Too many letters, too little thinking

In both the Spokesman-Review and the Coeur d’Alene Press were letters that were either hilarious, irrational, silly or literally beyond the pale. So to try to make sense of it, a little need to discuss them here.

You can’t help laughing at the particular irony of two letters running in two different papers where the main theme is taking scripture out of context in order to “prove” something.  Deborah Solomon is right that you shouldn’t take scripture out of context and ignore those verses in the bible that don’t fit with your world view.  (The same argument that ought to apply to any number of anti-abortion screeds.)  However, in the Press letters is one Jason Hopkins who routinely takes scripture out of context to “prove” that not only is the bible the first word on science, but that it also predicts current scientific laws.  I actually highly doubt that it does anything of the sort.  After all, it wasn’t all that long ago in decades when those of anti-evolutionary views (anti-science to the rest of us) misread the book of Job to “prove” that dinosaurs existed in Old Testament text, as did wooly mammoths.  Uh, excuse me?  But there is no proof that wooly mammoths ever existed in the Middle East since their last known place of appearance is in the Arctic, currently covered by deep glacial ice.  And the Arctic wasn’t exactly known to exist during the time of Job.  On the other hand, it wouldn’t be too surprising if a dinosaur bone popped up in the middle east, as it had in Asia and also in the Americas.  And perhaps on the basis of finding such bones, then the myth of the Leviathan would have been born.  But, only in one scripture out of one book is the Leviathan ever mentioned.  And that is where God chides Job over his presumptions of thinking he can shake a fist at The Lord because of the ills that currently afflict him.  It has nothing to do with either proving or disproving Darwin’s theories.  And meanwhile, “all things are possible with God,” is utterly ignored.  So, Mr. Hopkins takes partial scriptural quotes to “prove” thermodynamics and other current scientific theory.  Making the argument that God’s law is the basis for current scientific theory.  But if I were to turn to each scripture he mentions and read in context, I highly doubt that the scriptures would have “proven” what he claims.

Let’s put it bluntly, that what we now regard as the laws of thermodynamics and others known to exist in the current scientific understanding of things inclusive of the physical universe; scientists did not turn to scripture.  No, they turned to testing, physical observation and etc.  Galileo only physically observed the stars in order to conclude that our solar system in heliocentric—the Earth travels around the sun.  God’s scripture did not tell him that.  Newton watched an apple drop from the tree.  He came up with the theory of gravity.  The bible never addressed gravity.

So, here is a challenge for the readership:  What does each scripture really say put in context with preceding and following scripture?  Isaiah 34:4 and? Hebrew 1:12 and? Job 26:10 and? 28:5 and? 38:24 and? (Remembering that the book of Job was in reality his shaking his fist at God because of what God allowed the devil to do in inflicting injury on Job in order to test his faith.  Now how did that become a serious scientific document?)  Eccliastics 1:6 and?  Jerimiah 33:22 and? Amos 9:6 the water cycle discovered 3 centuries ago.  Which is interesting since that scripture was written some thousands of years prior to that particular discovery; and?  Hebrew 1:11 and?  Hebrew 11:3 and? Coll:17 ???  Now there’s a real pattern here, wouldn’t you say?  A letter writer who jumps from one diverse scripture to another to “prove” what scriptures taken in context wouldn’t be proving at all.  The bible is all about moral authority and guidance toward a more civilized society.  That has absolutely nothing to do with scientific discovery.

When it comes to Gabe Iacobi and his long lament over the new cap and trade legislation:  taxes, taxes, taxes.  But is every small business a polluting industry?  Precisely, one that must fall under new clean air standards?  No.  But it doesn’t stop Mr. Iacobi from engaging in the hysterical broad brush of how much cap and trade legislation would “burden” even non polluting small businesses.  And then engages in the typical hyperbole of how much “going green” would ultimately cost energy consumers.  Uh, has anyone taken note of the twisty flourescent bulbs that have entered the stores in the last few years?  You can literally replace an ordinary light bulb with one that saves energy…  And then can do any other the following:  reproduces natural sunlight, reproduces natural daylight, replicates ordinary house lights.  If you aren’t consuming as much energy (that comes primarily from polluting industries) how would your energy costs go up?  Only if the energy (and polluting) company (such as Avista) insists on raising the costs of operation because it isn’t getting the energy consumption profits from the ratepayers that it wants.  And that is after advertising how to cut the costs of energy (and therefore carbon) use.  Obviously, the studies (inclusive of that from the radical Heritage Foundation) that Mr. Iacobi sites, are going to have their political axes to grind.  The Heritage Foundation in particular will oppose clean air standards promoted by the Dem majority Congress and the Dem president Barack H. Obama.  So?  Bet the next generation however is able to breath a little easier.

Next on the list; Donna Lopez threw a particularly nasty fit at Fiona Gressler for daring to question why the Kootenai County area of Idaho even held a “TEA Party.”  Ms. Lopez’ initial response was that Ms. Gressler didn’t have a right to her opinion.  Now however, Ms. Lopez “apologizes” for presuming that (among other things) she had a right to her opinion!  Let’s put it bluntly, as belittling, demeaning and etc. as before while engaging in yet another nasty attack.  Only now, Ms. Lopez has made herself utterly ridiculous for having done so.  As for Vermont Trotter, I highly doubt that Sarah Palin (soon to be former Guv of Alaska) would ever compare herself to Michael Jackson—an entertainer.  But that didn’t stop Mr. Trotter from doing so.

Randall Jones of the Spokesman-Review:  People knew before they put Obama into office that he would “tax” health care.  Indeed, it was part of his health care proposals while he was running for the White House.  Yes, they did elect him, didn’t they?  He shares his fears of “energy taxes” with Mr. Iacobi.  However, the National Sales Tax wasn’t something mentioned by Obama or the Democrats; but it was the brain child of the “conservatives” Mr. Jones loves to make common cause with.  But it’s “wrong now” if it is adopted by the Dems.  In his great hurry to trash the opposition, Mr. Jones isn’t doing a lot of thinking.

W.C. Miller doesn’t like it that the current administration is trying to “spend us out of debt.”  Well, true enough.  However, why wasn’t he berating the last administration for spending us into debt?  He wants to berate the current administration for ignoring bankruptcy laws and etc. (while trying to get major corporations back on their feet) but fails to berate the last one for ignoring something more major, such as constitutional law.

When it comes to public school policies, in what way has “any” administration “dummied down” math?  Any administration can propose educational standards such as when GW proposed No Child Left Behind and then used that “standard” as an attempt to destroy the public school system; but, what goes on in the public schools as a consequence of the latest political fad where children become nothing more than experiments instead of students, that is the problem of that school district and must be resolved there.

And while he does have some “good points” about high school students, his letter simply rambles from one topic to another rather than being concise.  But here is the laugh riot that comes at the end of his letter, “The government exists only to preserve life and personal and property rights, execute judgment and punish wrongdoing.”  ↔ Got a question for this guy, when was the last time he heard, government is the problem and not the solution?  Reagan.  Essentially, gvt:  loves it, hates it.

At least Russell Brown managed to mention a military coup in his letter about the now ousted Honduran Prez Zelaya.  The guy who wanted the Honduran Congress to rewrite the constitution so that he could serve more than one term.  The answer, he could be forced out of the country by way of a military coup.  I wouldn’t have any idea whether he was “power mad,” a “puppet” of Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez, or even if he was a member of an alliance of international “Communists and Socialists.”  But I do know that Mr. Brown could look a little closer to home and the last administration for a power mad president who went well beyond constitutional constraints and who’s blind followers wouldn’t have minded seeing a rewrite of the Constitution to enable him to serve yet another term.  GW Bush.

While condemning Obama as other prior writers had done; you get the impression that neither does Brown put a lot of thought into his letter.  Would this country be all that accepting if a president asked for a rewrite of the U.S. Constitution so that he could serve more than two terms with the idea that it would be put to a vote by the American people… Only, Congress calls on the U.S. Military to stage a coup against that member of its gvt?  I highly doubt it.  Mr. Brown isn’t exactly holding forth on the sad situation in the Honduras as all that supportive of a democracy.  While arguing contrarily that it is!!!

Maybe Mr. Brown would like to see the same thing happen in this nation where the man he hates the most attained the highest office in a free and fair election with a majority support of the people.  And that is why he’d regard a military coup as “pro democracy” and “anti-communist.”  Who can say?  However, history being any guide, no military coup has ever been pro-democratic in nature.


2 Responses to “Too many letters, too little thinking”

  1. Too many letters, too little thinking | Says:

    […] Read more:  Too some letters, likewise lowercase thinking […]

  2. COACHEP » Blog Archive » Posts about Stop Cap and Trade as of July 12, 2009 Says:

    […] Protestant   Hundreds Kick Off Calvin Quincentenary Celebration in Geneva   Philippine Church Too many letters, too little thinking – 07/12/2009 In both the Spokesman-Review and the Coeur d’Alene Press were […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: