While tiptoeing carefully through the thickets of the Tribune’s evolving new website, I was reminded that one feature of its revamped format is a weekly on-line reader poll.
As a profoundly unscientific exercise, one that implies far more empty calories than brain-conscious readers should ingest, such a feature is almost entirely devoid of meaning ... and if we want meaninglessness, there's always FOX-TV News.
Consider this week’s thinly veiled, populist ringer of a rigged question:
Should public entities remove religious references to the holidays?
a. Yes, separate church and state.
b. No, political correctness has gone too far.
c. I don’t care.
With 304 votes cast (as of 8:00 p.m. on Saturday, December 10), the Tribune’s latest poll showed 89% of respondents opting for the “no” response.
Duh. These days, it’s politically incorrect to be politically correct, so must we be reminded that poll results like these are largely dependent on the way the question is phrased – or is this too advanced a concept for New Albania to grasp during the avarice season?
I’d prefer the same question be asked this way:
Should public entities enforce adherence to the holiday traditions of one religion over another?
a. Yes, the state should be allowed to choose my beliefs for me.
b. No, this sounds too much like the thought police for my tastes.
c. I don’t care.
The results? Well, they might be different, eh?
The ‘Bune’s making progress, but doltishness like this is a step backward.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Not to be difficult, but I don't find your question any less misleading or biased.
How about asking what the real question should be in our country.
Does simply displaying religious symbols in public areas violate the "original intent" of our constitution that our forefathers drafted.
a. Yes, it does violate the original intent of our forefathers
b. No, it does not violate the origianal intent of our forefathers
c. I don't care
I'd be willing to put this on the ballot and let majority rule.
HB, naturally my follow-up was biased; that's my point. Polls like this are meaningless because it depends on how you ask the question.
Always with you, HB, it's "let's submit it to majority rule."
That's fine. Herr Schicklgruber managed a majority to attain his goals, too. That doesn't make it right.
Healthblogger, we can dissect your poll to death too. For example, why did you feel the need to insert the word "simply?"
Why did you need to put "original intent" in quotes?
What are the specific religious symbols you are referring to?
If people argue so much about the rest of the constitution, why would this matter be any different and how could a simply majority rule vote make any difference whatsoever?
Do I think I could make a poll that would work for everyone? Heck no!
I would rather leave these sorts of things up to individuals making decision on what they'd like to do on their own property.
And lastly, if we all just focused on what we did on our own private property, and had as little government owned property as possible, would these arguments get so big?
Tim, what is "pure journalism?"
And let me know if you hear from anyone. I'd like to meet someone who can say with a straight face they don't have a political agenda.
Just think, if you solicited for writers in that manner back in 1776, you would have missed hearing from folks like Thomas Paine and Ben Franklin. ;)
I keep forgetting that we bloggers cannot even agree that this is the greatest country on earth.
And based on comments it would appear that many would like our representative republic to be completely altered.
I firmly believe it is the best country with the best govenrment on earth. Sure I would like to see less government, less taxes, and more personal choice, but we have to work with the system we have or change it within the current laws and regulations.
So yes, I continue to support our current system, electing our leaders by the majority to hopefully make changes that are for the betterment of individuals and society.
For Debbie, the word simply could be taken out if that would help with the comfort level of bloggers.
The constitution has worked well for more than 200 years and yes I think original intent interpretation is extremely important to maintain our personal freedoms and the success of the nation
!
HB,
Would that be the same majority that elected President Bush the first time?
Before you come back with "work with the system we have" please remember that those same forefathers put in the electoral college to help protect the country from the majority. As you like to say, please think about that.
While I was not pleased with the outcome of that election, it was and is the system we have and I accepted it.
IamHoosier, I can see you accepting the legitimacy of Bush II's first election (2004), but how can you accept his appointment (2000). And where would we be today if Scalia & Co. had let them count the votes?
all4word,
Somehow I don't think you are really looking for a response from me!!
I am curious about one thing. Where does your "handle" derive from?
There is the word, and then there is the Word. Pretty simple. It derives from John 1:1. I aspire to do it all for the Word.
There's more, having to do with a past personal ministry, which I'll be glad to share with you sometime in person.
all4word,
Thanks.
Post a Comment