Spring Break
Former columnist responds to critical faculty member
Issue date: 4/20/05 Section: Editorial/Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
04/20/05 - To the Cigar,
This is in response to Dr. John Leo's response ("Jell-O Cook Off," April 8, 2005) to my original column ("Common Sense," April 7, 2005). The article I wrote, and the one that Leo read, are completely different. Since Leo uses hostile words instead of ideas, I will first have to explain Leo's virtually incomprehensible letter.
In a nutshell, Dr. Leo believes that I am a member of an elitist group - the Christians. This group, Dr. Leo would say, assumes its own moral superiority and presumes to judge others. Because such judgments are without basis in a relativist world, this group is obviously bigoted, hateful and ignorant.
Not wanting to admit unfounded prejudices to themselves or others, this elitist group justifies its bigotry, Dr. Leo would say, by associating targeted groups - like gays - with something which is generally accepted as negative and undesirable by the public - like HIV/AIDS. Thus, to Dr. Leo, this elitist group, while feigning a love of humanity and a concern for the health and welfare of society, uses this pretension as a mask for a secret, irrational loathing of one targeted segment of society.
My actual editorial, as opposed to the one that Leo criticized, made two main points. One was the Terri Shiavo incident. The other was the general moral degradation of all of society, not any one particular group. I made wide and diverse references to people such as Clinton, Sandy Burger, the courts, slavery and Hitler. I mentioned American culture and the Higher Authority to whom America's Founders so often referred, as well as the Pope.
The main point of my editorial was in the last sentence - lives should be changed, not laws. This had mostly to do with the Terri Shiavo tragedy and the sanctity of life. She was a helpless citizen who was protected by neither state nor husband. She was neither in a coma, nor on life support. She died from a lack of food and water - as would anyone. I was saying that the right-to-die precedent - that is, the "pull-the-plug" mentality - of our culture made it easier to accept the decision to allow Terri to die. This is a culture where death is the default.
This is in response to Dr. John Leo's response ("Jell-O Cook Off," April 8, 2005) to my original column ("Common Sense," April 7, 2005). The article I wrote, and the one that Leo read, are completely different. Since Leo uses hostile words instead of ideas, I will first have to explain Leo's virtually incomprehensible letter.
In a nutshell, Dr. Leo believes that I am a member of an elitist group - the Christians. This group, Dr. Leo would say, assumes its own moral superiority and presumes to judge others. Because such judgments are without basis in a relativist world, this group is obviously bigoted, hateful and ignorant.
Not wanting to admit unfounded prejudices to themselves or others, this elitist group justifies its bigotry, Dr. Leo would say, by associating targeted groups - like gays - with something which is generally accepted as negative and undesirable by the public - like HIV/AIDS. Thus, to Dr. Leo, this elitist group, while feigning a love of humanity and a concern for the health and welfare of society, uses this pretension as a mask for a secret, irrational loathing of one targeted segment of society.
My actual editorial, as opposed to the one that Leo criticized, made two main points. One was the Terri Shiavo incident. The other was the general moral degradation of all of society, not any one particular group. I made wide and diverse references to people such as Clinton, Sandy Burger, the courts, slavery and Hitler. I mentioned American culture and the Higher Authority to whom America's Founders so often referred, as well as the Pope.
The main point of my editorial was in the last sentence - lives should be changed, not laws. This had mostly to do with the Terri Shiavo tragedy and the sanctity of life. She was a helpless citizen who was protected by neither state nor husband. She was neither in a coma, nor on life support. She died from a lack of food and water - as would anyone. I was saying that the right-to-die precedent - that is, the "pull-the-plug" mentality - of our culture made it easier to accept the decision to allow Terri to die. This is a culture where death is the default.
