DEAR EDITOR:
In response to Kristine Dillon: In your letter that was
published on Thursday, you expressed disapproval of my use of
”
caustic
”
terms to describe your statements.
DEAR EDITOR:
In response to Kristine Dillon: In your letter that was published on Thursday, you expressed disapproval of my use of “caustic” terms to describe your statements. My most sincere apologies. If you were offended in any way by my choice of words then I am truly sorry.
However, if you really were offended by my letter, then I believe that you owe a public apology to James Fennel. Just because you used “non-aggressive” language in your letter doesn’t make the message that you conveyed any different. Your letter portrayed Mr. Fennel as being a fundamentalist with “energy that borders on fanaticism.” You description of Mr. Fennel is as follows: “You create the impression that you, and your like brethren, exist on a higher moral platform [than] those who have a different world vision. This astounds my logic, my reason, and my 12 years of Catholic education.” The message that you conveyed is obvious. Even if your language was not aggressive, your letter definitely painted a negative picture of the person you disagreed with.
Also, I am having trouble figuring out why you seem to think that I am responsible for describing you as a person with no positive morals. In your letter you argue that, “To state that moral relativism is wrong is simply a myth.” So if you are offended by being portrayed as a person with no positive morals, then I suggest that you don’t argue against moral absolutes.
Furthermore, in your letter you asked me to prove to you that I have the authority to interpret the Bible for you, and that my interpretation will always be correct. You also asked me how my interpretation can be any more correct than approximately 20,000 other denominations interpretations. In response, anyone in the world can interpret the Bible in any way that they please, this however does not make their interpretation correct. This is why I gave a logical argument as to why I believe that my interpretation of the scripture is accurate. As for proving to you that my interpretations will always be correct, all I did was present to you my view of what the verse means, and give justification for my belief. My interpretation could very well be wrong, that is why you should open-mindedly examine the evidence for the argument that is presented, and then decide for yourself if it is valid.
To conclude, there were two statements that you made in your letter that confused me. First, In your first letter, you didn’t seem to have a problem debating religion, you even mentioned twice that you had 12 years of Catholic education, but in your second letter you claimed to be uncomfortable debating religious matters. Second, in both your letters you concluded by making some great statements about tolerance and looking at the world through different eyes, but both of your letters were based on one central concept, disproving views that are contrary to your own. Unless I’m interpreting your statements wrong, you seem to be applying rules of conduct to everyone except yourself.
Ben Whittaker, Gilroy
Submitted Thursday, Dec. 19 to ed****@ga****.com
