More Letters

Ah, Sunday. The day that the Post-Gazette bombards its readership with dozens of letters and editorials. Once again, the letters to the editor are more entertaining than the rest, so let's take a look. First, we have a very short one that teaches a valuable lesson about how to completely miss the point:

May freedom prevail

President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is another example of his Big Brother arrogance.

ANOTHER example? I must have missed all the other ones.

The government ought not to see inside the bedroom, nor should its morality have an effect on the behavior of consenting adults.

So, you're saying that the government should get out of marriage altogether, right? Because that's what it means for them to stay out of the bedroom. You did know that, didn't you?

I do not condone same-sex marriages. I support the freedom to be involved in one. "Give me liberty, or give me death!"

Oh. I guess you didn't know that. See, this bothers me. If people really wanted the government out of their bedrooms, they wouldn't be worrying about what kind of marriage is legal. By having the state endorse your relationship, you're bringing them into your bedroom. I wish more people realized this.

Anyway, let's move on to a war letter. Those are always fun:

This is Bush's buck

In a May 20 editorial, the Post-Gazette called for the removal of Donald Rumsfeld from his position as secretary of defense ("Trail of Abuse: Follow the Evidence Up the Chain of Command").

No liberal media here...

I agree with that position; however, the blame for the treatment of the Iraqi prisoners should go one step further.

If it was possible for it to go even further than Bush, you'd probably blame that person too.

Remember Truman's sign that "The Buck Stops Here."

It's hard to forget when you friggin' moonbats keep regurgitating it every five minutes, yes.

Well, Mr. Bush should get the sign and start abiding by it.

Have you not been paying attention? I believe Bush already addressed the issue. But maybe that's just what Fox News and Rush Limbaugh told me to think.

If this debacle had happened during any Democratic administration, we would be in the midst of an impeachment process today.

By that logic, the soldiers who abused Iraqi prisoners are morally equivalent to Bill Clinton's sperm cells.

But when the Republicans start a war unnecessarily...

Yay! An opinion treated as fact! I love the predictability of these things.

...and then abuse prisoners...

The Republicans abused prisoners? That's news to me.

...it is for the "safety of our nation against terrorists."

Really? I thought those prisoners in Abu Ghraib were arrested for trampling someone's daisies.

Never mind that the whole reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction...

AHEM...and murder, and U.N. violations, and cease-fire violations, etc.

...which have never been found.

Yeah, except for Jordan, Syria, and NEXT TO THE F**KING ROAD IN IRAQ, we haven't found any.

Young men are being killed every day, and why?

Because war kills people?

Because of a vendetta that Bush Jr. has against the Iraqi people...

Great. Now Bush went to war because he wanted to kill civilians. That's a meme of a different color.

...and he and his cohorts' lust for the oil.

Couldn't leave that out, could ya?

Now they are court-martialing young soldiers and reservists for their (the higher-ups') dirty deeds.

That was doubleplusgoodthinkful how you managed to mention two groups and only blame the one that didn't actually abuse anybody.

Isn't it time that we stop this nonsense and let our young people live their lives normally and peacefully?

They're in the military. It's their job to risk their lives for our safety. I'm sorry that you weren't aware of that.

...All right, let's see a couple more. These are about Bush, Kerry, and religion, so you know they'll be good:

Bush's troubling ties

I thought that questions about a Catholic holding public office ("How Good a Catholic Is Kerry?" May 9) had died with the election of John F. Kennedy. Apparently not, but they never seem to surface in non-presidential elections.

If Kerry wouldn't bring up his Catholicism, it probably wouldn't be an issue. Kinda like Vietnam. Kerry was there, you know. In Vietnam. He was there.

Ann Rodgers' article made me wonder whether people are more worried about a candidate (John Kerry) being influenced by the Catholic hierarchy than they are about a candidate (George W. Bush) being dominated by the conservative religious right.

I sometimes forget that the VRWC includes this so-called "religious right" that usually consists of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and nobody else in particular.

