Marx loved his java

Christine Wicker’s commentary Sunday evoked such strong emotion that, in the spirit of the Christianity she seems unable to grasp, I chose not to send my first comments. Might have been a bit harsh. (See: “American evangelicals, once considered monolithic, are fragmenting,” Aug. 17) 

Rather, let me say that Jesus commanded His followers to give to the poor, feed the hungry, visit the imprisoned and comfort the sick. He never said vote for the Socialists (Liberal Democrats) so they can enact laws to tax away the fruits of one man’s labor for the purpose of redistribution to anyone.

Wicker and her coffee-shop Marxist buddies might consider this more Christian, but she is living in the fog of confusion that her flawed belief system requires. Marx was wrong. Communism does not work without re-education camps and gulags, no matter how often you might want to try it.

Wicker has absolutely no idea what Christ taught. The Son of God did not say, “Hey, follow me and everyone will love you, man.” He said, follow me and you will be persecuted; perhaps even crucified. He also said, “I am the way, the truth and the life, and no one sees the Father except by Me.” No ambiguity there.

In the Old Testament, God condemned homosexuality, and proved his disdain by obliterating Sodom and Gomorrah. Oh, wait, it was because the people of those cities did not show proper hospitality to strangers. Yeah, right. I’ll have another espresso, please.

Ms. Wicker probably thinks WWII was an “OK” war because America was helping Stalin keep the Socialist gulags open, by fighting against the Third Reich. Hooray, for the ’good’ war.

And, oh by the way, in 1863, when Abe Lincoln was walking through the White House and 600 plus thousand Americans were dying on the battlefields of the Civil War, I bet he was singing this little ditty, “Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord. He is trampling out the vineyards, where the grapes of wrath are stored.”

Against that war too, are you?

— Roger Latham, Fort Worth

Comments

[Jeff Langr, Southlake]

Dude, I cannot for the life of me figure out what you really believe. Sarcasm is unwise in letters.

Both WWII and the Civil War, and just about all the rest, were great examples of evil. 600,000 people (one out of 50 people at the time) did not have to die over a war that wasn't really about slavery, and Lincoln showed pure evil in his rape of the South during Sherman's march to the sea. Let's also not forget Lincoln's trampling of the Constitution in oh-so-many ways. All to end slavery. Not. How did so many other countries manage to end slavery without obscene slaughter?

How many people were taught the fallacy that the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves? Try reading it (and understanding the context), it's not that long.

With respect to World War II, we didn't care much about the Jews, and neither did a complicit Europe, until it was too late. Reasons aside, ending a war by murdering 100,000+ innocent civilians *by choice* is something for which to forever have shame.

[Micky Littleton, Fort Worth]

Mr. Langr:

Exactly where did you receive your degree in history? I must say, were you my student, you would have failed.

The nonsense you spout concerning the Civil War sounds as though it were pulled directly from the manuals of anti-Reconstructionists and their supporters. The kind of reteric was used to instill reacism, distrust, and anger in southerners during and after reconstruction in an attempt to devestate the governments' efforts to fix the broken south and her economy and society.

It seems our schools continue to teach our students mistakes, falsehoods, and out right lies in an attempt to hide the ugly truth about our past. No wonder we are falling into darkness and disrepair. How can any nation built upon the foundation of an informed citizenship remain strong when the citizens do not even know what happened in our collective past?

Micky Littleton
Fort Worth

[Bryan Kirby,Ft. Worth]

I agree totally. Darkness and disrepair are the tidal waves unleashed by the tsunami of liberlism and the guy with the funny name. God help us all.

[Jeff Langr, Southlake]

If I were your student, no doubt I would have failed, because you're part of the side that has whitewashed history and is teaching what amounts to political bias. Where is the fallacy in my statements?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation It's there for anyone to read and draw their own conclusions. "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free." Yet no slaves in the north were freed by the proclamation: "Abraham Lincoln's declaration that all slaves would be permanently freed in all areas of the Confederacy that had not already returned to federal control by January 1863. The ten affected states were individually named in the second part. Not included were the Union slave states of Maryland, Delaware, Missouri and Kentucky."

The map on the page is clear too; note no northern states.

Are you denying Sherman's march to the sea and the horrors it bestowed amongst innocents? Are you saying that the only way to end slavery was through obscene slaughter? Are you suggesting that Lincoln was right in denying the constitutional right to secede? Are you denying that Lincoln suspended habeus corpus?

Sir, you are the one who is spouting the nonsense. These are facts that are out there for anyone who cares to go beyond the 3rd grade whitewashed education on the civil war.

Slavery was indeed an ugly truth. So was the rise of executive power under Lincoln, and the willfulness under which following presidents selectively removed protections provided by the Consitution. Given what George Bush is doing in a similar vein today, I think it's your willful dismissal of such actions that's a far bigger part of the problem.

[Jeff Langr, Southlake]

By the way, it's "rhetoric," so apparently you didn't learn much in school either.

Try reading a little more on the subject before you dismiss basic facts.

