My response to Rossie:
Dear Mr. Rossie:
I regret that you have been an editor for so long and yet you can produce an editorial that is so wrong on so many counts. Your editorial of Wednesday, June 1st, fits the bill.
First, you said there may be a “half dozen admirable Republican members of the House of Representatives.” This is obviously a swipe at the Republican party but are you the ultimate decider of who is admirable in the House? Do you think your editorial position puts you into a position of judgment overtop the American people that obviously saw positive qualities in hundreds of other Republicans in this House? Do none of those positive qualities matter or have you neglected to do adequate research on the possible character of these individuals? You imply that nobody should interpret the will of God and yet you can cast blanket judgment without hesitation.
You then attack Catholics and Protestants by saying that “in the eyes of the Vatican and sundry right- wing Protestant sects, Constitutional law is trumped by God’s law; whatever that is and as they define it, of course.” Do you think it is more appropriate for a newspaper to define what a religious leader should do in matters of faith? Your arugment shows both failure to understand religion as well as history Regarding the former, nobody is required to be a Catholic or a bible-believing Christian. However, if one chooses to be one or the other, the belief systems are quite clear. Rather than Boehlert attempting to re-define 2000 years of Catholic belief, perhaps he should be intellectually and morally honest by either conforming his beliefs and words to his faith or choosing a different faith altogether. Regarding the latter, history is littered with examples of governments and leaders that put their law above God’s law. Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Hussein are just some recent examples. Tens of millions died as a result of forcing God out of the public square so that the state could rule without the interference of “intolerant” religious.
Your next error concerns your condescending attitude towards those that question evolution. Instead of asking questions of evolution, you demand scientific evidence for supernatural creation. Considering that science by definition is limited to the natural, you are asking for something that is impossible. Rather than belittle those that are unconvinced by evolution, why not produce the evidence that would move it beyond a theory? Have you dug up fossils in your backyard that adequately show transitional forms from species to species? If you have then you have done more than Darwin, Gould, Hawking or any other scientist. There are no scientifically verifiable facts that move evolution beyond a theory which is why other theories should not be excluded simply because some religions promote them. You cannot deny reason and logic simply because you do not like the implications.
Finally, you take a shot at the only politicians that had enough courage to stand up for the life of Terri Schiavo. Schiavo was never given proper therapy, never given a chance to learn to swallow, often not given a chance to be visited by family or even have pictures in her room. She was dehydrated to death in a most painful way as attested to by witnesses in the room. It is not surprising that you seem to show little concern for someone in this state while, at the same time, you fail to understand the implications of a God-less society.
I found your editorial whiny, scattered, and hostile to Christianity.
Brad:
