In article <76e7iv0rudm2j2oufltfjv0mb5o0nu7mic@4ax.com>,
budd <e@iques.org> wrote:
Hello all, this letter appeared in my local paper and I want to send
in a rebuttal to this guy but I dont want to sound shrill or less
than logical. any help is appreciated..........
Letter: Liberals and change
"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're
not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain." This
quote, erroneously attributed to Winston Churchill, contains a great
deal of wisdom regardless of who said it.
Wisdom is defined as knowledge coupled with good judgment, hence the
transition from liberal to conservative, for most. Given that 88
percent of college professors vote Democratic, or liberal, suggests a
disconnect between educational excellence, learning what works and
what doesn't, right and wrong, knowledge and judgment. Experience is
the best teacher, for some anyway. Liberal writers learn little from
history, and what they do learn is tainted by the belief the many
should suffer ethical destruction for the unproven beliefs of a few.
The greatest example of this disconnect is drawing a correlation
between the quality of our freedom, and the mention of religion in any
governmental platform. It appears a selfishly disingenuous argument to
yoke the erosion of personal freedoms to the slightest mention of
religion in public service. To the contrary, evidence suggests that
the erosion of our personal freedoms is more tied to the removal of
those mentions, which to me, appears a much larger offense than a
liberal's sensitivity to things they personally disagree with.
Having a heart and a brain needn't only exist in OZ.
It's a pretty garbled letter.
One point you might want to make is that conservatives ought to be
leading the charge in demanding that our government not engage in the
business of endorsing either religion or religious practices. Having
government promote religion is the sort of conduct conservatives usually
blast liberals for - i.e. using government to achieve a social agenda.
In a free society, individuals may or may not choose to practice a
religion, to support a religion, to promote a religion and to
proselytize for a religion. It ought not be the business of a government
to do any of those things. The goal of those interested in preserving a
free society - whether they call themselves "liberal" or "conservative"
- should be to keep government out of the religion business altogether.
That means, if it means anything at all, no officially sanctioned prayer
in the public schools, no sappy slogans on our money or in our Pledge of
Allegiance, no public funding for religious activities and
organizations, and no official declarations endorsing religious
practices or organizations.
At least, that's my view of the matter.
--
George Ricker
The most accurate way to spell "one nation under 'God'" is T*H*E*O*C*R*A*C*Y.
.
|
