Dear Editor:
A common problem that some opinion writers have is the
contemptible attitude that is used when responding to writings of
others.
Dear Editor:
A common problem that some opinion writers have is the contemptible attitude that is used when responding to writings of others. There is a direct link between the contempt and the lack of critical reading comprehension, the ability of a reader to enter into a point of view not their own.
The responding reader, often being more concerned with their own preconceived views, misses the meaning or just distorts the concept altogether resulting in an unfair response.
Over the years I have written letters for no other reason than that of fair play. There was an irony in a recent column that inspired me to return to an unfinished letter, responding to Mr. Kaeini’s Nov. 25 attack on Ms. Lisa Pampuch regarding her column headlined “Potter books teach kids good morals.”
Ms. Pampuch referred to a BBC report, that Harry Potter books were being destroyed in other states by a few fundamentalist Christian pastors, their objection was “… to the books’ setting in a witchcraft and wizardry school.” In New Mexico, Pastor Jack Brock hosted an anti-Harry Potter bonfire, after declaring J.K. Rowling’s fictional hero Harry Potter to be the “devil,” missing the irony in his own statement.
Mr. Kaeini attempted to right a perceived wrong, that of an attack on the religious beliefs of others. “It is very easy and unfair to grill someone or group of people in your article when you have not given any thought to their beliefs and teachings of their faith. You accused Pastor Brock of not having even read one book of Harry Potter stories and yet you do not even stop and think about this hypocrisy. Have you read any of the Christian moral materials such as the Bible?”
Hypocrisy indeed and a paradox to be sure. Had Mr. Kaeini read the column a little more closely he might not have missed “… BBC also reports that Brock admits that he hasn’t read any of the Potter books.”
“I often wonder if those who object to Harry Potter have read the books. If they had, they’d know these wizards celebrate Christmas.”
Cynthia Walker’s Dec. 27 column, however, sent me backtracking to Ms. Pampuch’s November column to confirm Walker’s version. It was off track. Then there was her Nov. 13 column regarding the issues of disagreement that “… all parties need to treat each other with respect.” But alas Ms. Walker has again strayed from that path when she recounted the column. Her version of the Harry Potter column.
Point one: The column contained no “extreme example(s)” other than the extreme actions of the burning (not videos) in New Mexico. Point two: “… she (Ms. Pampuch) argues that Christian parents (in general) are not allowing their kids to read the books …” this was not stated, nor implied. Point three: “… and further, makes the unwarranted assumption that the parents haven’t even read the books.” It is quite a leap of faith for Ms. Walker to make this assumption, based on what? The question is, whether or not persons that object to the books have ever read them? Please reread the column again.
I will be kind and only refer to Ms. Walker’s proclaimed overprotectiveness as ironic, since she had admitted that she had not even read any of the Potter books, while her children had read three books before unfounded rumors targeted her concerns to read the fourth book before allowing her children to read it.
Walker, feeling the need to take one more shot at Ms. Pampuch, in order to justify something or another asked “… what is so bad about parents caring what their kids read? Is this a crime?”
Ms. Pampuch’s own thoughts on Professor Dumbledore’s advice to Harry “… It’s what we choose to do with our assets and liabilities that determine the kind of people we become.”
Mr. Kaeini and Ms. Walker owe Ms. Pampuch an apology. To do so is a matter of respect, to refuse is a matter of hypocrisy.
Harold Williams, Hollister
Submitted Wednesday, Jan. 8