[Jeff Langr, Southlake]

Ohh but I forgot, the Civil War is a "good" war. Let's see, this indiscriminate slaughter of hundreds of thousands was ok, but the current war in Iraq is not because we hate George Bush, and dropping bombs on Yugoslavia was ok because we like Bill Clinton, and ... Such hypocrisy.

[Mark Durand Jr. Long Prairie, Minnesota]

Hey Jeff, don't forget... it's also ok for Russia to invade Georgia.

[David Perkins, Fort Worth]

Mr. Langr,
Your sarcasm about the civil war being "good" war is misplaced. No war is good.

But the civil war was fought primarily over slavery. History should tell you that the writers of the Constitution put off the question of slavery because they feared that to press the question at that time would have meant the states would not have become The United States of America.

Thus the need, under the heading of states rights, to fight the civil war. The only thing states rights had to do with it was whether a state had the right to hold human beings as slaves to ensure the continuation of a doomed lifestyle.

It has long been my opinion that if the south had not started the war -by several states secceding, then the CSA invading an American Army base (Fort Sumpter)- that slavery would have died out within 10-15 years to be replaced by machinery. We humans are too quick to use the gun instead of the Bible to sort out differences.

As to dropping the atom bomb during WW2, if HST had not used a weapon at his disposal as President to protect the lives of fighting men and women of the US armed forces he would have been impeached. In using that weapon he also saved hundreds of thousand of Japanese lives.

And it is your opinion about America not caring about Jews during WW2. I say this nation did, even if there was discrimination against Jews then. There is not now and the purpose has been served. But, as I said no war is good.

David Perkins
Fort Worth

[Jeff Langr, Southlake]

Greetings Mark,

Why is it ok for the Russians to invade Georgia? Did I write something that suggested so?

I'm not a leftist who just chooses any position as long as it's against the US or Bush administration. The question becomes what to do about it.

Jeff

[Jeff Langr, Southlake]

Greetings David,

Thanks for the thoughtful and honest commentary. Yes, to an extent, the civil war began over slavery, at least from certain members of the North's viewpoint. And the southerners wanted to protect what they thought as their choice. I have heard the bit about the founding fathers deferring discussions about slavery, and I buy it, but only to an extent. I suspect that they would have written much more on the topic, for example in the federalist papers, and perhaps more explicitly, had this been a genuine interest for their lifetime.

The South's interests were primarily financial, and resentment over taxation was again part of the problem. Yes, the south wrongly thought that slaves were essential to their survival. Still, they had, per the constitution, the right to secede and form their own nation. Imagine had this happened, and that Lincoln did not prosecute the war to the full extent. The south would likely have collapsed on its own (particularly with reluctant trading partners in Europe).

The Union was trying to supply Ft. Sumter, by the way, *after* the south seceded. So I think the matter of who started the war is debatable.

An addendum: If you told a Union soldier
that he was fighting the war to free the slaves, he would have either laughed or put the barrel of his gun in your face.

As mentioned, most other countries figured out how to end slavery without so much bloodshed. It would likely have ended, as you suggest, within a generation or so, without one person in 50 dying. And I think that ultimately this would have been the best path to racial harmony--I suspect that had there been no war, the ugliness that survived over a hundred years hence would have been greatly diminished, as it did elsewhere. So I think Lincoln, whether or not he really cared about freeing the slaves (he did, but he cared about other things far more), did far more damage than good.

With respect to dropping the atomic bombs, note my original message: Had this been a "necessary evil" instead of a "deliberate evil," we would have dropped the bomb on targets other than innocent civilians. That should have been a simple choice. I hate to say it, but it equates to blowing up a building filled with businessmen. The bombing-to-death of ~40,000 (number debated) civilians in Dresden is a similarly shameful act.

I recently finished a book on the history of the Holocaust, shortly after visiting Auschwitz. What I gathered (and what is supported elsewhere) is that by and large, Americans were not aware of the plight of the Jews, and it had absolutely nothing to do with our entry into the war and our fight against the Germans. There were also some very interesting revelations about how the evacuating Jews were desperate for places to end up, but were rejected by many, too many, countries. The US was no different than the other countries who claimed to have "no room at the inn."

I do look at the war in Iraq and strife in the middle east as having some parallels to WWII. I don't buy into the reasons we went into Iraq or the reasons we are in so involved in the mideast. It would seem to me, though, that continued stated interests in the obliteration of the Jews would draw enough parallels to the Holocaust, enough to gain perhaps a little more support from the sanctimonious left.

[Mark Durand Jr. Long Prairie, Minnesota]

Naw, Jeff, you didn't say anything about it being ok for Russia to invade Georgia. I was actually chiming in with you on your statement which went like this....

"Ohh but I forgot, the Civil War is a "good" war. Let's see, this indiscriminate slaughter of hundreds of thousands was ok, but the current war in Iraq is not because we hate George Bush, and dropping bombs on Yugoslavia was ok because we like Bill Clinton, and ... Such hypocrisy."

Making fun along with you. That was my point. It's hard to be sarcastic online. People can't hear ones voice and when i make a face to make my point.

[Jeff Langr, Southlake]

Greetings Mark,

My apologies! After I posted my response, I re-read yours and caught on. Thanks for the posting!

Regards,
Jeff