 2008 at 9:09 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
For more info on GJ Sentinel story
PHOTOGRAPHER, EX COP, WITH SHADY PAST WORKING IN GJ
By Mike Saccone and Amy Hamilton (local news/B1,Saturday, May 24, 2008)
go to the Colorado Springs Gazette, archives for Feb. 13, 2005 “Fetish Costs Cop Job”
THE QUESTION ON EVERY PARENTS MIND SHOULD BE, “DID THIS MAN USE HIS POSITION AS A CONTRIBUTING PHOTOGRAPHER FOR THE FREE PRESS TO GAIN ACCESS TO, AND TAKE IMPROPER PHOTOS OF YOUNG ATHLETES ON THE WESTERN SLOPE?
According the above archived story he used his police badge for just such a purpose.
The second question on every parents mind should be “Why has the western slope and GJ in particular, become a magnet for this type of person?”
Posted May 24th, 2008 at 10:06 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ya just gotta love Bob from Delta…
“The Daily Sentinel editorial writers also need to exercise extreme care when referring to “tyranny” by a minority. There is also “tyranny of the majority” which, as many have forewarned us, in no less onerous than one imposed by a minority. ”
Trying to threaten the newspaper that provides the forum to spew forth his venomous attacks on anybody, and everybody that disagrees with any of his positions.
Once again he places them in the position of determining whether or not this intellectual giant(in his own mind) actually presents a possible financial liability at some point in the future, and should the management of said news paper continue to run the risk of such a possible financial loss to the owners/shareholders.
Or, should they act to limit that risk by removing his access to their very own privately owned website?
One does, I suppose, appreciate his pluckiness.
(maybe not his good judgment)
Posted May 24th, 2008 at 12:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RLaitres: In order for one to practice hypocrisy, one must embrace a “belief” in something bigger than oneself. Elitists have no morals, therefore they personally escape the label of hypocrisy, as applied to the practice of religion. If one is not a Christian, and is a practicing homosexual, lesbian, murderer, thief, liar, etc., then there is no hypocrisy. It sort of simplifies things for their personal existence. Your own comment criticizing Christians: “I am a Christian, therefore I am superior” is the hypocrisy of your belief system. When “judging” Christians as hypocrites, you are being hypocritical, by the implication that you are “better than Christians” because you are not being judgmental. Right?
Without law, how do we know the difference between right and wrong? For Christians and Jews, God’s law never changes. Our government bases our law upon God’s law. When one violates a law, one is disobedient to God first, and man second. Since we are accountable to God, how do we reconcile our disobedience to Him? We can’t, but Christ does. Christian’s accept Christ’s sacrificial death as a substitute for our own spiritual death sentence, thereby becoming reconciled with God, through Christ. That makes Christ superior, not those who believe what he said and did.
We are still accountable to man, so how do we reconcile our disobedience to the law of man? Through the enforcement of the law first, then by sentence during the punishment phase. When a majority of people vote to change the law to avoid conviction for whatever that group enjoys violating, such as using drugs, or practicing homosexuality or adultery, then there would be no accountability to man because the law would not exist. Yet, it is still a clear violation of God’s law, where accountability does exist. Therefore, atheists protest the invocation by elected officials, homosexuals lobby for decriminalization of their sexual practices, and ask for a label of “normalcy” where their marriage is concerned. Drug users lobby for decriminalization of drug law, while adulterers decriminalize their pet sin under the law. Those who become pregnant during the practice of promiscuity, prostitution, or sex for illegal drugs, want no government interference with a decision to get an abortion, yet they want the government to foot the bill. Can you not see the hypocrisy of such nonsense?
An invocation by elected officials at a public meeting is no more an establishment of religion, directly or indirectly, than the practice of NOT invoking God’s blessing on a meeting. By outlawing the invocation, the established religion would become secular humanism. If an elected board were to pray to Gaia, pagans would be satisfied while Christians, atheists, and humanists may not respond on one side the argument or the other. Yet it would be legal for the elected board to pray to a pagan god. I would simply choose not to be present for the invocation. If the government, on the other hand, passed a law prohibiting the practice, it would be an establishment of religion, (atheism, or secular humanism)which would clearly be unconstitutional. The place to make changes is at the ballot box, not the courtroom.
BTW, by asking God’s blessing before a public meeting, couldn’t one just as rightly argue that the elected officials are showing humility by recognizing that God is superior to them? I suppose it depends on one’s personal perspective, based on one’s moral/social/spiritual beliefs, or lack of them.
We are all hypocrites, Rlaitres. It is a universal truth, and a poor foundation upon which to base one’s argument that Christianity is worse than atheism. For what it’s worth, praying publicly was criticized by Christ himself, and he referred to certain religious zealots as hypocrites. I can think of no example where Christ prayed publicly, except before meals, in the synagogue, and during the passover feast. Why? To avoid the appearance of hypocrisy among unbelievers. A timeless example, in my opinion.
Posted May 24th, 2008 at 1:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Adam Henry,
I just tried to explain what you just explained to Scott. I thought I had made my point, until I read your post. I believe that was the most eloquent explanation that I have ever heard. I am going to print a hard copy, frame it and put it on my wall. And each time I look at it, I will remember that some things just need to be said. I may not have the ability to say them, but I certainly can recognize someone that does. Thank you, and God Bless You
Posted May 24th, 2008 at 1:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Both replies, one by WLS and AdamHenry missed the central question. That is: Is it “religion” itself that many object to, or is it the “use” to which some would put religion?
For some, drawing that distinction is impossible. As a result, any criticism in the “use” of religion is an attack upon religion itself. That is truly sad.
As to hypocrisy, I would disagree that all are hypocrites. The fact that I disagree with someone makes neither me nor the other person a “hypocrite”. It is simply that we may believe different things. A hypocrite is one who preaches one thing then behaves in an exactly opposite manner. That reduces to demanding from others what one is not prepared to first demand of oneself. And that applies in many areas.
WLS interprets “cautioning” of Daily Sentinel as somehow being a “threat.” Were the gentleman capable of understanding that cautionary advice is not a threat, he might not have made such a statement. However, given that the he is so prone to what only be called a “Pavlovian” reaction when encountering even a word or name, one should not be disappointed with it in this case.
Posted May 24th, 2008 at 1:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AdamHenry-You state; “When one violates a law, one is disobedient to God first, and man second.”
