How sadly familiar the refrain: We're all for free speech and a free press, until we're against it. Then it HAS GOT TO GO, and he has got to go -- right now.
I'm reprinting this screed without permission, but seeing as freedom of speech hasn't yet been extended to Professor Erika's own comments section ... well, you know the drill. I added the actual link to the column in question, seeing as it was omitted in the original.
---
AN OPEN LETTER TO OUR READERS AND STEVE KOZAROVICH...
Tue Dec 28, 2010 21:01 from FREEDOM OF SPEECH by One voice (VoiceOfNA@aol.com)
Dear Executive Editor,
First, we support Freedom of the Press and Freedom Of Speech.
But...
First, we forget that you actually pay Roger Baylor to write this tripe. "BAYLOR: Beware, yuletide oupistophober. I'm watching." Noneless, it is when good men sit back and do nothing that people like him get this kind of opportunity.
Secondly, we was told by Kozarovich a long time ago that if enough people wrote in to say they don't like his column, they'd get rid of it!
So what we want our readers to do is this. Here's a link to the story. If you're tired of reading crap like this, write to the Tribune to let them know that you want Roger Baylor's columns to stop running. They are giving him free space to write destructive nonsense that is unhelpful.
Here's the link: http://newsandtribune.com/opinion/x258587521/BAYLOR-Beware-yuletide-oupistidophobes-I-m-watching. Then decide if this is the garbage and crap you want to read in our local Tribune newspaper.
Third, He can have his blog, but it is truly a problem that the Tribune is PAYING Baylor to put crap in there like that.
We, believe in freedom of the press, and freedom of speech, but the paper chooses NOT to put in a lot of things that need to be in there. It's high time they choose not to include this.
It's really offensive and is NOT the kind of thing that ought to be included in a decent newspaper.
But to attack Christianity and Christmas is just too much.
At the very least, the Tribune needs to know they're paying for this crap.
If you agree with us, Contact: Tribune Publisher & Executive Editor Steve.Kozarovich@newsandtribune.com or contact him by phone: 812-206-2148 or drop him a note: 303 Scribner Drive, New Albany, IN 47150.
Tell him Roger Baylor has got to go...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
"He can have his blog." How generous.
I seldom read FOS anymore but unless her writings have changed, Erika and her follower don't have enough money for a subscription anyway, do they? Or has she been lying to us all along?
I know the answer that I would bet on. Heavily. I would even bet the money I spend on spaghetti.
I enjoyed the column, Roger. And even for those who disagree with you, they've certainly read far "crazier" stuff than that. So, why the outrage? Oh wait, that's your point...
Two thoughts: Phronemophobia is common among all people-- religion aside. There are more of them among Christians and self-professing Christians-- at least, because there are far more of them. But I'll bet the proportion among other faiths and "no faiths" is just as high.
All of this reminds me of "civil religion" and faith in the efficacy of government-- arguably more pervasive forms of faith and more common subjects of phronemophobia.
She writes...
First, we support Freedom of the Press and Freedom Of Speech.
But...
Only when we don't like what we read then it should be banned.
Cake and eat it too.
However Roger printed this letter too- it could have been banned - you know that pesky Freedom of Speech thing.
Yes Roger you're right - she doesn't like you does she?
Maybe she thinks too much?
“Assuming one accepts the desirability of an open, pluralistic society beyond the bare fundamentals required to freely make piles of money for buying Chinese plastic trinkets, what’s so bad about equal time for opposing viewpoints?”
“The mere presence of other viewpoints hardly stands to bring Christianity to its knees. I’ve never understood why those of religious orientation (another one of those “chosen” lifestyles, eh?) are so insecure when it comes to considerations of alternative worldviews.”
I think it has to do with reason and justification of our existance.
To a Christian, what you or I believe in matters. From my understanding Christianity is about love and reconciliation towards God, so that the sole can continue on into eternity. That “love” presses upon the Christian to love their fellow brother with the hope that they might as well share in eternal life.
Aeithism and other opposing veiws to the “Christian” jeopardizes the possiblity of their fellow brother from sharing in that same immortality but falling victum to damnation.
I don’t know if acting angrely to opposing veiws is wrong for a “Christian” but I can understand their reasoning behind it.
If the Christian is right and the atheist is wrong and the atheist in some way causes a fellow individual to follow in atheistic beleifs, to the Christian, it is the same as murdering that fellow individual.
What you preceive when people are, “insecure when it comes to considerations of alternative worldviews” I think they are not reacting for their sake but for their fellow brother.
I find this reasonable.
I enjoyed this column. Love is a passionate thing I kinda liked what NoNoNo wrote in the comments section.
I don’t know many atheist who wear it on their sleave like you do Roger, but from reading your column’s it has made me wonder how a “true” atheist justifies their exsistance, assuming they have a rational mind. Maybe it is necrophobia.
