A Dose of Elkhart Editorials
Jan. 28th, 2010 09:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tabular_rasaWhile over break, I was privileged to encounter a good batch of editorials from the Opinion section of my local paper, which often prove more entertaining than the comics. This is long overdue, but I was waiting on a third editorial to arrive in the mail from my sister.
More Important Issue Than What’s For Dinner
(Aka: Holy Assumptions, Batman!)
In regards to the . . . *letter in the Sunday paper against eating meat ("Reasons to Eat Your Vegetables", People's Forum, Dec. 20), I would be interested to know if Mr. Dyck is more concerned with meat consumption or "harming the ecosystem."
Okay, while certainly many vegetarians are also defenders of the environment, not all of them are—especially those who are vegetarians for health or religious reasons. There is nothing implicit in the philosophy or practice of vegetarianism that dictates environmental consciousness. You can’t make this assumption about Mr. Dyck.
If all animals were pampered and killed humanely before being eaten at the dinner table, would he be OK with that? I doubt it—probably more concerned about cow flatulence melting the polar ice caps.
Here’s a more important question for Mr. Dyck. Would he rather be an egg-layer in a 12-foot-by-2-foot-cage, or a baby dying by partial-birth abortion?
Whoa whoa WHOA. There is also nothing implicit in vegetarianism that equates to being PRO-abortion!-- or even pro-choice, which as I understand it to most Elkhartians basically means you enjoy killing babies for fun on Saturday night. In fact, considering the no-kill stance, doesn’t it seem more likely that a vegetarian would be pro-life? The vegetarianism and the pro-life stance are more philosophically compatible than vegetarianism and eco-friendliness, anyway. Where do you get your logic here?
I know where my priorities are, and I think I’ll have some chicken for dinner, thank you.
You’re trying to come off like you’re so clever, seeing through to Mr. Dyck’s true evil liberal agenda. I’ll concede that there are people in the world who hold seemingly hypocritical stances regarding the taking of life— pro-life but pro-death penalty; pro-life but pro-war; vegetarian but pro-choice— but you have no proof that Mr. Dyck is one of them, and so all you come off like is a presumptively judgemental fuckwit.
Americans Must Stand and Fight Against Tyranny (12/27/09)
(Wait, The Cold War Is Over?)
This is not the same America that I was raised in. We now have a president whose ancestors came out of slavery and he is working even harder than any president before him to put us all in the slavery of a one-world government that will be just like communism. And they will give you all an ID number to control you. And without that number you can't buy or sell, work or drive, bank or trade.
Dude . . . You have a Social Security number, right? They’ve been around since before you were born.
Also, Communism is so passé. It’s not the Absolute Evil anymore. It doesn’t work and everybody knows it, and it’s not coming back. Stop being so freaked out about it.
And, frankly, the UN doesn’t even work that well either. We are so far away from “one world” it’s not even funny.
And you will also have to believe in their God-- that is no God at all. Because every religion doesn't believe in the same god as they want you to believe. Stand up, America, whatever religion you are, and fight for your freedom again. It is not too late.
Politically correct: The word "politically" means politics-- that means sly, crafty deceitful, unscrupulous, not restrained by ideas of right and wrong. And correct means of conforming to a standard that is whatever they believe, no matter what you believe, or you will suffer.
I want your dictionary. I think the Riverside County School District might, too.
They took prayer out of our schools and started the moral ball rolling downhill. And our newspapers and news people will not tell both sides of the story any more, or the moral truth.
THE REAL MORAL TRUTH IS THAT THE NEXT PERSON WHO MISUNDERSTANDS THE PRAYER IN SCHOOLS ISSUE IS GOING TO BE ASS-RAPED WITH A PIECE OF MY FROZEN SHIT.
And our courts rewrite the Constitution and our laws. And our leaders will sell our land and our freedoms for some dollars and a vote, or a free trip and some golf.
They give you the right to kill your unborn child, but don't you dare hurt your dog.
Back again to the assumption that liking babies and liking animals are mutually exclusive . . .
They want to control all your life. So are you going to let them, or stand up and fight? Wake up, America, and stand up and fight!
It's cute that you're from the commie-fearing generation and yet have suddenly been reborn anti-government. (Like the hippi scum you likely hated as godless rebels in their youth?). Maybe I'm being as presumptive as the author of the last editorial, but were you one of the people telling us to suck it up and respect our esteemed president when it was George W. Bush for the past eight years?
Truth Seekers Should Look To God For Answers (12/28/09)
Standards for determining truth are centered on an individual reference allowing the easy acceptance as truth anything that looks good about ourselves or comes from someone who appears to be an authority. Unfortunately, using these as standards for truth will lead to deception.