Nonsense. When on breaks a secular law, society only recognizes that a secular law has been broken. Being “disobedient to God” has significance only to those who believe it has significance. To non-believers, “God’s law” simply doesn’t exist. Breaking secular law has practical consequences; breaking “God’s law” only has practical consequences if one is living in a theocracy, and “thank God,” we don’t! (no matter how much the religious right would like us to be).
Posted May 24th, 2008 at 3:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
OK, who makes this stuff up?
Bob from Delta said:
” WLS interprets “cautioning” of Daily Sentinel as somehow being a “threat.” Were the gentleman capable of understanding that cautionary advice is not a threat, he might not have made such a statement. ”
Which begs the question, ‘why is Bob from Delta offering free ‘cautionary advice’ to the editorial staff of the Daily Sentinel?’
To perhaps save them from losing valuable readers?
They have printed editorials from both sides of the political spectrum for so long that I seriously doubt they are going to lose any readers, and in fact may sell a few more papers.
It’s a thinly veiled threat intended to cause a sense of foreboding in the hearts and minds of the editorial staff, and for no other reason.
And then there is this little tidbit:
” However, given that the he is so prone to what only be called a “Pavlovian” reaction when encountering even a word or name, one should not be disappointed with it in this case. ”
Uh, Bob from Delta?
I’m not the one with a ’spittle on the computer monitor’ problem.
And in answer to this query:
” Both replies, one by WLS and AdamHenry missed the central question. That is: Is it “religion” itself that many object to, or is it the “use” to which some would put religion? ”
It’s the whole demonizing of religion.
Lenin demonized religion and murdered millions of Believers of all faiths, followed by Stalin, who found even more reasons to murder millions people.
At the same time of the Stalin era in Russia, there arose a person of great power, who disarmed the citizens of Germany, demonized religion to the point that it became acceptable to murder Jews by the millions, as well as and Christians that chose to try to protect any Jews that escaped the Nazis.
So, Bob from Delta, why are you making an effort to demonize any religion?
Got a Lenin/Stalin/Hitler complex going on inside your head?
Posted May 24th, 2008 at 3:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh, I forgot to ask Bob, what is your stance on gun control?
Posted May 24th, 2008 at 3:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
You might want to look at the facts with regard to your claim about Hitler.
Hitler persecuted the Jews because they killed Jesus. Try reading Mein Kampf. Hitler was a Roman Catholic (never excommunicated, by the way) and the SS wore uniforms that had “God Is With Us” in the belt buckles. He also sent atheists to the concentration camps. He didn’t demonize religion, he used it as a justification.
He also denounced Darwin’s ideas because the concept of a common ancestor didn’t fit too well with the idea of a Master Race. Darwin’s books were burned along with the others.
Posted May 24th, 2008 at 3:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Message 9 from AdamHenry is so full of hypocrisy and bigotry and hate that it is difficult to know where to begin. So let us just focus on one statement which is a kind of lightning rod for the whole sorry commentary.
AdamHenry writes: “…homosexuals lobby for decriminalization of their sexual practices…” Tell us Mr. AdamHenry, which particular Colorado statute criminalizes homosexual behavior?
AdamHenry just does not get it. He fails to realise that no one has any objections to Christians or anyone else praying to whatever supernatural being of their choice in the snctity of their home or place of worship. What nearly every rational American objects to is the forcing of one cult’s religion down our throats which is what happens when a public meeting supported by the taxpayers of every religious inclination is made the forum for the expression of prayers to a particular brand of religion.
Posted May 24th, 2008 at 3:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Johnson again misses the point even if it is repeated for him in a clear and concise way. Had he had carefully read both of my previous posts, as well as any and all of my previous letters on the separation of church and state, he would have noted that not a single word was ever spoken against any religion, never mind demonize any of them. That point either eludes him, or he simply cannot admit to it.
As to totalitarian regimes and religion, those in charge of such regimes frequently “use” religion for their purposes, and will allow religions to exist, but only as long as they are useful to their purposes or, at the very least, the “religion” does not interfere with the regime’s political agenda.
Mr. Johnson refers to the Germany of the NAZI period, but apparently does so without having studied much of the history dealing with the period. Otherwise, he would have known that organized “religion” contributed much to its rise and, in other cases provided the “moral” grounds for the NAZI progroms, not only against Jews but other segments of the population as well.
As to “guns”, which is really a diversionary subject in this case, and the position has been previously explained.
Posted May 24th, 2008 at 3:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
you mean he did all them things in the name of God? Just like the radical muslims are doing now?
WOW!!!
who’da ever guessed.
The Vatican couldn’t excommunicate Hitler, because too many people might have told the rest of the world how many art treasures wandered into the confines of the Vatican and other Catholic ’strongholds’ so to speak. (but, I can’t prove that, so you didn’t hear it from me)
Posted May 24th, 2008 at 3:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott: “You might want to look at the facts with regard to your claim about Hitler.”
Scott, WLJ never lets the facts get in the way of his arguments, as he demonstrates in spades in this instance.
Posted May 24th, 2008 at 3:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
Yes, he did. Contrary to all those who claim he was an atheist who was inspired by Darwin, or those who claim he demonized religion.
Classof52,
I know, but it’s so fun watching him shift the goalposts every time he’s shown to be wrong.
Posted May 24th, 2008 at 3:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
naw, the goalposts remain in the same place, your perspective shifts.
uh… does either of you know, or realize where the goalposts are?
Or even what the goal is?
Posted May 24th, 2008 at 6:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“naw, the goalposts remain in the same place, your perspective shifts.”
Right, that’s why you switched to demanding a mid-length necked giraffe in the evolution thread after you claimed no short necked giraffes existed and I showed you the Okapi. No goalpost shifting there.
In this case, he claims Hitler demonized religion, then agrees that he did it in the name of God. No goalpost shifting there either.
You’ve been shown to be wrong so many times your goalposts aren’t even in the same city as the stadium.
Posted May 24th, 2008 at 11:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
No scott, the Okapi is not a short necked giraffe, I nver quit asking why there are no mid length necked giraffes, you kept finding excuses for why they all died off without explaining how the normal Giraffe made it if all the intermediate Giraffes died off for all the reasons you came up with.
Hitler demonized religions, and disarmed the people to lessen anybodies ability to resist.
