Posted by john fowles

Posted by Sharon

1) Lol – Elder John, when was the last time you were called that?

2) It should be noted that his prior membership of the church does not in any way affect his priviledges to criticise the church’s social positions. It’s not like he has access to some secret knowledge on the subject to which non-members are denied.

3) I liked the wordplay he did on the status of foetuses. In his article he referred to it as ‘personhood’. It would appear that to answer your point 1, John, he would answer “I do not agree, so I don’t care about the rest of your sentence.”

4) The strong impression I get from him is that he views a good Democrat as being someone who opposes the Republicans in all things. While he may legitimately question Mr. Reid’s track record as much as he likes, trying to create (or recreate or maintain, or whatever) a confrontationally hostile opposition is counter-productive. UK politicians have been at it for years, and voter turnout just keeps decreasing. We don’t want someone who’ll say no because the other person says yes, no more than we want someone who’ll say yes because the other person says yes. They’re both an affront to a democratic government, but sadly, party politics, to a certain extent requires this ridiculous behaviour.

5) I wouldn’t normally mention this, but as Mr. Frank was the one to bring this up: is he saying that his own penis does not erect fully? He should probably have a doctor look at that, you know… 

Posted by Fraggle

Posted by Ronan

Elder John,

Best,
JoshMy preliminary response to this is:

(1) Do you at least agree that if a fetus is a human being, then “choice” is not a morally defensible position? (If a fetus is not a human being, then “choice” has a lot more credibility over life, although arguments still remain why abortion is wrong.)

(2) You said If Reid’s religious beliefs did not influence his policy making, there would be no reason to point out his Mormonism. This statement alone reveals the bigotry that animates your worldview. Presumably, under this logic, if a legislator’s atheism influences his policy making, that is not to be criticized; it is only if someone’s religious beliefs affect policy making (which is actually impossible to avoid for anyone with religious beliefs, just like it is literally impossible for Mr. Frank’s anti-religious beliefs not to influence his decisions and worldview, and if he were a legislator, his policy making), that the person warrants criticism. 

Posted by john fowles

Posted by Peggy Snow Cahill

Posted by Kristine

Posted by john fowles

Kristine, your point is much more applicable to the reason why the German newspapers to which I send letters to the editors aren’t publishing me. In those letters I call them to task for their hypocrisy in their European insularism and arrogance in their criticism of the US and its supposed “Imperialism.” The fact that the letters are informed and written in fluent German, which of course Americans aren’t supposed to be capable of according to them, is surely disconcerting to them. But they have every right not to publish an inflammatory letter in their pages (as a believer in the free market, I don’t disparage them this) as a marketing matter. I consider “Dissident Voice” a different subject altogether.  

Posted by john fowles

Posted by Kristine