I'm with you there. Truth is a highly subjective beast. In fact, there may be no truth anywhere, only deception. It's an interesting thought.
The recent revelation called Climategate (www.climate-gate.com) exposed the "truth" aboout human-caused global warming, manipulated and destroyed data and public deception into the reality of woe-bearers who predict catastrophic manmade disasters.
An even greater deception is man making himself into God. Since the Garden of Eden, Satan deceived Eve saying "you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil," mankind has desired to remove God. For if God can be eliminated, we need answer to ourselves.
I agree that if God were eliminated from our consciousness, we would have no one to answer to but ourselves, either as society or as individuals. I'm not sure if that's quite as scary as you imply it is, though. I do have to disagree with you about desiring to remove God, however; it seems to me like He's stuck around pretty damn well in spite of a lot of doubt and conflict surrounding Him.
However, like those who are promoting false science, do we not all live lives of pretense? We can deny Him, but the living God knows the secrets of the heart. If it only took one act of disobedience for our first parents to bring the world under God's curse, is there any hope for us to be spared from God's judgement?
What makes you so sure science is necessarily more false than God?-- especially when you note yourself that we as humans are bound by a totally subjective worldview.
At Christmas we celebrate the restoration of hope. The Creator came into the world born as a man. And out of His great love He died on a cross and rose from the dead to cover the debt that we cannot pay. Our only hope is in Jesus Christ, the Creator paying the debt of his creation.
However, if Jesus is not the Creator, He cannot be the Savior. If He is not Savior, then His life was meaningless. If His life is meaningless, then the Bible has no impact on reality. Christmas celebrations of Christ's birth are as empty as Santa Claus and the Grinch. Evolution rules there is no truth, no right or wrong, no good or evil, no difference between a lion killing a young gazelle or a man killing a baby.
Well, that's not a very rational argument, is it? A lot of people believe Jesus was the Messiah but not necessarily the Creator-- and consider themselves devout Christians to boot. Jesus also could have lead a life of profound purpose without his death having directly Saved the world. The Bible has plenty of wisdom regarding social norms and generally ethical behavior whether you're of the Christian faith or not, and many people do in fact celebrate Christmas as a solely secular holiday and have absolute no problem with it.
And I do have to point out: While a lion killing a gazelle is sustaining herself and her pride in order to perpetuate her genes, a man killing a baby is acting against genetic logic; it's biologically as well as ethically unsound and evolution doesn't have much place for it, either. Unless it's a competitor's baby that's going to eat his baby's food in a time of scarcity.
All life and reality are meaningless.
Well, yes, you have me there. They very well might be.
To the contrary there is truth: Christ is creator, His Word is true, He is the Savior, His death and resurrection are the fulcrum of history and reality. Take time this Christmas season to get the whole picture. Read in the Bible Luke chapter 2. Also read Genesis chapters 1 to 3, John chapters 1 and 18-20 and Revelation chapters 4 and 20.
Enjoy the subjective truth you create for yourself, sir. But do not assume it is any more or less delusion than mine.
It's really quite profound. This man has used the fear of subjectivity and oblivion to argue on behalf of God, and yet I come away feeling all the more convinced of oblivion.
Just because it sounds bad and an alternative sounds better doesn't mean it can't be true.
Still, I confess some envy for people who have such unshakable faith. It must make life so simple and so easy to be absolutely assured of God, to have moral absolutes that one can follow without question.
So get Saved! Just start believing! Come to church with us on Sunday, you'll see!
It's not that simple. I guess I've tasted Eve's fruit or whatever--and I don't even like most fruit!-- and I've become too aware of the possibility of alternate Gods and Godlessness to ever be absolutely sure of any faith. So many sound nice, so many seem like they make sense, but they're all too different from one another that I can't trust them to be reality. Even the tenets most faiths hold in common-- the existence of God, the moral absolutes of good and evil, the principles of kindness to others-- are challenged by the existence of atheism, existentialism, and nihilism. And how are any one of these worldviews more credible than another?
But God said, Jesus said, the Bible says--!
I'm sorry. You cannot use a concept arguably created by a faith to argue for the faith itself.
I'm not saying I don't believe in God or morality-- after all, how can I trust atheism, existentialism, or nihilism to be truth, either?-- but I don't know if what I believe of them is true. And I'm okay with that.
I consider myself a pretty spiritual person, but I have absolutely no delusions that what I happen to believe-- be it changeable or consistent across my entire lifetime-- is any sort of absolute truth. I believe what I believe because I want to, because it comforts me and it makes me a better person. I find life more fulfilling and purposeful if I feel I have God in it and if I make some clear divisions between right and wrong. But I don't believe it because I know or even necessarily theorize it to be true-- and would never, ever inflict them on anyone else.
