LETTERS / Orwell is Alive and Well, Just Not Where Deborah Greene Thinks

Published Tuesday, May 1, 2012 at 9:43 am

Dear Editor,

Is God a bigot? Of course not. But one would have to be ignorant of history to ignore events such as the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, or the Salem witch trials as some great “tough love” examples. Yet some to this day still think they can do the same? Let me just force you to follow god the way I do and everything will be fine?

With all due respect to Deborah Greene who is she to tell me how to love God or how to love those around me? Who is she to claim only her version of “Gods plan” is the correct one? Did Jesus get polled on defending marriage? And when will many pro amendment one supporters wearing their religion on their sleeve realize this doesn’t make them morally superior to the rest of us? After all the bible has plenty to say on the sins of pride does it not?

 This isn’t love, this is the wolf of bigotry and intolerance trying to hide in the Christian sheep’s clothing. Pity that so many others blinded by fear and intolerance just can’t see it. No thanks to people such as Rev Creech on the spiritual side and Miss Greene on the political continuing a biblical hijacking by right wing extremists trying to tell me who to fear, who to hate, and who to vote against all in the name of a “loving” God.

 “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchers, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. ” (Matthew 23: 27-28)

 When did an unquestioning relationship to the rules become more important then a personal relationship with God? In following a dogmatic adherence to a mere couple verses of scripture many have forgotten the teachings the greater whole provides. Not to mention walked into the very Orwellian behavior Miss Greene accuses others of.

 Specifically the term was “Newspeak” not double speak. A method to change language so one couldn’t even argue against the party. Such as defining law breaking as “discrimination against behavior” to make ones point. That and in 1984 the party had a vested interest in controlling who and how people loved. Along with considering sex as a mere procreative duty to produce more party members. Does that attitude sound familiar to anyone else?

 The other term though was doublethink. Described as the method by which a person’s capacity for independent thought was so broken down they could hold two ideas that were totally contradictory.

 Say perhaps a view that the government should stop interfering in our lives through birth control laws, intrusive health care plans, and overburdening taxes. Yet at the same time being perfectly fine with the government interfering in the personal decisions of women across this country, intruding in the bedroom, or telling a specific group, “You don’t deserve the same equality under the law the rest of us get.”

 Or perhaps it is how we can’t trust activist judges to decide on marriage. Yet at the same time amendment supporters tell us, “The second sentence says the courts are still able to judge on custody cases, domestic disputes, and personal contracts between parties, so you can trust them to make the correct decision.”

 Or the most odious of all. How a person can claim that they are defending freedom. Even as they deny those very freedoms to another. They claim to protect families. Even as they invalidate every domestic union in the state not “one man and one woman”. And they have the nerve to say it’s for the good of the children. Even as every child outside their norm is being told “We don’t accept who you are.”

 As the famous quote says. “War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.” Shall we add discrimination is protection to the list?

 And for those who never did read Orwell a fun fact. The Ministry of Love was where those disloyal to the party were reeducated though physical torture and psychological manipulation. Until the main character of 1984 was ready to see anyone else punished so long as he was safe, was an unquestioning follower of anything Big Brother said, and truly did believe 2 + 2 could = 5. That’s a brand of tough love I can pass on too.

 Jesse Steele

Comments

comments

Privacy Policy | Rights & Permissions | Discussion Guidelines

Website Management by Outer Banks Media