Phil Membury’s letter to the Coeur d’Alene Press 20 August 2014, was off the wall hilarious. He claims that he isn’t “criticizing the writer” he is only criticizing what people write. Well, to put it very briefly, if you know the person by what they write, then you criticize the person for what they wrote. That has been my experience over the years when ever it comes to letters being written and published to the Press. The critiquing authors don’t like what someone else wrote, so they send in these hyper-critical letters about the authors in question. Or, they send in letters fully intent on smearing the authors’ good name. Mr. Membury has been as guilty of that as anyone else in the past. So now, he tries to claim, “I don’t know this person well enough…” (which has never stopped him before), and then goes on to launch his latest diatribe.
It kind of reminds me of how a bully would act. “You made me do it!” “You are the one engaging in ad honimen attacks.” (It can’t be me, after all!) But who else is doing the writing to truly hurt, shame, or embarrass others? Well, it has Mr. Membury’s name at the bottom of the letter. Instead of writing a long letter trying to “defend himself” and deflect his particular problems unto others, Mr. Membury could make it a brief letter and explain why he disagrees with someone else.
As a rule any more, I don’t get the Coeur d’Alene Press. If I go down to the park’s Club House on a Wednesday or a Friday, I may see letters to the editors to which I may or may not respond. Some of them being just bad enough, to bring further attention to on the blog. Others being just ridiculous enough, for me to send in an e-mailed letter to the editor. A few weeks earlier, Mr. Hans Neumann wished to express all this outpouring of grief and outrage over the death of the dog known as Arfee at the hands of a Coeur d’Alene Police Officer. To which he wished to compare some 50 million odd abortions/aborticides. I am quite prepared to argue that if you want to express “humanitarian concerns” for fetuses, then being just as humanitarian toward say your neighbors, should be a logical extension. Mr. Neumann isn’t known for “love thy neighbor” letters. Neither is Mr. Membury or other radicals who typically populate Kootenai County. I had also seen some hostile to illegal alien children, currently populating the U.S. borders, in letters to the editors. Just as on Facebook, the news feeds show me videos or photographs of “white” humanity opposing “brown” children. Of “white” Republicans proclaiming that “brown” children are likely carrying diseases. What wasn’t being asked, until this female journalist got on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,” why these kids were even trying to cross our borders in the first place. She had a ready answer: drug cartels, the crimes they spawn, the violence and corruption that are the very consequences of their activities. So, in countries where these drug cartels are basically running the show and the governments in these countries seem incapable of handling them and bringing them to justice, then apparently it has become a fact that these kids are fleeing for their lives.
If abortion/aborticide is supposed to be an “humanitarian” crisis of some 40 years in the making, then the humanitarian crisis now on our respective borders is also more immediate. But which one gets the handwringing and which one gets the obviously bigoted reaction? You know something, the fetus is a “child in the womb” according to these modern day “Christians.” These illegal alien children were only born. I can think of no sharper disconnect between a “born” child and one “not born yet,” that to watch our utterly embarrassing reactions to at least on humanitarian crisis. Simply because it might cost us something in money, time, and effort to actually address and resolve it. Which is why I regard the anti-choice argument as lacking in any real morality or even sincerity. A “Christian” can only be all for having that child brought into the world, until it actually costs something to make that child a part of American society. I don’t know in all honesty, how you can be a humanitarian on the cheap.
“Inside Edition” was presented on Facebook not so long ago with reference to these pastors of megachurches and etc. who through donations from their congregants: amass fleets of private jets, build personal mansions; in short, they have become vastly wealthy people who are tax exempt. At least one of these people was just arrogant enough to proclaim, that his private airport and fleet of jets was in “the service of the Lord.” The bible I have read must not be the same bible that he was referring to. I don’t find any supporting scriptures, about amassing vast fortunes at the expense of your congregants, as being quite okay with God. Just as I do not hear, how these “immensely wealthy pastors,” are reserving any of that money for charitable purposes. One private jet can cost in the millions, what about a fleet of them? How much money does it cost to buy land and build as well as maintain an airport? What if that money was sent instead to places, where children were caught up in the tribulations of drug cartel operations? If American Christians and their pastors were prepared to put themselves at risk, trying to secure the lives and fortunes of these children? Or, how much would that money now amassed in grandiose mansions, fleets of jets, and etc., help the impoverished people in this nation? Job creation, preventing home foreclosures, housing the homeless? After all, it isn’t their own earnings which these pastors are currently amassing, it is the wealth of others. I truly don’t believe that God expected the priests in his service to get rich at the expense of others. Presumably the last time it happened, Jesus was sent along to make some public criticisms about that kind of practice.