You have made no effort to refute my comparison between you and the boys and Lenin, Stalin, Idi Amin, Hitler, etc.
Why not? Too accurate?
You have no idea what the goals of this particular game are, much less where the goalposts are located.
Now, about you position on The Second Amendment and gun control in general.
Posted May 24th, 2008 at 11:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“No scott, the Okapi is not a short necked giraffe, I nver quit asking why there are no mid length necked giraffes, you kept finding excuses for why they all died off without explaining how the normal Giraffe made it if all the intermediate Giraffes died off for all the reasons you came up with.”
Well, biologically, taxonomically, genetically and morphologically, the okapi IS a short necked giraffe. Perhaps your standards are a touch too high. And I gave good reasons why there are no mid-length necked giraffes, you simply don’t accept them because of your misconceptions about evolution.
“Hitler demonized religions, and disarmed the people to lessen anybodies ability to resist.”
Right. That’s why the SS had “God is with us” on their belt buckles.
“You have made no effort to refute my comparison between you and the boys and Lenin, Stalin, Idi Amin, Hitler, etc.
Why not? Too accurate?”
Too laughable. You mean you were serious?
“Now, about you position on The Second Amendment and gun control in general.”
Does it really matter? You will simply twist my words and deride me regardless of what I say. It’s irrelevant anyway.
Posted May 25th, 2008 at 12:05 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
” “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Joseph Goebbels ”
Anything else you require Scott?
Posted May 25th, 2008 at 7:21 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sure. How about some evidence that anyone here has lied?
Repeating an assertion over and over and over does not make it true.
Posted May 25th, 2008 at 7:30 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
The difference between theory and reality. The theory is if you establish that a liberal is anti second amendment, you can engage him in a debate, and possibly change his mind or the minds of the fence-sitters who are watching the debate. Thirty or forty years ago this might have been seen as a viable plan. In today’s world, there are very few fence sitters. The vast majority of the population belong to one camp or the other.
There is only one argument that I have found successful in motivating anti-second amendment advocates to rethink their position. I tell them “I have my gun, and I would just as soon you didn’t have one.” “In fact, to that end, I too am in favor of gun control”. The result, instant epiphany. now, that’s reality.
Posted May 25th, 2008 at 8:23 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott-While “repeating an assertion over and over does not make it true,” doesn’t mean people will not perceive an assertion as truth. This is what happen in Germany during the 1930’s, and elsewhere through history. Sadly, most people are “sheep” who will believe either what they want to believe or are conditioned to believe. “Brainwashing” human beings into believing the most outlandish things is actually very easy - religious dogma is a perfect example.
Posted May 25th, 2008 at 8:33 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Like saying “evolution is a religion” over and over again. He’s obviously convinced himself.
Posted May 25th, 2008 at 9:13 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sorta like the oft repeated lie of “The Wall of Separation of Church and State” being in the Constitution.
The ’separation of church and state worked very nicely under Lenin, Stalin, etc.
The communist party was the only religion allowed.
All others were moved to Siberia, or disappeared into black holes they jokingly referred to as ‘prisons’ or the ‘retraining’ camps.
Posted May 25th, 2008 at 9:19 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
And this proves what? That Stalin and Lenin were bad guys? No argument. No one is advocating that here.
No one has claimed that the words “Wall of Separation” are in the Constitution. Those words were coined by Thomas Jefferson to describe the effect the First Amendment has.
Really, Willis. Try to at least get your opponents arguments right. All these strawmen just make you look bad.
Posted May 25th, 2008 at 9:30 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott-As usual, the moderator of the “Willis Show” is somewhat amiss in his history. His statement “The communist party was the only religion allowed” is patently false. Neither the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), nor Communist ideology itself was ever considered the “religion” of the Soviet state - atheism was. As an aside, within the Soviet Union, the Russian Orthodox Church was allowed to remain, although rigidly controlled by the state.
Posted May 25th, 2008 at 10:45 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
You are absolutely correct, Sugarfoot, Atheism is the belief of choice of Communists. I believe that was Willis’s point. What are your thoughts on severely restricting freedom of speech? Would you see that the same as not having a first amendment?
What are your thoughts on exemptions to ATV access restrictions for the elderly and the disabled?
What are your thoughts on Trophy hunting versus meat hunting?
Do you believe that parents or the state should determine what and how the children are taught?
There are no traps here. I’m just trying to find out if there is any common ground.
Posted May 25th, 2008 at 11:37 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
So if I like chocolate and Stalin liked chocolate that makes me a bloody Communist. Interesting attempt at logic, a.p. Better go back to school.
Posted May 25th, 2008 at 1:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yes, it was Willis’s point, but it is a completely irrelevant one. So the communists embraced atheism. So what? The Christians had the Inquisition. DOes that mean Christianity is invalid?
Posted May 25th, 2008 at 1:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
American_patriot- If Willis’ point was to indicate that atheism is the religious belief of choice of Communists, he didn’t express it very well. But then, his use of the English language tends to be fairly rudimentary much of the time.
As for freedom of speech, I fully support the First Amendment.
Don’t know enough about the ATV situation to have an informed opinion.
I have no problem with trophy hunting for big game, although I’m a wing shooter myself.
It would be nice if all parents were intelligent and committed enough to adequately educate their children, but alas, that’s not the case. I was fortunate, my parents could afford to send me to superior schools as well as being committed to enhanced instruction at home. I think the state has a legitimate right to develop reasonable regulations in the area of education - the age-old question is where to draw the line between the interest of the state versus the obligation of parents.
Just in case you want to ask, I aoso believe in the death penalty and second amendment.
Posted May 25th, 2008 at 2:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sugarfoot,
We agree on Freedom of Speech. RE: ATV, I am in favor of exemptions for disabled and the elderly. I disagree on Trophy Hunting. We pretty much agree on education. We agree on the death penalty and the second amendment.
RE: hunting, I too love busting coveys.
Isn’t it amazing how much people agree on when they are of a mind to be agreeable. Most of the things people disagree on are abstract and really have little or no effect on our lives.
PS I disagree with you about Willis, and as you already know I have a thing for Curmudgeon.
