This is
True® |
"Randy skims about 500 newspaper articles per day, and distills from them summaries of the strangest news stories -- the ones that make you turn your head and say, 'They did what?'" --Contentious |
Home
Main Selections Sample Stories Source Info Submit Stories Honorary Unsubs Subscriptions Premium Upgrade Change Yours Country List Your Privacy True Books Press Coverage RC Appearances Your Comments Placing Ads Linking To Us Contacting Us Copyright FAQ
Spam Primer Dvorak Primer Our Sister Site: |
Written 21 September 2001 It was rather difficult to sit down and write an issue of what's generally supposed to be a funny column after the events of 11 September, even though I didn't have to write another column until Sunday, 16 September. But that date rushed right up and the work was slow going, keeping me up until about 1:30 a.m. Monday so I could meet my 8:00 a.m. deadline.Two things made me want to get started:
While True is generally meant to be funny, I don't always want every story to bring a laugh. I often want to provoke thought, action and/or anger (such as when I write stories about my main pet peeve, "zero tolerance"). To be sure, I definitely do not consider that story to be funny. I consider those two men's comments downright treasonous.
Please resist the urge to write me more on this -- I'm completely swamped lately, not only falling behind while trying to keep up with the news, and putting out special issues of HeroicStories, but I also took several days off to work in the shelters the Red Cross set up in Denver, where hundreds of airline passengers were stranded when all flights were grounded. So please only write to comment if you have something to say that has not already been covered in the many letters which follow. The letters included below fairly represent the mix of pro and con -- actually over-representing the cons since, as of this writing, there has been very few, so I've included the first at the very bottom as representative. I've omitted dozens of the "pros" that repeated what's already included here. Thanks. "America's Taliban"? You, sir, have a talent. That is just so right. I'd already felt the same way. You just said it so exquisitely. --Leo, WashingtonIndeed, what makes the USA such a great and strong country is its recognition of freedom -- especially freedom for the individual. Our Declaration of Independence speaks to how all are endowed with "certain inalienable Rights" -- which are then spelled out in the Constitution's Bill of Rights. We cannot protect those rights, those very things which makes America great, by taking away some of them! I wish you had not printed the Falwell-Robertson comments. There are those who read your publication who may agree with them, and you have just given it wider circulation, even repeating it twice! --Jacqueline, MassachussetsHiding our eyes won't make evil go away. I think it's much more important for the people who are "undecided" to learn what these radical fundamentalists actually think! It's too late for those who agree and won't change their minds, no matter what evidence they see. As a Christian I felt I had to comment on Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson's remarks. I personally have had a strong distaste for most TV evangelists for many years (long before I was a Christian) and their ill-conceived comments have only borne out why I loathe such people. These despicable men are pointing the finger at all those people who do not think as they do and are judging America, assuming this attack to be God's judgment on a sinful nation (excluding themselves, of course!), but it is not our place to assume what God thinks. We cannot read the Bible and extrapolate that New York is another Sodom, although Falwell and Co. obviously have drawn that conclusion. --Nigel, EnglandFalwell did issue an apology on Monday, September 17 (after I wrote my story): "In the midst of the shock and mourning of a dark week for America, I made a statement that I should not have made and which I sincerely regret. I want to apologize to every American, including those I named. The only label any of us needs in such a terrible time of crisis is 'American'." He also said he had "misspoken". He made these comments while he was "in shock and mourning"? He "mispoke"? Hardly likely -- he was under no stress on that show, where he is a frequent guest. Read the transcript and see if you think he was incoherent in making his remarks. And did Robertson apologize for agreeing with everything Falwell said? No. But his Christian Broadcasting Network issued a statement calling Falwell's remarks "severe and harsh in tone and, frankly, not fully understood" by Robertson! He didn't understand them?! Then why did he agree so readily with such harsh words? (See the transcript!) Is that the sort of religious leader we should be paying attention to? If the Reverends Robertson and Falwell think that God lifted his protection from the innocents on board the planes and on the ground, and that America is inviting terrorism to attack because we have thrown God out of our country, they must be worshipping a completely different God. I think a God who will forgive the terrible sins that have been committed by humans throughout the ages wouldn't remove protection from the innocent children that were traveling on those airplanes, or the aircrews that were just doing their jobs, or the businessmen just trying to make a living. God had nothing to do with the crashes, it was evil personified in the cowardly sons of evil that did this. God, last time I checked, gave us free will and expects us to respond in a Christlike way to evil. I stopped listening to Mr. Falwell a long time ago. Now, Mr. Robertson is in my book with a line through it. --John, North CarolinaI certainly did think about using the phrase "downright treasonous" before I published -- those are very strong words. I even consulted the dictionary: "treason: 1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies. 2. A betrayal of trust or confidence." "Betrayal of trust, especially the betrayal of one's country by consciously aiding its enemies" says it pretty darn well, doesn't it? (After reading this reply, Brian sent: "I appreciate your reply and see your point.") Sad comments on the 700 Club. Statements like [Falwell's] really make it hard for guys like me to bring hope in the midst of all this. --Rev. Rus, New York
The one "anti" letter: Your comments about the Reverends Falwell and Robertson were out of order. America has been losing its moral values by legitimizing abortion, pornography, homosexual behavior and the breakdown of the family. God is the creator of the universe and when a nation disregards His laws, they bring misery on themselves. The solution is to return to America's previous reverence for God. My generation is of the WWII vintage and IN GOD WE TRUST. --Anthony, CaliforniaOh, you want "WWII vintage"? We've been going straight toward hell since the 1950s, have we? Then you must insist we throw out "In God We Trust"! That slogan was adopted as the motto of the United States on July 30, 1956. Similarly, even though the Pledge of Alligiance (the "Flag Pledge") was written by a Baptist minister, it originally did not mention God at all. The phrase "under God" ("...One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.") was added by Congress in 1954 -- surely, since you're "WWII vintage", you remember when the country moved toward more religion. So if you really want to argue a return to the 50s, Anthony, consider that what you're actually arguing is that we've been going downhill ever since the U.S. embraced the Christian God, contrary to our Constitution. (Not that I think we have gone downhill: we have managed since then, for instance, to move away from the horrible injuctices of that time, such as the bigotry whose echoes are still being felt in the "land of the free".) If you truly want to stay with your argument and feel there's a cause and effect problem here, then surely we need to rethink the government's forcing Christianity's God onto the population a country that has a Constitution prohibiting the establishment of a state religion. Is that what you meant? Probably not. The folly in your argument is plain: this isn't about "In God We Trust", it's about radical fundamentalism -- and the attempts by many different types of fundamentalists to try to force their way of thinking on others. That's what's behind the terrorists' murderous attacks, and it's exactly the same thing that's behind Falwell's verbal attacks. One friend, when I told him about the letters I got from the pagans (above) noted, "I made the comment yesterday to a friend that you never hear about 'pagan terrorists', 'pagan fundamentalists' or 'pagan extremists'. I'm no pagan, but I've gotta respect that." And isn't that what everyone is asking for? A little respect. You don't have to believe in paganism, so don't you dare insist that others must accept the fundamentalist rantings Falwell and Robertson spewed on a grieving nation. I reject that as strongly as I reject the actions of the other religious fundamentalist radicals -- the ones who turned our own airplanes, and innocent civilians, into guided missiles to attack our way of life. (There's more on this on my page about religious freedom. A short history of the Pledge is here, and information about subscribing to This is True is here.) | ||
http://www.thisistrue.com/taliban.html -- updated November
2001