At any rate, this article totally failed in its intended purpose. Personally, I like what I got out of it instead, but I doubt the author would :-P
(Aka: Holy Assumptions, Batman!)
In regards to the . . . *letter in the Sunday paper against eating meat ("Reasons to Eat Your Vegetables", People's Forum, Dec. 20), I would be interested to know if Mr. Dyck is more concerned with meat consumption or "harming the ecosystem."
Okay, while certainly many vegetarians are also defenders of the environment, not all of them are—especially those who are vegetarians for health or religious reasons. There is nothing implicit in the philosophy or practice of vegetarianism that dictates environmental consciousness. You can’t make this assumption about Mr. Dyck.
If all animals were pampered and killed humanely before being eaten at the dinner table, would he be OK with that? I doubt it—probably more concerned about cow flatulence melting the polar ice caps.
Here’s a more important question for Mr. Dyck. Would he rather be an egg-layer in a 12-foot-by-2-foot-cage, or a baby dying by partial-birth abortion?
Whoa whoa WHOA. There is also nothing implicit in vegetarianism that equates to being PRO-abortion!-- or even pro-choice, which as I understand it to most Elkhartians basically means you enjoy killing babies for fun on Saturday night. In fact, considering the no-kill stance, doesn’t it seem more likely that a vegetarian would be pro-life? The vegetarianism and the pro-life stance are more philosophically compatible than vegetarianism and eco-friendliness, anyway. Where do you get your logic here?
I know where my priorities are, and I think I’ll have some chicken for dinner, thank you.
You’re trying to come off like you’re so clever, seeing through to Mr. Dyck’s true evil liberal agenda. I’ll concede that there are people in the world who hold seemingly hypocritical stances regarding the taking of life— pro-life but pro-death penalty; pro-life but pro-war; vegetarian but pro-choice— but you have no proof that Mr. Dyck is one of them, and so all you come off like is a presumptively judgemental fuckwit.
*Okay, so I was going to keep all names anonymous, but this guy’s name was Harry Dyck. I’m so serious. The only thing better would have been if this were the author of the actual editorial. Wow. That’s up there with Dick Bender from the lake. Poor guy.
(Wait, The Cold War Is Over?)
This is not the same America that I was raised in. We now have a president whose ancestors came out of slavery and he is working even harder than any president before him to put us all in the slavery of a one-world government that will be just like communism. And they will give you all an ID number to control you. And without that number you can't buy or sell, work or drive, bank or trade.
Dude . . . You have a Social Security number, right? They’ve been around since before you were born.
Also, Communism is so passé. It’s not the Absolute Evil anymore. It doesn’t work and everybody knows it, and it’s not coming back. Stop being so freaked out about it.
And, frankly, the UN doesn’t even work that well either. We are so far away from “one world” it’s not even funny.
And you will also have to believe in their God-- that is no God at all. Because every religion doesn't believe in the same god as they want you to believe. Stand up, America, whatever religion you are, and fight for your freedom again. It is not too late.
Politically correct: The word "politically" means politics-- that means sly, crafty deceitful, unscrupulous, not restrained by ideas of right and wrong. And correct means of conforming to a standard that is whatever they believe, no matter what you believe, or you will suffer.
I want your dictionary. I think the Riverside County School District might, too.
They took prayer out of our schools and started the moral ball rolling downhill. And our newspapers and news people will not tell both sides of the story any more, or the moral truth.
THE REAL MORAL TRUTH IS THAT THE NEXT PERSON WHO MISUNDERSTANDS THE PRAYER IN SCHOOLS ISSUE IS GOING TO BE ASS-RAPED WITH A PIECE OF MY FROZEN SHIT.
And our courts rewrite the Constitution and our laws. And our leaders will sell our land and our freedoms for some dollars and a vote, or a free trip and some golf.
They give you the right to kill your unborn child, but don't you dare hurt your dog.
Back again to the assumption that liking babies and liking animals are mutually exclusive . . .
They want to control all your life. So are you going to let them, or stand up and fight? Wake up, America, and stand up and fight!
It's cute that you're from the commie-fearing generation and yet have suddenly been reborn anti-government. (Like the hippi scum you likely hated as godless rebels in their youth?). Maybe I'm being as presumptive as the author of the last editorial, but were you one of the people telling us to suck it up and respect our esteemed president when it was George W. Bush for the past eight years?
Standards for determining truth are centered on an individual reference allowing the easy acceptance as truth anything that looks good about ourselves or comes from someone who appears to be an authority. Unfortunately, using these as standards for truth will lead to deception.
I'm with you there. Truth is a highly subjective beast. In fact, there may be no truth anywhere, only deception. It's an interesting thought.
