LETTERS to the Editor 

Hypocrisy Democracy

OK, I've had it! Let us get our nomenclature correct. These so called Christian conservatives are neither Christian nor conservatives ... fascists-antichrist might be more to the point.

I for one hate — excuse me — dislike generalizations (excuse the above example) that people use when trying to demean a person or persons (I don't use them that way usually but if the shoe fits). However, this week has driven me from my long slumber and has given me the voice I hear nowhere else. Point one: Christians are followers of Christ. Fine then, follow him. He gave us two commandments (MATTHEW 22: 37-40), paraphrase, love God, love your neighbor. Well, they fail at least one of these (I guess 50% ain't bad). It doesn't say unless he's gay (by the by, why don't they say anything about females? I guess those multi-wifed Hebrews liked to watch).

Denying a right of a person to marry another and using Christ as your reason has no standing in the scriptures. You would have to go to the old testament for that, which is Jewish, no offense (remember he came to fulfill, not endorse). So this is not in Christ's teaching. Point two: A true conservative wants less, not more, government. Keep out of individuals' lives as much as we possibly can. Point three: Separation of church and state. In other words, preach whatever garbage you want, and believe me they do (Jim and Tammy Faye, Swaggart, Ayatollah, bin Laden), don't bring it to a vote. If Iraq has taught us nothing it should have taught us this.

In closing, I'm not gay, I am a pastor, albeit one that believes I should not profit in any way spreading his testament, therefore I don't drive a Cadillac, but my love for Him makes me write this. The persecution and prosecution of gay people should end immediately if not for their sake then for the sake of our immortal soul.

Rev. Henry


I have read Godless: The Church of Liberalism and it is nothing more than a collection of weak, underdeveloped arguments (Michael Graham, "Miss Nasty," Views, June 14).

Coulter describes the 9/11 Commission as, "a scam and a fraud, the sole purpose of which was to cover up the disasters of the Clinton administration and distract the nation's leaders during wartime."

Coulter fails to consider or even mention that the 9/11 commission has also provided the most comprehensive public account to date of how 19 meagerly armed individuals were able to kill 3,000 people on September 11. Based on the commission's recommendations, our government has created a Director of National Intelligence in the hopes of facilitating better information sharing amongst the 15 different intelligence arms within the executive branch. Moreover, the members of the commission have launched a sincere effort to encourage a national dialogue on how to prevent future terrorist attacks and curb the spread of Islamic fundamentalism.

This is just one of the many issues that Coulter does not fully and adequately examine in Godless, although providing a balanced and objective exploration of the complex challenges facing the United States was never her true goal. Rather, she set out to intentionally generate controversy, both as a marketing strategy and to perpetuate an acrimonious culture of partisan idiocy. Mission accomplished!

Coulter's book is neither a victory for conservatism nor is it a striking blow against liberalism. Instead, it is just another bestselling pablum, one of the many pieces of political drivel that are collectively poisoning civic debate in the United States. Partisan hacks such as Ann Coulter, Al Franken, Michael Moore, and Sean Hannity feed off of the hyperboles of their liberal or conservative counterparts and respond with equally shallow, specious arguments, all the while ensuring colossal book sales and contributing to an increasingly polarized and ignorant citizenry.

Vince Manzo
Mount Pleasant


It was the morning of 14 June 2006, I fired up my computer and turned on the internet and began my day of “information gathering” when a Goggle”search would bring up the Charleston City Paper Blotter's report. I live in Europe. Being a former Charleston city resident I decided to read further. When I opened the page, I almost couldn't believe my eyes. The blotter chosen as the Blotter of the week, concerned a man who went into a Meeting Street convenience store and asked the cashier out on a date. The cashier said no. The man then called her a Nigger Lover, and left. A few minutes later, the man came back into the store and apologizes. He said, Here's a joint for you,”and left just that on the counter, the report continued. After I read the report I noticed the caption under the report issued by the City Paper, which read: "We've added a cartoon and a little commentary. We've added a little humor, too. No one has been found guilty. This is not a court of law."”Needless to say, I was furious. Not because of the N-word itself, but because this is the 21st century! If you look the word up, in any dictionary you will immediately note that the word is derogatory. Traditionally, the word has been associated with an often casual contempt, a racist assumption of black inherent inferiority, even of bestiality, making it extremely pejorative. Merriam-Webster's online reference notes, the word nigger "now ranks as perhaps the most offensive and inflammatory racial slur in English." Yet for a little humor”(lacking common sense and civil decency) the paper's editors show clearly”no regard to the extent, the vast network, of anti-black prejudice in America, and I couldn't be more ashamed.

Fitzgerald Brown

[The offensive term was taken directly from the police report and was not added by us. —Ed.]


Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

Classified Listings

Powered by Foundation   © Copyright 2018, Charleston City Paper   RSS