Dear Editor,
How could you do this, Cynthia Walker?
You’ve always seemed well adjusted, balanced, gentle in spirit, caring in your daily relations with others. You’ve responded to verbal attacks from others with grace and suggested practical solutions for oft times conflicting proposals.
Now, in 14 cruel words (Walk the talk – July 2), you’ve callously shattered the visions of many and perhaps destroyed the illusion there might well be a better world coming. Only 14 words – and the image of this nation’s call to continued greatness is tarred with the frightening potentials of what “could” be.
Did you think what those 14 words would mean to those who believe in this nation – or what those 14 words, if brought to the fearful reality you suggest, say to tomorrow’s children? How…how could you have been that mean spirited to willingly offer such a destructive end to all people have lived and worked toward?
Now it’s written. Your 14-word imagery is loose upon our citizenry. It will spread like a malignant cancer and – ohhh, Cynthia Walker, there’s no way this broken egg can ever be put back into the dark oblivion from whence it came. Why, Cynthia Walker? Why did you do this…this…writing that will taint America’s potential for decades?
Ohhhhhhhhh, Cynthia Walker, did you really have to write “…President Bush would be able to appoint not one, but five Supreme Court justices?” Have you no mercy?
J. G. McCormack, you’re shuck-and-jive letter (July 6) plays musical chairs with words – but overlooks truth.
A) You write of “living ovum”/”living sperm” as though each has intelligence and awareness – thus implying choice and decision making. What you claim as “life” has nothing in common with life as the individual becomes.
B) “…the developing embryo…” Webster’s states an embryo is “the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception.” For some seven months then, J. G., it’s not an embryo, it’s an organism nurtured and sustained by its host – the female. It’s a parasite.
C) Are you politically correct, J. G., or afraid to use ‘creationism’? Calling ‘creationism’ by its slicker name ‘intelligent design’ doesn’t change the false premise: That there are definitive answers to questions for which there are no answers. Why do you persist in such irresponsibility, J. G.?
D) “The evolutionists are now under attack and are very defensive of their concept of how life began…” Don’t make your fantasies into statements implying facts. The unique reality about ‘evolutionary’ research – it’s based on specific discoveries coupled with logical interpretations open to challenge and improvement. What is there in creationism based on fact, J. G.?
E) “…today several top scientists admit there is overwhelming evidence for intelligent design.” Several? What ‘overwhelming evidence’? Stop generalizing, J. G. Provide names and proof .
What you have to learn, J. G., when promoting your primary themes: You don’t know! No one knows! Only the ignorant and arrogant claim they know – which reflects how very little they do know.
Sincerely, James Brescoll