Posted May 25th, 2008 at 3:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
american-patriot-I agree that if people would just take a deep breath once in a while, we would find that we have much more in common than we realize. My problem with Willis is that he attacks people personally if he feels one of his core beliefs is being effectively challenged. It’s a diversion (to avoid a true intellectual discussion of ideas and ideologies) I find both intellectually lazy and really bad manners.
Posted May 25th, 2008 at 3:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I can always find common ground with “right wingers” through many ideas currently considered Libertarian.
I should apologize to a.p. about the flaw in logic thing … it was Willis’ flaw not yours
Though I would seriously be fighting you for Curmudgeon if he and I weren’t both married *blush*
Posted May 25th, 2008 at 4:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ashugger-Libertarians are a strange lot to say the least. If you want an eyeopener, read their 2004 national party platform (available on the net). I especially like the part where they want to open all public lands (including national parks) to private “homesteading,” and prohibit the federal government form printing paper currency or minting coins (private banks would print and mint their own money). There are things even stranger. Essentially, the Libertarian philosophy is one of anarchy.
Posted May 25th, 2008 at 4:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sugarfoot, it depends who you ask. Many people who identify themselves as libertarian don’t share all of the current national party ideas, and other people like myself don’t ID themselves as libertarian but share some of the party / philosophy’s values.
Libertarianism advocates individual responsibility and as little government as necessary. Obviously that last bit can be interpreted many different ways. Some might say no government at all is the ideal, hence your (rather narrow) view that it is just about anarchy; others may say the minimum government would include functions like a system of law and administrating National Parks.
Posted May 25th, 2008 at 5:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
ashugger-your points are well taken. I actually agree with a number of Libertarian beliefs including the absolute right of women to choose what happens to their bodies and the decriminalization of currently illegal drugs.
Posted May 25th, 2008 at 5:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
My interrpration of Libertarianism is the Federal Govt. should be in place only for the purpose of maintaining an armed militia but in this day and age in order to be practical you would have to throw in a couple other items such as the interstate highway system, etc. They believe the individual states should do most of the things that the Feds are now doing, including collecting taxes to fund their individual projects. I think if this were actually the case I could go along with it depending on what other issues might arise that I’m overlooking. But yes, I’m sure that their main mantra is for smaller government.
Posted May 25th, 2008 at 5:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I too believe many of the libertarian ideas. And I do think that some of our public lands should be open to homestead, under a program similar to the Desert Entry Program. I grew up on a farm/ranch and I know the hardships involved in making land productive. There are many young Americans with a good work ethic that could benefit from just such a program. Working on the land is not a job, it is a way of life that tends to instill values. It lets a man be his own boss and reap his own harvest. It creates integrity, self reliance and a willingness to help your neighbors. We would all benefit from such a program.
Posted May 25th, 2008 at 6:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The comments of American Patriot demonstrate that the old philosophy of Jean Jacque Rousseau are alive and well.
Posted May 25th, 2008 at 6:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Correction: “is alive and well”
Posted May 25th, 2008 at 9:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The Libertarians, at least many do, have as one of their core tenets that “government” is the problem. With that, I would beg to differ. The real problem is “Who owns the government and its institutions”, and that dear reader is not “the people” and, as such, does not conduct the business of “the people.” So, who is ultimately responsible? We are.
Too many, I fear, do not pay much attention to what is actually happening. They only show up every 2 to 4 years, to vote on referenda or political candidates, then go back to sleep for another 2 or 4 years, in the mistaken notions that their job is done, that government and its officials will act in the interest of the people, and that everything will take care of itself. Those are delusional beliefs.
Our country was founded on the belief that “the people” would care enough to pay attention to government and its activities, It was never meant to be run by “professional politicians”, of any particular party.
Perhaps the burden is “too heavy” for many. If we are not prepared to bear all the burdens of citizenship, we will then get what we deserve.
The quote comes to mind (pardon if I make an error) “Democracy is a mechanism by which people get the government they deserve.” That was true when spoken, and it remains true to this day.
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 6:40 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
By anointing former Republican Congressman Bob Barr as their presidential candidate, the Libertarian Party has just assured that our next president will be a liberal Democrat. Barr will do to John McCain in 2008 what the despicable Ralph Nader did to Al Gore in 2000. Hail President Obama! Withdrawal from Iraq, universal-single payer health care for all Americans and a host of other good things are on their way. As the song says, “Happy Days Are Here Again!”
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 9:07 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Some of us will rejoice, Sugarfoot, but I expect the prevailing mood in Mesa County will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. The majority of voters in this are have proved in the last two elections that they are out of step with the rest of the voters in the State of Colorado, out of touch with the rest of the American public, and on the wrong side of popular sentiment about the Bush regime among the people of the world.
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 11:25 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52-I agree with you totally. The true “poetic justice” here in Mesa County could be that enough right-wingers locally might vote for Bob Barr that not only could Obama be competitive, but there is a reasonable possibility he could come out on top in the final vote count.
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 12:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
A denoument devoutly to be wished!
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 12:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52-I can’t tell you how pleasurable it is to correspond with someone who actually knows how to communicate in the Queen’s English. It’s obvious you are not a graduate either of District 51 or Mesa State College.
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 12:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class,
The above word is not in my dictionary. OK Mr. Professor, what does it mean?
No smart remark here, just a question.
And I have something to ask all of you. If you are old, bad knees, on a fixed income, etc., how do all these environmental set-asides (where you can only walk in), somehow make public land more desirable? If gas prices continue to increase, because we don’t take advantage of our own resources, like hydro-electric, nuclear power, coal, natural gas, oil, etc., then is the fact that I can no longer see my Grandchildren supposed to make me feel better toward you as a group? Do you see yourselves as saving the world? For what?
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 12:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I apologize for not keeping up with this discussion. I have been out of town.
RLaitres is correct that I did not answer his question regarding whether religion is the “problem”, or whether it is how it is used. I’m not sure there is a conscious effort on the part of a majority of practitioners to use religion as a tool for personal agendas. There are those who con others out of their money, which has always been a problem. There are those who use it to gain control through the use of guilt. We are all looking for the truth. Where we err is not reading and studying for ourselves, instead of listening to someone who sounds like he knows what he is talking about. In the end, the truth is whatever we believe it to be in the context of our own experiences. When non-believers preach that I am ignorant because I don’t accept their argument, it is the truth to them, while I think they are blind to the truth, not necessarily ignorant. The only motive I have for sharing my personal views is to give others the opportunity to hear the truth as I see it. If I am wrong, I have lost nothing. If I am right, the non-believers have lost their claim to eternal life. In the meantime, I may be considered ignorant, backward, unsophisticated, or even a right wing nut.
