LETTERS / Something To Think About Before We Go Off On Any More ‘Moral’ Crusades Around Here

Published Wednesday, November 20, 2013 at 9:38 am

Dear Editor,

So a few remarks regarding the local controversies of two tied together issues. the House Of The Spirits book review process being hijacked by our Republican BOC members, and the in god we trust posters in our schools.  Directed specifically towards those who want to use (erroneously) the well we banned the Bible arguments. And those who think somehow sticking the word Christian in front of you makes your side the correct or the more moral one.

David Blust wants to talk about peer pressure and being forced to read this book by peers or out of respect to the teacher.

So I can’t help but wonder (on a different tangent) how all the kids who either question Christianity, no matter their faith (or lack thereof in the case of atheism) will feel every single day they see those posters on the walls. And how many will be pressured to be part of the Christian faith, or at the very least pretend to stay part of the clique out of respect so as not be ostracized by their peers. Or stand out as different, which can be the kiss of social death in high school.

Historical context? It rings a bit hollow when the intent seems less about history and more about putting god back in the classroom. And of course just your god.

Why no in Loki we trust posters? Or perhaps a clamor to learn more about all the ways Zeus tried to cheat on his wife?
And to all those who want to take that as an “attack” on their faith, and me wanting to drive god out. You need to learn that your beliefs (much like Mrs. Lesesne’s misguided attempts to ban a book for everyone cause she finds it offensive) stop right where mine begin.

That would be the freedom from religion part those of us who actually respect the Constitution believe in. Instead of paying lip service to it as Perry Yates does when he thinks being a Christian means he’s the new arbiter of morality because he finds “Spirits” offensive according to “his” belief. And freedom means people like him have to force his belief on us to protect his freedom to do so?

Some people around here really need to stop thinking  their religion trumps all, including the law. While being unable to grasp that the bible and god are two very different things.

One can be easily studied as a series of morality tales and yes “put into it’s historical context” (much like Aesop’s fables for that matter, or any other holy text) The other is the focus of a belief system that the 1st amendment specifically states (like every other religion) can not be sanctioned by the state, period. You can believe anything you want, you can’t however force it on others because.

This country never was founded as a Christian nation.

This country never has been a Christian nation. Unless you count adding phrases like under god to the pledge of allegiance to do what? Set us apart from those “godless commies” As during the Mcarthy era Communism and Atheism were often considered one and the same. 

Certainly nothing like the opinion many have of the Muslim faith today right? As a previous letter stated lets hold the arguments being voiced up to the Muslim test once more. If we replace every instance of God with Allah and the bible everyone wants to see back in schools with the Qur’an would some of you out there still be so gung ho about it? (For those who missed the link the first time http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/08/09/the-muslim-test-how-to-expose-the-hypocrisy-of-the-religious-right/)

Though to be honest if we use the logic of people like Mr. Yates and Mrs. Lesesne would they really want 10th graders reading stories about a brother leading his sibling to betrayal and death. Daughters seducing their drunken father to continue the family line. Or a king who gets another man’s wife pregnant, then sends that man to the front lines to have him killed. All so he can conceal his crime and take the woman as his wife. 

That would be Cain and Abel, Lot’s daughters, and the story of King David and Bathsheba for those keeping score. But taken out of it’s context? Much like ohhhh I don’t know a part of a book (not just excepts, right commissioner Blust?) Is that the Bible or the season finale of Game of Thrones? 

Maybe when said bible comes up to the book review board for it’s clearly offensive content Nathan Miller can site the actual law behind an “egregious violation” of the process instead of once again claiming (as he did during the sales tax change) it’s legal or not cause he says so? And maybe he could stop trying to insert himself into a process he has no part of like his fellow grandstanding BOC members?

And maybe all three could find a better time and place for it then in the middle of a school board budget hearing?
Just something to think about before we go off on any more “moral” crusades around here.

Jesse Steele

 

Comments

comments

Privacy Policy | Rights & Permissions | Discussion Guidelines

Website Management by Outer Banks Media