Current presidential policies related to abortion, stem cell research, prayer in public schools, faith-based initiatives and school vouchers are direct reflections of the positions advocated by this group.

Well, whoopty-f**kin'-doo! You're telling me that Bush actually believes in the teachings of his religion? How horrible! He's so much worse than Kerry and his brilliant "nuance," which gives him the magical ability to be a Catholic without actually holding Catholic beliefs.

Why is that less troublesome to so many people?

Maybe because a lot of people agree with him on those issues? Or because they like having a president who stands up for his beliefs? I could go on.

As a Protestant clergy person...

As if I needed another reason not to go to church anymore...

...I am bothered by the president's messianic-style language with the implication that this country has some special calling from God to be an "example" to the rest of the world.

Well, considering the fact that we're the most successful nation in the history of civilization, I think that's a perfectly acceptable view.

On the contrary, it appears to me that if God is calling us to do anything as a nation it is to reform our own behavior...

Who ever said that America was perfect? Bush didn't say that.

for example, in the areas of poverty (the great disparity between the rich and poor in this country)...

Tax cuts...

...homelessness...

Job creation...

...hunger...

Tax cuts and job creation...

violence (domestic and otherwise)...

Second Amendment rights...

the stewardship of God's resources and the (mis)treatment of children.

You know, there are other entities besides government that can take care of these things.

We are far from exemplary in our behavior in regard to these issues.

Who isn't, dang it? That's not the point.

To suggest that America is a manifestation of God's intentions for human life is very shortsighted, if not delusional.

I don't think Bush said that either. I think you're just afraid because he actually has a set of beliefs. How horrible.

Just one more. This one's about Bush and his adherence to the demands of his church. I probably should point out that I was raised and confirmed as a Methodist, so I have some credibility on the issues here:

What about Bush?

I found Ann Rodgers' May 9 article about John Kerry disturbing, starting with the question the Post-Gazette chose for a headline: "How Good a Catholic Is Kerry?" I have a few questions for the Post-Gazette.

1. Is it our civic duty to judge the religious and spiritual lives of political leaders (or anyone else) and their fidelity to their church? I believe that judgment belongs to God.

When they try to make their religion part of their image, yes. Especially when it's clear that they don't actually follow Catholic teachings.

2. But having started on this course, will the Post-Gazette, in fairness, publish an equally prominent and in-depth article titled, "How Good a Methodist Is Bush?"

Has Bush made an issue of his Methodism? No. He just says that he's a Christian, which makes sense. I didn't even know he was a Methodist until I saw this.

3. If so, will the article report that Mr. Bush has unilaterally...

How can one person do anything multilaterally?

...rejected the pleas of the Methodist Church (and many other churches) not to wage war in Iraq, not to seek revenge in Afghanistan and not to drill for oil in Alaska?

Well, you see, unlike Catholicism, Methodism is a religion, not a lifestyle. There's no Pope to answer to, and there's not an entire political structure based around it. Therefore, Methodist leaders don't represent what Methodists have to believe. There's this thing called the Bible to answer those questions.

4. If his stance on abortion is the measure of Mr. Kerry's fidelity to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, is Mr. Bush's persistent pursuit of war the measure of his fidelity to the teachings of the Methodist Church?

I think I covered this already. The Methodist Church isn't structured in a way that people can be denied communion or excommunicated or something because they believe differently. To Methodists, church is a place for guidance, not rigid marching orders.

5. If it is an act of faithfulness to protect the unborn, what kind of act is it to kill the born, such as the estimated 8,000 Iraqi civilians who died in the bombing...

It's called an accident, moron, and it's not the same as deliberately dismembering a living human being in the womb.

...and what kind of act is it to hide from public view the flag-draped coffins of the hundreds of U.S. soldiers who died fighting Mr. Bush's war?

Well, the act of bringing that up here is a complete non-sequitur, because it has nothing to do with religion. In fact, I doubt that Jesus would say, "Show them the coffins until they hate war." I could be wrong, but I'm just getting that feeling.

Posted by CD on May 23, 2004 06:30 PM
Category: