LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

 

mail-box-full-colorDear Sir:

I thought the Feb. 10, “Thunder on the Right” column by Paul Jackson, was a rather petty attack on non-believers.  It seems that one of the simple religious beliefs he claims to value is a strong loathing for people who don’t share his views on religion.

Jackson makes several claims; first that “atheists by and large feel utterly compelled to destroy everyone else’s faith in a God”.   He reaches this conclusion by citing three recent books  (he doesn’t claim to have read any of them).  I am not familiar with Michael Onfray’s book but I have read Dawkins ‘& Hitchens’ and find them thoroughly researched and documented with very persuasive arguments.

How do three relatively successful books become an attack on every believer by every atheist as Jackson claims?  And why is a challenge to religion different from a challenge to any other set of beliefs, scientific, political or philosophical?  Apparently, Jackson feels religion is immune to criticism.

His second charge is that atheism “has become a profit driven business—purses full of lucrative amounts of devilish cash”.  I assume he’s referring to royalties earned by these authors.  Which would be small change compared to the millions sloshing around in the treasuries of religious outfits like Focus on the Family and others.

Finally, Jackson claims “there are a group of only semi-literate types who, mean-spirited, exhibit a malevolent, malicious mendacity toward religion”.  I love the alliteration, but just who in the hell is he referring to?  The words he uses probably describe Jackson better than this unidentified group.

I suggest that Jackson’s editors change the name of his column from the grandiose “Thunder on the Right” to a more accurate, “Flatulence on the Right.”

Mac McCarthy

A winter visitor to Ajijic

766-2796

 

For Paul Jackson,
I read your article monthly in the Ojo. Find each of them very interesting, though I may not always agree with your philosophy or approach. This month (February) I find to be one of your finest and a valuable message many need to hear.
I regard myself as a progressive moderate who cringes at the ideas and proclamations of the radical fringes on both the liberal and conservative spectrums whether it be religion or politics. I think it to be vitally important to search the common ground and preserve dignity and respect toward all.
David Huff
Ajijic

 

Dear Sir:

Paul Jackson’s ego is so large that he thinks he is much too important not to have an afterlife. Typical of a self professed conservative, he does not practice rationalism. Rationalism is the belief all knowledge and truth consist in what is ascertainable by rational process of thought and that there is no supernatural revelation. Therefore, Paul Jackson is, by definition, an irrational person.

His rant about outspoken atheists is typical of those who are faced with the truth of their religion. I have never heard him rant about all the religious books on the market. I also doubt that he has ever read his own bible. According to his rant, freedom of religion, press, and speech should not apply to nonbelievers.

The following is from the Koran 4:74-78: “Those who readily fight in the cause of GOD are those who forsake this world in favor of the Hereafter. Whoever fights in the cause of GOD, then gets killed, or attains victory, we will surely grant him a great recompense...” Forget freedom of religion. Kill the infidel! Doing as the Koran God commands gets one into Heaven.

The following is from the Christian/Jewish Bible: Deuteronomy 13: If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” …  do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him.  You must certainly put him to death. . .” Forget freedom of religion. Kill the infidel! Doing as the Bible God commands gets one into Heaven.

In Matthew, Jesus said, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.” Hatred is the Christian Value. Kill the infidel! Doing as the Jesus commands gets one into Heaven.

Nonbelievers compose .209% of the US Federal Prison population and 16.5% of the general population. Nonbelievers divorce rate is 25% lower than believers. No atheist ever bombed a Federal building, flew a plane load of passengers into New York buildings, bombed an abortion clinic, lesbian nightclub, Olympics, or conducted a holocaust. Nonbelievers are more law abiding than believers.  The London Times 09/27/05: “Societies worse off ‘when they have God on their side.’” Telegraph UK 02/09/10 “Atheists are just as ethical and have as strong a moral compass as churchgoers, new research shows.”

“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion.”—Steven Weinberg

Thank you,

Hank Shiver

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. Sir:

I thought the Feb. 10, “Thunder on the Right” column by Paul Jackson, was a rather petty attack on non-believers.  It seems that one of the simple religious beliefs he claims to value is a strong loathing for people who don’t share his views on religion.

Jackson makes several claims; first that “atheists by and large feel utterly compelled to destroy everyone else’s faith in a God”.   He reaches this conclusion by citing three recent books  (he doesn’t claim to have read any of them).  I am not familiar with Michael Onfray’s book but I have read Dawkins ‘& Hitchens’ and find them thoroughly researched and documented with very persuasive arguments.

How do three relatively successful books become an attack on every believer by every atheist as Jackson claims?  And why is a challenge to religion different from a challenge to any other set of beliefs, scientific, political or philosophical?  Apparently, Jackson feels religion is immune to criticism.

His second charge is that atheism “has become a profit driven business—purses full of lucrative amounts of devilish cash”.  I assume he’s referring to royalties earned by these authors.  Which would be small change compared to the millions sloshing around in the treasuries of religious outfits like Focus on the Family and others.

Finally, Jackson claims “there are a group of only semi-literate types who, mean-spirited, exhibit a malevolent, malicious mendacity toward religion”.  I love the alliteration, but just who in the hell is he referring to?  The words he uses probably describe Jackson better than this unidentified group.

I suggest that Jackson’s editors change the name of his column from the grandiose “Thunder on the Right” to a more accurate, “Flatulence on the Right.”

Mac McCarthy

A winter visitor to Ajijic

766-2796

 

 

primi sui motori con e-max

Add comment

Security code
Refresh

Editor’s Page Guest Editorial by Fred Mittag For more editorials, visit: http://thedarksideofthedream.com Rage In America Shots have been fired
How Railroads Changed Mexico By Bill Dean 1813 was the year that José María Morelos, then leader of Mexico’s independence movement, summoned a
Anita’s Animals By Jackie Kellum Street dog Vs. Dog in Crisis. The August article briefly described what a street dog looks like. A Dog in Crisis
Front Row Center By Michael Warren The Last Romance By Joe DiPietro Directed by Ann Swiston The Last Romance is a bittersweet comedy by Joe DiPietro,
Imprints By Antonio Ramblés antonio.rambles@yahoo.com Contemplating Cusco For the Incas, all roads led to Cusco. The city’s name is a corruption

Our Issues

August 2014

july2011-ojo

July 2014

july2011-ojo

June 2014

july2011-ojo

May 2014

july2011-ojo

April 2014

july2011-ojo

March 2014

july2011-ojo

February 2014

july2011-ojo

More....