Jackson Free Press

So how come conservative Christians aren't insisting that Jefferson is burning in Hades, quoting verses from Paul's letters about what hellish future awaits those who mess with the Word?

I know teachers are fond of telling students "there's no such thing as a stupid question," which is a good thing because as Neil Postman has pointed out, most kids enter school as question marks and come out as periods. So I'm all for the no-stupid-question rule within the classroom. But as with so many important things, we sometimes forget to remind young people before they graduate that there are always exceptions to the rule.

Example: In the late 1980s, right after I stupidly became a high school dropout, I worked as a supermarket deli clerk. (I subsequently recovered from my educational rebellion and at least got my G.E.D—an exam, by the way, I think I would have passed with flying colors when I was a freshman, but that's another column).

For several years before that, the store had an ice machine right next to the deli counter—a popular spot for summer shoppers. But then one day, management moved the ice-making machine to the other side of the store. Not long after that, this friendly woman approached the deli counter and asked: "Do you still sell ice?" So I say: "Yes 'we' do. It's on the other side of the store now." Then she says: "Oh. Is it frozen?"

So, I decided years ago that an African proverb would be my guiding (writing) light. "To ask well is to know much." Asking good questions is often more important, and insightful, than having the "right" answers, precisely because good questions can open up your mind to explore uncharted territory, which brings me to my second point.

Not all opinions are created equal. Yes, yes, we should all respect each other's opinion, but unless my most dearly held opinions have been subjected to the purging fires of the best and most articulate opposing arguments, my opinion is about as interesting as pop-up ads on the Internet.

That's why one of my favorite quips is from the philosopher J.S. Mill, who once said "he who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that." And that doesn't mean finding some opinionated fool who happens to be parroting watered-down arguments of opinion-makers and then attacking his or her argument for the nonsense that it is.

So on to a few questions, and I'll let you decide if they're stupid or not.

Why don't critics of Michael Moore's new flick express the same thorough skepticism with the Bush administration?

One Moore-hater told me that one reason he disliked the movie is because it was too conspiratorial and implied shady dealings between the Bush administration and the Saudis without having any "smoking gun" evidence that the private meetings between the two parties weren't innocuous.

OK. Well, why not bring that same skepticism to the Bush administration claim that bin Laden and Saddam were in cahoots because of meetings between al-Qaida members and security officials in Saddam's regime? (Need I mention Iraq's WMDs?)

What's more important—that a moviemaker gets it exactly right or that the president of the United States gets it exactly right?

How many times are fundamentalists going to use the this-country-was-founded-on-Christianity polemic? Never mind the genocide committed on Native Americans or the enslavement of blacks; do they realize that the religious views of America's founders were much more complex than the Apostle's Creed? Thomas Jefferson considered the Bible to be full of untruths, except for certain "authentic sayings" of Jesus.

He took scissors to the Bible to make his own version, looking forward to the day when Jesus being considered "the Supreme Being ... in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of ... Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

So how come conservative Christians aren't insisting that Jefferson is burning in Hades, quoting verses from Paul's letters about what hellish future awaits those who mess with the Word?

Why are Fox News conservatives convinced that because "most" news reporters allegedly vote Democrat, it's ironclad proof that "liberals" control the corporate media? What about editors and publishers? They're the ones who ultimately decide what gets covered and what doesn't. Don't they realize that blaming reporters for biased coverage is a bit like yelling at a restaurant server for a bad meal? Hey buddy, calm down. I didn't cook it; I just brought it to your table.

And how long will I be able to write columns like this before "freedom-loving conservatives" are successful at putting a muzzle on my big fat mouth?

Sean Gonsalves is a self-syndicated columnist, a reporter for the Cape Cod Times and the proud father of two daughters.

Previous Comments

ID

69380

Comment

I don't see anything he should be muzzled over, just some political opinions he mistakes for provocative. Just as a note: God does the judging, no one on Earth will be handling the judgement of an eternal soul. Our opinions of Mr Jefferson's freelance editoralizing of his Bible are meaningless.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2004-08-17T16:44:55-06:00

ID

69381

Comment

I don't see anything he should be muzzled over, just some political opinions he mistakes for provocative. Too bad everyone doesn't think like you. Remember the attempts to "muzzle" the Dixie Chicks for speaking out against the Iraqi War? And on and on. Of course, if Michael Moore did nothing else this year, I think he raised the bar on "provocative." ;-) Just as a note: God does the judging, no one on Earth will be handling the judgement of an eternal soul. It's too bad not more people believes thatólike the folks who want the Constitution to get involved in gay civil rights. It seems plenty of folk are happy to do the "judging" right here on Earth, and with the help of the government. Our opinions of Mr Jefferson's freelance editoralizing of his Bible are meaningless. Very true, but I think the bigger point was that Jefferson is cherry-picked and lifted out of context all the time to justify some stuff he clearly would not have believed. And his feelings about the "wall between separation between church of state" (his words) probably come as a shock to many who have only heard the edited portions of his writings and speeches, twisted to make it sound like he would be a radical Republican today. Jefferson was a very wise man: He knew that the only way to protect the free exercise of religion is to keep the government out of the religion business. It's rather common sense: If you believe one religion should be established, you don't believe in free exercise of religion -- you believe everyone should exercise your religion. That is one opinion to have, but it's disingenious to call it something it's not (belief in free exercise of religion).

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-08-18T09:22:52-06:00

ID

69382

Comment

1. Well, in freedom of speech one would be allowed to speak one's mind. Of course, Voltare would remind us that everyone is free to ignore whatever you say. (I think I'm paraphrasing the right philosopher. :)) I get so amused when people get upset (a la Dixie Chicks) when people disagree with them. Like, we aren't all sheep. 2. Modifying the Constution for that is a massive trespass on Civil Rights. It'll rightfully get shot down at the Supreme Court level, if it gets that far. 3. I'd agree there; Government shouldn't butt into the religion business. :)

Author

Ironghost

Date

2004-08-18T12:07:45-06:00