• Print
  • Send to a friend
  • Comment (9)
  •  

Prove it

Published on July 14, 2012
Published on July 14, 2012

I wish to respond to Maureen Robinson's letter to the editor in The Telegram, July 7, headlined “Letter was extremely insulting.”

My June 30 letter, “Faith and secularism” was an attempt to unmask the errors of secularist ideology, an ideology that attempts to preserve human and democratic values in a non-moral and non-religious foundation.

Secularism means the separation of the parts of life — for example, education, politics, economics and the family from their centre, which is God.

In developing the theme of my letter, the topics were increased government involvement in our lives, child care, the need to compensate mothers for raising their children, the crisis developing over the low birth rate, euthanasia and radical feminism.

Ms. Robinson, where is the evidence, the proof, the truth that my letter was extremely insulting?

George McIsaac

St. John’s

Comments

  • Username
    Edward Power
    - July 18, 2012 at 00:04:10

    "I Am Offensive" should change his/her name to "I Am Unable" - as in I Am Unable to formulate and present a cogent argument . I can only assume that he/she hasn't read any of letters in question - or the posted comments - as his/her offering is essentially a rant about completely unrelated issues. I AM Offensive seems blissfully unaware of irony in his/her statement that "left wingers" attack "the messenger instead of the message " as he/she concludes with "Robinson is no different" while failing to offer any rebuttal to her arguement . Well done, I Am Offensive, in exposing "right wing" debating skillls.

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    I am Offensive
    - July 16, 2012 at 17:26:38

    A common tactic amoung the left wingers is to claim "offensive" (or a similar name) every time they see something that they do not like. They are unable to debate with logic and reason, so they make a blanket dismissal and then go one to attack the messenger istead of the message. For example, when the NDP called the PCs "racist" over Bill-29. Or when they cal Harper a "facist." Robinson is no different. George, well done in exposing them!

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    Frank
    - July 16, 2012 at 17:16:03

    Who needs truth when you have religion?

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    Edward Power
    - July 15, 2012 at 11:54:15

    If you are unable to comprehend why Ms. Robinson would find your letter insulting, Mr. McIssac - a statement I find to be more than a little disingenuous - please allow me to assist in your understanding.. I believe that Ms. Robinson finds your desire to have her family planning decisions determined by a cabal of clerics citing the Bronze Age edicts of the mythological deity of illiterate desert sheepherders to be disturbing, creepy and, well, insulting. I do as well. Her reluctance to become a baby factory for the Catholic church is quite understandable when one considers the sexual and physical abuse that children in the care of "Mother Church" here in Newfoundland and Labrador - as well as mainland Canada, the US, Ireland, Germany, Holland and elsewhere - have been subjected to. It has taken thousands of years for women to shed the yoke of religious bigotry and ignorance. One can see why they would be reluctant to don it once again. Personally, I find your selective interpretation of facts to be disturbing. Your definition of secularism as " the separation of the parts of life - for example, education, politics, economics, and the family from their centre, which is God" is a good example. What God? Whose God? Is there now a new "Holy Trinity" - God the Father, God the Politician and God the Holy Economist? Moreover, your definition is incorrect. The Oxford Dictionary defines "Secularism" as: "(n) Sceptical of religious truth or opposed to religious education etc.".You will note that Oxford makes no reference to economics or politics, and for good reason. I'll admit that my Cathecism is a bit rusty, but I do seem remember an incident where Jesus tossed the moneychangers out of the Temple and something else about "rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's". That, I think, would sum up God's feeling on the matter of politics and economics quite nicely. You also place the blame for the decline of the church and it's growing irrelevancy, on the backs of women - specifically, "radical feminists" - and not where it belongs, on an archaic, ignorant and paternalistic belief system. In your alternate reality, women are also to blame for "crisis developing over the low birth rate" when, in fact, the world population has passed the seven billion mark and the Catholic church condemns millions of these people to die every year from hunger, thirst and disease as a result of it's misguided and idiotic policy on the use of condoms and other forms of birth control. Please, sir, keep your misinformed opinions and religious ideology inside the doors of the church where it belongs.

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    stephen
    - July 14, 2012 at 20:59:08

    Don,t pray on my behalf, if god was real,don,t you think he would step in when a child is being raped and murdered? Where was he when the demons raped in Mount Cashel? If he indeed does exist,he has a sick sense of right and wrong.

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    Cecil
    - July 14, 2012 at 16:19:25

    Good night folks, and take your god with you.

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    Jacklyn Adams
    - July 14, 2012 at 15:25:19

    Mr McIssac, I have read your article and - You have to ask why its very much considered extremely insulting? Really?

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    Herb Morrison
    - July 14, 2012 at 15:10:30

    Well put Mr. Austin. Speaking from the standpoint of a Christian, I know people who have no religious affiliation whatsoever yet, these same people have a sense of morality that is second to none. Any suggesstion or implication that those of us who believe in God have a monoploy on moral uprightness is, at best, a lie

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    John Austin
    - July 14, 2012 at 09:29:08

    I didn't see the original items but it is clear that you are insulting the intelligence of your audience by conflating the concepts of non-religious and non-moral philosophies. I know many people who live a (secular) non-religious life but I don't believe any of them could be classified as non-moral. You appear to be confused about education, politics and economics. None of these are centred on your 'God'. They function equally in societies with different gods or even without any gods. Please go away and do something helpful like praying for us all, at length. We probably need at least fourteen hours a day from you alone. That should do it.

    Submit a comment

Submit a comment

Submit a comment (we keep all emails private)
Agreement

We ask that users remain courteous. You may not post insulting, discriminatory or inappropriate content, which may be removed at our discretion. We are not responsible for user content and opinions. Use of this site as well as content submission & ownership are governed by our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.

Member organizations should be non-profit in nature, and promote legal activities. Any organization found promoting illegal activities or commercial products or services will be deleted from the site.

I agree with these conditions.

Advertising

More

SmartEdition logo smart

Newsletter

Please enter your email to receive our free newsletter

Subscribe to news alerts
loading...

Tely Twitter

Advertising