The recent revelation called Climategate (www.climate-gate.com) exposed the "truth" aboout human-caused global warming, manipulated and destroyed data and public deception into the reality of woe-bearers who predict catastrophic manmade disasters.
An even greater deception is man making himself into God. Since the Garden of Eden, Satan deceived Eve saying "you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil," mankind has desired to remove God. For if God can be eliminated, we need answer to ourselves.
I agree that if God were eliminated from our consciousness, we would have no one to answer to but ourselves, either as society or as individuals. I'm not sure if that's quite as scary as you imply it is, though. I do have to disagree with you about desiring to remove God, however; it seems to me like He's stuck around pretty damn well in spite of a lot of doubt and conflict surrounding Him.
However, like those who are promoting false science, do we not all live lives of pretense? We can deny Him, but the living God knows the secrets of the heart. If it only took one act of disobedience for our first parents to bring the world under God's curse, is there any hope for us to be spared from God's judgement?
What makes you so sure science is necessarily more false than God?-- especially when you note yourself that we as humans are bound by a totally subjective worldview.
At Christmas we celebrate the restoration of hope. The Creator came into the world born as a man. And out of His great love He died on a cross and rose from the dead to cover the debt that we cannot pay. Our only hope is in Jesus Christ, the Creator paying the debt of his creation.
However, if Jesus is not the Creator, He cannot be the Savior. If He is not Savior, then His life was meaningless. If His life is meaningless, then the Bible has no impact on reality. Christmas celebrations of Christ's birth are as empty as Santa Claus and the Grinch. Evolution rules there is no truth, no right or wrong, no good or evil, no difference between a lion killing a young gazelle or a man killing a baby.
Well, that's not a very rational argument, is it? A lot of people believe Jesus was the Messiah but not necessarily the Creator-- and consider themselves devout Christians to boot. Jesus also could have lead a life of profound purpose without his death having directly Saved the world. The Bible has plenty of wisdom regarding social norms and generally ethical behavior whether you're of the Christian faith or not, and many people do in fact celebrate Christmas as a solely secular holiday and have absolute no problem with it.
And I do have to point out: While a lion killing a gazelle is sustaining herself and her pride in order to perpetuate her genes, a man killing a baby is acting against genetic logic; it's biologically as well as ethically unsound and evolution doesn't have much place for it, either. Unless it's a competitor's baby that's going to eat his baby's food in a time of scarcity.
All life and reality are meaningless.
Well, yes, you have me there. They very well might be.
To the contrary there is truth: Christ is creator, His Word is true, He is the Savior, His death and resurrection are the fulcrum of history and reality. Take time this Christmas season to get the whole picture. Read in the Bible Luke chapter 2. Also read Genesis chapters 1 to 3, John chapters 1 and 18-20 and Revelation chapters 4 and 20.
Enjoy the subjective truth you create for yourself, sir. But do not assume it is any more or less delusion than mine.
It's really quite profound. This man has used the fear of subjectivity and oblivion to argue on behalf of God, and yet I come away feeling all the more convinced of oblivion.
Just because it sounds bad and an alternative sounds better doesn't mean it can't be true.
Still, I confess some envy for people who have such unshakable faith. It must make life so simple and so easy to be absolutely assured of God, to have moral absolutes that one can follow without question.
So get Saved! Just start believing! Come to church with us on Sunday, you'll see!
It's not that simple. I guess I've tasted Eve's fruit or whatever--and I don't even like most fruit!-- and I've become too aware of the possibility of alternate Gods and Godlessness to ever be absolutely sure of any faith. So many sound nice, so many seem like they make sense, but they're all too different from one another that I can't trust them to be reality. Even the tenets most faiths hold in common-- the existence of God, the moral absolutes of good and evil, the principles of kindness to others-- are challenged by the existence of atheism, existentialism, and nihilism. And how are any one of these worldviews more credible than another?
But God said, Jesus said, the Bible says--!
I'm sorry. You cannot use a concept arguably created by a faith to argue for the faith itself.
I'm not saying I don't believe in God or morality-- after all, how can I trust atheism, existentialism, or nihilism to be truth, either?-- but I don't know if what I believe of them is true. And I'm okay with that.
I consider myself a pretty spiritual person, but I have absolutely no delusions that what I happen to believe-- be it changeable or consistent across my entire lifetime-- is any sort of absolute truth. I believe what I believe because I want to, because it comforts me and it makes me a better person. I find life more fulfilling and purposeful if I feel I have God in it and if I make some clear divisions between right and wrong. But I don't believe it because I know or even necessarily theorize it to be true-- and would never, ever inflict them on anyone else.
At any rate, this article totally failed in its intended purpose. Personally, I like what I got out of it instead, but I doubt the author would :-P