This is just because I believe in something others do not. I realize that being told one is “lost” when refusing to accept the “myth” of Christ causes anger. I can only assume that the label “religious right” and other politically correct terms for ignorance, and unsophistication is a counter-attack designed to put the believers in their proper place.
In the context of the Council praying before a public meeting, I see no guile. It is a matter of tradition, and sends a message to the community that the Council may see themselves as subordinate to the Creator. They have a constitutional right to express such an idea, notwithstanding the offense taken by some.
Message 16 from Class of 52 was rather angry. Your question about where in the Colorado Statutes does it make homosexuality illegal is fair. There are none. These discussions are somewhat universal, not applying only to Colorado in the big picture. In the mid-70’s, homosexuality was indeed illegal in many states. Since that time, most states have decriminalized the practice, largely because of the changing morality of our society. I never said I hate homosexuals, and I think you missed the point. I simply pointed out that our country has changed, and that special interest groups, such as homosexuals, the NRA, the energy industry, ad infinitem have lobbied for changes in the rules to satisfy those desires specific to their own personal agendas. Need I give you instruction on adultery, which was once a felony and has since been decriminalized? Who pushed for such a change? Those who didn’t want to lose their jobs, or go to jail for engaging in it. I don’t hate adulterers, I’m just telling the truth. If you think it is because I am hateful, you are missing the point. I will never have to answer for someone else’s moral decisions, so I really have no ax to grind regarding homosexuals or adulterers. I just find it hypocritical to be angry at council members who pray at an open meeting while the gay rights movement holds parades in our nation’s capital, which is offensive to many more people than a hand full of atheists in Grand Junction. Is it not a freedom of speech issue for both groups? Yet, if I point out a simple truth, I will be labeled hateful. I can handle it, whether or not you concede your own hypocrisy. These freedoms we all have are a double edged sword. It cuts both ways. I could argue that you hate Christians, but what purpose would it serve? The issue here is nothing more than whether the council has the right to pray before an open meeting. There may be an underlying theme of persecution of Christians, but if there is, it has not been plainly stated. It is my opinion that the question raised by the atheists is the epitome of secular hypocrisy.
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 1:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GM6:Class,
The above word is not in my dictionary”
Denoument: “The final outcome of a complex series of events” Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary.
This is a relatively common English word found in most American dictionaries. If it is not in yours, I would be getting a new dictionary.
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 1:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thank you. Actually I am using the Encarta Dictionary online, but I appreciate the definition.
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 1:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AdamHenry,
RE#54
Your comments in your last paragraph are very compelling. I recall the viciousness with which Dr. Laura Schlesinger was attacked by the Gay and Lesbian community for having the temerity to suggest that a person could become “un-gay” through certain forms of counseling. The GLBT folks raged that she should be prevented from saying such things publicly. What hypocrisy that is.
Now, before I am attacked for being a homophobe; I am not. I have many friends and relatives who are gay and I have no quarrel with anyones’ sexual identity. I do, however, reject hypocrisy. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. I do not believe we can be selective about it.
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 2:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc - do you have a source for anyone in the Gay and Lesbian community trying to censor “Dr. Laura”?
If it is true I agree it is wrong. That idiot is allowed to say whatever she wants; besides it just exposes her for what she is.
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 2:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class - I was not familiar with the word denoument either and I have been writing professionally for 16 years. Ya learn something new every day - thanks.
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 2:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AdamHenry: “Message 16 from Class of 52 was rather angry.”
Sorry if I came across as “angry” I do admit to being a bit “exercised” because you talked at length about homosexuality and other practices being in violation of Gods Laws. You may wish to read my column in the free press tomorrow morning on the subject of gay marriage, but one quote from that column is relevant here.
“The Christian religious right often argues that there is a moral stricture against the practice of homosexuality and they cite biblical verse from Leviticus in support of this view. I might begin to take these folks seriously when they start observing with equal fervor other biblical injunctions such as the ones which command parents put to death children who curse them (Exodus 21:15, 2:17, Leviticus 20:9, and in the New Testament Mark 7:10). Selectively choosing just those biblical laws with which you agree completely undercuts the morality of your position.”
In your latest comment, you compare the demonstrations of the Gay rights group in Washington DC with the Council Members holding prayers before meetings. This is a completely false analogy and is not an issue of free speech at all but rather one of the seperation of Church and State. An open, privately funded meeting in a public thoroughfare is not comparable to a government sponsored meeting funded by taxpayers of every religious persuasion. A more nearly apt analogy would be to compare the Gay rights meetings with the Salvation Army, a religious group raising funds on a public street. No one would have any seperation of Church and State issues with that.
I am neither a Gay nor an atheist (nor do I hate Christians-most of my relatives are Christians of the fundamentalist persuasion and I love them dearly), but plenty of us believe that the prayers before taxpayer supported meetings are simply an expression of the majority religion forcing the rest of us to subscribe to their particular cult. Why not try the experiment of having the prayers of other religions supported by U.S. taxpayers, say the Wiccans or the Muslims) used in such meetings for one year each and observe the responses of the rest of us. Better yet why not practice your religion in the privacy of your homes, in your places of worship or in public meetings not taxpayer supported?
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 2:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ashhugger,
I do not recall the name of the GLBT advocate I heard, years ago, decrying the message of Dr. Laura. I simply noted the hypocritical nature of the interview.
Don’t misunderstand, I am no fan of Dr. Laura Schlesinger. Sexual identity to me is as meaningless as racial identity. Others may fight about it, if they wish.
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 2:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc, first of all “attacking” someone for expressing a hateful view is not necessarily the same as saying they should not “be allowed” to express that view. Without the original source we have to take you at your word …
Also what you first described as “the Gay and Lesbian community” you are now describing as one individual.