“I mention oupistidophobia because Christmas truly never fails to inspire intemperate attacks on atheists and atheism. The closer we get to the biggest day on the Christian festival calendar, the more phobic frothing about an insidious, irreligious conspiracy of militant atheists, who although insignificant in numbers, remains intent on attacking the faith of vulnerable, pious Christians — themselves comprising more than three-quarters of America’s population.”
I missed all this, it must have been on Democracy Now or MSNBC or it might be like the bridge thing pure straw man.
RemChar wrote,
"I don’t know if acting angrely to opposing veiws is wrong for a “Christian” but I can understand their reasoning behind it.
If the Christian is right and the atheist is wrong and the atheist in some way causes a fellow individual to follow in atheistic beleifs, to the Christian, it is the same as murdering that fellow individual.
What you preceive when people are, “insecure when it comes to considerations of alternative worldviews” I think they are not reacting for their sake but for their fellow brother.
I find this reasonable."
I would hope that you would re-read this and re-think it. Substitute Muslim for Christian. Substitute Christian for atheist. You just justified the actions of radicals of that faith(or any faith).
It always comes down to footwear, doesn't it?
Mark, I would have to totally disagree with you.
You make your point without at all discussing theology.
As I do mine.
We have to be fair.
I omitted theology deliberately.
I can't speak for any one religion but there are many people who discuss theology at a much higher level than I can. If I can at all.
But I do know that a portion of the Christian Bible is written in the context of Greek reasoning and at these higher level’s of discussion “Christian” reasoning is used to define what is Christian.
The funny thing is Thomas Jefferson rewrote the Bible in what he perceived as a more practical form and he took out most of Paul's writings because he didn't like the Roman/Greek reasoning behind it and in the time of enlightenment.
"Understanding" something is one thing. Finding it "reasonable" is entirely different matter.
You wrote:
"If the Christian is right and the atheist is wrong and the atheist in some way causes a fellow individual to follow in atheistic beleifs, to the Christian, it is the same as murdering that fellow individual."
If someone was trying to murder you, I would try to stop them even if it meant killing the attacker. You just justified religious murder. This exactly what happens to some Christian missionaries in foreign lands.
"If someone was trying to murder you, I would try to stop them even if it meant killing the attacker. You just justified religious murder."
No, I didn't
I never gave a response other than reacting "insecurely" to a verbal response as Roger’s statement and question framed it.
In your scenario, is killing the attacker a "Christian" response?
If someone was trying to murder you Mark, I would try to stop them too, but killing them might not be the Christian thing to do. Giving my life to stop them from killing you would be Christ like, which I would be willing to do that for you Mark.
"There is no salvation in becoming adapted to a world which is crazy"
— Henry Miller
The issue isn't whether one is a "believer" or not. That argument is as old as the sun. Attacks on the free expression of one's thoughts by a ban-the-books mentality have quite a long history, as well. That's what really gives me the creeps. And speaking of creeps, for this incoherent woman to applaud freedom of speech (generically), and then urge the suppression of speech she disagrees with is proof that she is not rational. If everyone could stop the publication of articles we didn't like, there would be nothing but white space.
Jameson,
Did you write the comment about being the same as murdering that fellow? If, in your analogy, it is the SAME as murder, isn't the proper response to protect by all means available? Just as you and I have stated that we would do for each other?
Like I stated earlier, understanding is one thing. Finding it reasonable can be an entirely different matter.
"isn't the proper response to protect by all means available? Just as you and I have stated that we would do for each other?"
No, your response was to kill the attacker, mine was to defend you to the point that I would be willing to give up my own life.
This discussion is not in the context of Roger's question and I misspoke earlier.
I said, "You make your point without at all discussing theology."
In a way my response to Roger's question is talking theology in a rudimentary way.
Roger made and asked a question without talking about theology, but the answer to his question concerns why "Christians" are insecure towards other viewpoints.
I responded in the context of his point and question relative to atheism vs. spirituality
If one was to cause the death of another should someone speak out against such talk?
I think it reasonable.
What reason does the atheist act on?
Is it reasonable to shun or become angry? Is it reasonable to murder?
For spirituality and religion it concerns theology.
.Roger's column for the most part was a very good column some parts he may have been trying to be facetious but he was insulting.
“I mention oupistidophobia because Christmas truly never fails to inspire intemperate attacks on atheists and atheism. The closer we get to the biggest day on the Christian festival calendar, the more phobic frothing about an insidious, irreligious conspiracy of militant atheists, who although insignificant in numbers, remains intent on attacking the faith of vulnerable, pious Christians — themselves comprising more than three-quarters of America’s population.”
I say again I must have missed all this.
To me this statement is as good as a lie and warranting an angry response.
Take it out of his column and it would have been even better to me.
I think his question is one “Christians” should ask themselves all the time.
Post a Comment