Tags

, , ,

After a brief respite, the letters to the editor have started up again.

I have previously written about the commitment announcement of two males published in the Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal and the reactions in letters to the editor in the paper here [original diary], here [part 2], here [part 3], here [part 4], here [part 5], here [part 6], here [part 7], here [part 8], here [part 9], and here [part 10].

Two letters were published in today’s edition of the paper. One complained about the subject, the other was a lengthy diatribe.

The headers for the letters were provided by the paper.

The first letter:

Get Priorities In Order

“I have held off writing this letter, but enough is enough…

[a description of coverage of the story in the Kansas City media market]

…I am concerned that so many people in the community think this is such a major issue that they’re still writing and voicing opinions about it two months later…

…Please, people of Warrensburg, let’s prioritize things. Let it go.”

Gee, intolerance isn’t pleasant and doesn’t reflect well on the community when such sees the light of day in the local newspaper and beyond. Do you think maybe people should speak out against intolerance? “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

Sometimes a satirist is presented with something that is too good to be true – one might refer to it as “a target rich environment.” I usually refer to writing about something like this (satirically, of course) as the discursive equivalent of “clubbing baby harp seals.”

The second letter was quite lengthy and criticized the paper along with all those too tolerant elements in society:

Gay Unions Are Aberrant

“If you can stand it, one more letter on your engagement picture. I have known and worked with a number of gay people and generally found them to be good workers and decent people as long as they don’t talk about their other activities. Nevertheless I would not trust them in certain professions…

…In addition, such unions have no possibility of ever being fruitful. Hence, an aberration…

…Your story-picture about a gay union does two things, neither of which helps the community. First, it appears to give legitimacy to such unions and this advances the gay political agenda. Second, it tends to encourage young people still in their formative years, to believe that it is okay to experiment with homosexuality.

No doubt I will be castigated for this letter, but that too is part of the gay agenda…

…love the sinner, hate the sin.”

“…I have known and worked with a number of gay people and generally found them to be good workers and decent people…” That ‘s code for “some of my best friends are gay, but…” or “They’re nice enough, but I wouldn’t want one of them marrying my son/daughter…”

Priceless. “…as long as they don’t talk about their other activities…” My goodness, they might talk about going to a professional sporting event, or having dinner at a restaurant, or attending a church social event. I wonder if gay people put their pants on one leg at a time. Oh, the humanity…

“…Nevertheless I would not trust them in certain professions…” I guess that means king, or soldier, or scientist, or diplomat is out. Oh, I get it. It’s about teachers. There’s that fear that all the innocent children could catch being gay. Or maybe they’d catch tolerance? There’s a thought.

“…In addition, such unions have no possibility of ever being fruitful. Hence, an aberration…” I suppose that a loving couple who can’t conceive children for whatever reason would really appreciate being called “an aberration.”

“…Your story-picture about a gay union does two things, neither of which helps the community. First, it appears to give legitimacy to such unions and this advances the gay political agenda. Second, it tends to encourage young people still in their formative years, to believe that it is okay to experiment with homosexuality…” Actually, the story did a third thing. It brought a lot of intolerant people “out of the closet.” The irony is quite delicious, don’t you think?

It might be just me, but I figure the gay political agenda is to throw politicians out of office who cynically exploit a minority of narrow minded individuals’ fear of all things gay as a wedge issue for base political purposes. That sounds like a worthy enterprise.

“…No doubt I will be castigated for this letter, but that too is part of the gay agenda…” You think?  I figured the gay agenda was to promote tolerance for others, but I guess it really revolves around targeting isolated people who don’t cotton to their agenda.  It’s amazing what you can learn just by reading the local newspaper.

“…love the sinner, hate the sin”
Hate the bigotry and intolerance, pity the bigoted and intolerant.

And, while we’re at it, there ought to be a law against using too many paranoid clichés in letters to the editor.