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 3:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
DC and Ashhugger: I don’t need a reference to recall the storm of controversy after Dr. Schlessinger’s comments. What baffles me is the double standard we apply to others when we disagree. In post 52, Sugarfoot basks in the glow of his own brilliance, and allows Cof52 to join him. Ashhugger then refers to a PHd as an idiot because of a disagreement with her statements. Why do I get the impression that the only way to converse with these examples of elitism is if we agree with every jot and tittle of their pseudo-intellectual arguments? So much for the open-minded compassion, and lack of judgmental condemnation from the left.
grammasix: History teaches us that the Puritans migrated here to free themselves from religious oppression. But, that wasn’t the only reason for their migration. England was a monarchy with an elitist class of citizens who had total control of their “subjects”. If a man wanted to feed his poor family by hunting, he took a serious gamble because he could go to prison for poaching on the land under control of the elite. The poor could not own land, or anything else, for that matter. When you consider the movement in our government to close federal lands to motorized travel, limit hunting, and then close it off to energy exploration, how does it relate to times past? If only the elite has the wealth to use automobiles, what will happen to the masses? If only the elite can afford horses to go to the public lands where motorized vehicles are prohibited, where will the poor go? Our country is not too far from being a modern “monarchy” in the sense that only the elite, who are so much more educated, sophisticated, and wealthy will be in control of the land, the energy, the law, the religion, and thus the total socioeconomic system.
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 3:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AdamHenry: I think Dr. Laura is an idiot. That is why I referred to her as such. No one else has to agree with me (though many do and many don’t). btw someone having a Ph.D. does not necessarily preclude them from being a moron, a bigot, a homophobe, etc. — Dr. Laura being a prime example.
In my opinion. (In case that wasn’t obvious).
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 4:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AdamHenry,
The elitist only have one problem standing in their way in the construction of their nirvana. And that is a few motivated country boys who know those back woods like the back of their hand, and don’t give a tinkers damn what the elitist want. Fact is, I’ll bet there is more than one of them posting on this site. And from the ones I have met, I’d say their two favorite songs are Eye of the Tiger, and Welcome to the Jungle. And that is where theory turns into reality. Bring it. But remember the rules, there ain’t none.
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 4:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ashugger-A lot of people are under the impression that Dr. Laura’s PhD is in either Psychology or some type of counseling. They are wrong. Her doctorate is in PHYSIOLOGY, the study of the human body - not the mind. She shouldn’t be allowed to be counseling people. She’s a fraud.
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 4:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
During every election cycle, it seems that some wish to change the discussion from what we should be addressing; i.e. the very real problems and challenges we face as a nation, to those of “morality” and such things as abortion and homosexuality.
Such individuals and groups can be termed “diversion divisions.” If people’s attention can be diverted to vote for “things of god”, and believe that they are doing something not only right, but superior, they will not pay attention to that which they should be paying attention.
As to both abortion, I would sumbit, that the answer lies not in legislation but rather in getting people to change their “way of thinking” in our society.
That number of abortions may be much more the result of our being a self-indulgent society than anything else. And that, dear reader, depends upon how children are raised, and primarily by their parents and their surroundings. If one is brought up with expectations, and with the demand that those expectations be met, then people behave differently. That has little if anything to do with organized religion.
As to homosexuality, I do not understand my own sexuality, much less understand that of others. Where some get the time to “stick their noses” into the personal lives of others, or believe that they are so entitled, is way beyond me. It seems that the effort required to control my own life is demanding enough without attempting to control that of others.
Why are such subjects so enticing, and so easily “grab” the interest? Could it perhaps be that they both deal with “primal” urges, and are exploited by some unscrupulous individuals in order to control others; i.e. through the engendering of fear? (It is a political tactic, as old as man himself, to control others through fear, even if there is no reason to be fearful. If there is none, create the perception of danger and people will search for a “savior”, no matter in what form it is presented.)
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 5:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
american_patriot –
– Wouldn’t one mark of an elitist be the assumption that someone who holds a Ph.D is above being called an idiot?
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 5:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
ashhugger: It is possible to be quite knowlegeable in one area and totally ignorant in all others. All too many forget that, or simply do not want to admit to the truth that, despite all the formal education we get, we still remain ignorant in more areas than those in which we are really knowledgeable. “Dr. Laura” is a case in point. She studied pshychology, and obtained a PhD. That does not at all qualify her to speak on issues of morality or politics. Another character of the same genre is James Dobson. In my humble opinion, they are but using their knowledge of pshychology to “manipulate” others. That constitutes a “corruption” of the skills acquired, from one of “helping” to one of “manipulating” for political purposes. In my humble opinion, such individuals are not only not worth to much as individuals, they are actually repulsive.
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 5:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thanks to Sugarfoot for correcting most of us who thought that “Dr. Laura’s” degree is in physiology, and not pshychology. That makes her pretentiousness even worse.
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 5:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ashhugger,
Why are you asking me? I don’t hold a PHD in anything. I graduated from the school of hard knocks. An elitist is anybody who doesn’t have the brains God promised a piss ant, but thinks he does, and an idiot is, as an idiot does. Sorry I couldn’t make that a long drawn out answer for you, but then you know how it is with us peons. Why tell a lie when the truth will work just as well.
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 6:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
a.p.
I am asking you because of your response to AdamHenry in post 65 where you appear to refer to the “rest of us” as “elitist” when you are obviously talking to an elitist yourself.
P.S. - I don’t hold an advanced degree either but if I did I would not presume to be beyond criticism … As I don’t presume to be anyway.
In fact I am not really sure what you mean by “elitist” (in post 65) … it is a term being slung around by many. I would really be interested in your definition (and anyone else’s) because it appears I have been labeled as such.
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 6:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh never mind I realize you already gave the “piss ant” definition.
Can I get any more specific definitions of an “elitist”? Anyone?
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 6:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
ashhugger,
On order to qualify you have to THINK that you have the brains God promised a piss ant, but not be in actual possession.
My recommendation would be to ask Class of 52. I understand he made a demo CD, and you know what they say, one picture is worth a thousand words.
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 6:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You are absolutely right Mr. Laitres, we are all pretty ignorant about most subjects. Some of us know a lot about medical science but nothing about ranching. Some know a lot about ranching but nothing about evolution. Some know a lot about fly fishing but nothing about auto mechanics. We only get in trouble on these forums when we make statements purporting to be factual but which only display our ignorance. I personally try to avoid making comments in areas about which I am ignorant unless I clearly note that it is merely personal opinion which may be uninformed. It is a practice which I recommend.
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 6:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
elitism: (as defined in the Encarta Dictionary)
the belief that some people or things are inherently superior to others and deserve preeminence, preferential treatment or higher rewards because of their superiority.
2 CD set also available, and here’s how to order. Send $9.95 plus $4.50 shipping and handling to Ron co Products, (in care of ) J.E.S.U.S. , Del Rio , Texas. Please specify Crass Video, volumes 5 and 2. Please allow 6 months for delivery. Comes in a simulated wood grain, poly styrene case.
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 7:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
One voice: “the belief that some people or things are inherently superior to others…”
Well, I guess that makes me an elitist then because I believe that some people are inherently superior to others. For example I believe that Dr. Albert Schweitzer was inherently a better human being than Adolf Hitler. I believe that Jascha Heifetz was inherently a better violinist than I could ever be. I believe that Albert Einstein was inherently smarter than George Bush. It is disingenuous to pretend that differences in abilities and talents and brains do not exist among humans.
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 7:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
ashugger-an “elitist” is someone who believes that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
Hope that helps.
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 7:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52
“Well, I guess that makes me an elitist then because I believe that some people are inherently superior to others”.
Well, of course you do, darling.
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 7:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I have a hypothesis:
The odds that you are right are inversely proportional to the number of words you utter. Comments?
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 7:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
So that would make a moron who has aphasia right most of the time?
You may want to think through that hypothesis again.
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 7:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52-There you go, using one of those words (aphasia) that only intelligent, university-educated, elitist-type people know. Don’t you realize you are forcing many people in this conversation to take time looking up what “aphasia” means while they’re trying to finish off the six-pack of Bud Light they began drinking about an hour ago? You cruel man!
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 7:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
To toss a follow-up question out there …
Why is “elitist” so often used as a derogatory term (as synonymous with, or as an adjective with “liberal”)?
Can anyone, especially those who regularly spit out the phrase “elitist liberal” explain why that is so?
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 7:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc,
I think your hypothesis is exactly correct. Some people can use a thousand words and never say anything. Others can use a few words and their point is succinctly clear. The truth sells itself.
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 8:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ashhugger - One must remember that most people don’t really know the meaning of “political liberalism”, neither communism, socialism or for that matter “fascism.” They have never bothered to find out, so are left with what they “believe” them to mean. And, most of the time, such people have an emotional definition only.
To study any “-ism” one must understand not only what it is, but where it came from, what preceded it, and what were the prevailing conditions at the time they were developed; i.e. what problem(s) it was the philosopher or “thinker” was attempting to address. Whithout that, it is impossible to understand it. Any “-ism” is neither “good” nor “bad” of itself. That does not mean that either it, or some distortion of it can have very sad consequences but, theoretically none is better than the other, at least intellectually.
For instance, most who use the word “liberal” in a derogatory sense get it from either “talk radio” or “talking heads.” Most have spent so much time consuming “Limbaugh Lard” that all of the blood vessels going to their brains have become blocked. If they only remembered that our founders were “political liberals” they might not be so quick in denigrating “political liberalism.”
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 8:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, CO52, it makes him ” not wrong ” most of the time….at least.
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 9:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
True. If you never say anything or do anything, you won’t make mistakes or be wrong; you will just be useless and boring. Fortunately the thinkers in our society responsible for most advances are generally quite articulate in my experience.
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 9:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Wow! What string of commentary! Here’s the deal: I don’t think I have ever heard more than just a quip or a quote here and there on a news program from Dr. Laura. I have heard some of the flap she has caused by her comments, but that’s about it.
The point of my comments regarding Dr. Laura was to demonstrate yet another double standard by the left. In post 52, Sugarfoot commended Classof52 on his use of the “Queen’s English”, and commented on how refreshing it is to correspond with another who is obviously not educated locally. I found this very condescending. I thought it interesting that, depending upon one’s socio-political polarity, one could be considered a ray of light for using a term such as “denoument”, yet another could be an idiot notwithstanding a doctorate. I hoped someone would comment that formal education does not make one intelligent, and voila!
Opinions are welcome…and there is ablsolutely no way to avoid an occasional double standard. Did I misinterpret Sugarfoot’s elitist statement regarding the educational establishments in Mesa County? What about Class of 52’s comments regarding how backward western Colorado is because we have refused to embrace the ideals of the rest of the country? Am I just so ignorant and backward that I cannot comprehend a verbal slight when I hear it? What good comes from such public exchanges other than the continued polarization of all of us?
I could be just as arrogant, or whatever one wants to call it, but that really isn’t the point is it? If any of you want to change my mind to think about things the same way you do, then convince me with a proper argument. Do away with the snide remarks about how backward we are, and how our educations are somehow inferior. Otherwise, you are only drawing battle lines that are not necessary. Take an example from Rlaitres. He is very subtle in his criticisms of the right, and does it in a way that is less painful to the psyche. It’s like the difference between a dentist, and a good dentist. One never feels the shot while in the chair of a good dentist. He just realizes later that the tooth is gone.
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 9:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“What about Class of 52’s comments regarding how backward western Colorado is because we have refused to embrace the ideals of the rest of the country?”
Wait a cotton-picking minute! I said the majority of voters in Mesa County were out of touch in the last two elections with the voters in the rest of the country. I said nothing about “backward” or embracing anyone’s ideals. If you are going to quote my comments, please try to be accurate rather than putting words in my mouth so that you can make a “strawman” point.
Posted May 26th, 2008 at 11:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AdamHenry-It is true that I have a somewhat less than complimentary attitude toward the quality of education in our area, but I feel I have good reason.
The sad fact is that Dist. 51 is one of the lowest funded districts per student in the state. It churns out a mediocre product because the citizens of the District are unwilling to adequately fund quality education. As a consequence, we are getting what we are paying (or not paying) for.
If Mesa State is so good, why did the faculty, students and alumni of CSU feel that the value of diplomas from that institution would be compromised if MSC was absorbed into the CSU system as was proposed several years ago in the state legislature?
Posted May 27th, 2008 at 12:00 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
If Mesa State is so bad, why did CU just partner with MSC to offer a mechanical engineering degree? This degree will be delivered at MSC, but the diploma will read CU. Someone at your alma mater must think MSC is doing something right!
]
[I’m back….hope you had a nice weekend
Posted May 27th, 2008 at 12:31 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Orpheus-I actually had a nice weekend and caught up on some long-postponed reading (including the 1918 Soviet Constitution, which will be a model for the the new U.S. Constitution to be imposed by the liberal Politburo after the coming revolution is completed-smile). Thanks for asking.
I’m afraid my undergraduate alma-mater is heading in the wrong direction. First, diluting the value of its mechanical engineering program by involving MSC; hiring a president with no academic credentials; and looking to establish a chair on “Conservative Thought’ (see Stanley Fish editorial/comments in Tuesday’s NYT). I’m just glad I have my Harvard degree as a backup - At least I can still get into the Harvard Club when I visit Cambridge!
How was your weekend?
Posted May 27th, 2008 at 1:27 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52,
My comments were mostly designed to stimulate a conversation. In truth, I believe that articulate communication is essential. Of course, it is not necessary that one attend an Ivy League college to acquire an ability to speak clearly.
In a film ( “The Last Emperor” )I saw a few years ago, the point was very succinctly made by a character played by Peter O’Toole(as memory serves). When told by the teacher (O’Toole) that he would begin the young monarchs’ lessons by teaching him “words”., the young man asked if words were important. The teacher replied that they were and asked the young emperor if he wished to be a gentleman, to which the young man replied, “of course”. The teacher said something then that has stuck with me ever since.
He said, ” If you wish to be a gentleman, then you must mean what you say. And in order to mean what you say, you must say what you mean.”
This profound comment points out the importance of the ability to clearly express ones’self. However, I would stress the old literary dictum that is universally applicable to all communication. That is; ” brevity is the soul of wit”.
Goodnight.
Peace.
Posted May 27th, 2008 at 6:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Quoting AdamHenry:
“Did I misinterpret Sugarfoot’s elitist statement regarding the educational establishments in Mesa County? What about Class of 52’s comments regarding how backward western Colorado is because we have refused to embrace the ideals of the rest of the country?”
No you are right. I thought those comments were elitist. You made some excellent points.
My point is that elitism is not a trait limited to “liberal” but obviously some of us aren’t immune to it.
Buat what do I know; I went to Michigan State and graduated magna dum lager.
Posted May 27th, 2008 at 6:46 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc-I agree wholeheartedly that “brevity is the soul of wit,” and is something we should all practice more often. A good start would be for all of us who contribute to this entertainment venue to; (1)write what we want to say, (2)reduce it by 50 percent, and (3) reduce what’s left by another 50 percent. What’s left should be fairly succinct and probably make much more sense than the original.
Posted May 27th, 2008 at 6:55 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
When speaking of political orientation, some use the words “left”, “right”, etc. Quite frankly, those are terms that really have no meaning unless one is prepared to tell us “left” or “right” of what; i.e. just as in the physical world, there must be a reference point. So, the question is: What is the reference?
As to the teaching of “conservatism”, that movement is being led by those who believe that what they call “conservatism” is superior, and have as their objective is not to “teach” but to indoctrinate students; i.e. those such as the neo-conservative David Horowitz. For those who have ever read his books, it quickly becomes obvious that he is propagandizing and not attempting to explore or enlighten. That quickly becomes obvious when he fails to capitalize the name of the one he is challenging, and when he displays the ability to place things, incidents or otherwise, in proper perspective; i.e. either exagerates the significance or fails to establish a connection. As a result, his books are little better, at least in intellectual value, than one might get from the likes of Limbaugh or Coulter.
Given the gentleman’s past political positions, one might even conclude that he went from one extreme to the other; from Communist to reactionary. And that makes him what we can call an “absolutist”, one who has to exist in extremes.
If one is to study political philosophy and thought, one needs to study “all” of it, or at the very least, attempt to do so, especially at the undergraduate level. If one wants to “study” one should “study” and professors should facilitate that process. It is not their place nor their proper role to “indoctrinate” with one political philosophy or another. Serious study is difficult enough without having an ideologue as a professor, one who is more interested in imposing upon his/her students their own value judgments.
Some so-called “conservatives” (they are really reactionaries), complain that most professors in political thought are what they call “political liberals.” If that is the case it is probably because they have studied the field long enough to recognize that what so-called “conservatives” represent, or whould have “taught” to students, is a failed philosophy, based much more on materialistic standards and which denigrates the individual to but a cog in the machinery of commercialism. In such a scenario, the individual has no intrinsic value, something which should be anathema to any thinking individual.
Posted May 27th, 2008 at 6:58 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Correction: In paragraph two, on David Horowitz, the word “ability” should be changed to “inability”. Sorry for the error.
Posted May 27th, 2008 at 7:08 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc asks for “brevity”. That is quite suitable in many instances but not always. If a person’s position is to be explained, i.e. what is at the foundation of it, one must explain the “why.” While such may be quite apropos in statement of “fact”, it is not at all acceptable when attempting to deal with much broader issues such as political thought or philosophy. Otherwise, all we end up is regurgitating “positions” and, instead of gaining any understanding of the other’s position, decline into nothing more than “yelling and screaming.” “I am right and you are wrong. So there!” That represents emotion, not reasoning, and goes against the very purpose of either speaking or writing, communication.
Posted May 27th, 2008 at 7:28 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sugarfoot said: “I’m afraid my undergraduate alma-mater is heading in the wrong direction. First, diluting the value of its mechanical engineering program by involving MSC; hiring a president with no academic credentials; and looking to establish a chair on “Conservative Thought’ (see Stanley Fish editorial/comments in Tuesday’s NYT).”
Awh, C’mon Sugarfoot. Can you at least have something nice to say about Mesa State? Good grief, faculty and staff at MSC are working their tails off trying to make it a great place to receive an excellent education. Personally, I’m glad to see that MSC is partnering with CU instead of CSU as I believe CU brings more prestige to MSC. It’s a great thing for MSC and Mesa County. See the positive!
BTW, the president of MSC has a Juris Doctorate, a Master’s in Mineral Economics and was Executive Director of the Colorado Commission on Higher Education. Are not those academic credentials and great experience as well? Do you mean having taught at a college/university? Well, he has done that too. And besides, the academic responsibilities at a college/university are the job of the Vice President of Academic Affairs. The main job of a president is to raise money and advance the college in a variety of ways, which he has done more in five years than has been done in five decades. C’mon, cut him some slack, he too is working his tail off for the betterment of MSC.
I just Googled Stanley Fish and conservative thought and the first things t