Learning new things can be a marvelous adventure, especially when what is learned comes right out of the blue … er … no, right through an e-mail message. “Glory Osky Zero,” as Little Orphan Annie might say, “I didn’t know that.” Well now I do. I learned that the Voices Page of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette isn’t a religious page. Glory Osky … oh, I just wrote that. Sorry.

The adventure in learning came about when I challenged, in a hateful manner according to Meredith Oakley, the editing of Bible verses from my letter to answer another writer who wrote that our existence was a mystery and we couldn’t know why we were on this earth. And to answer the unbeliever who asked why on earth we are on this earth, the following was quoted: Revelation 4:11: Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. To which was appended the comment, There is the answer whether you believe it or like it or not.

 Horror of all horrors, that is religious and it can’t be printed. Never mind that the writer (and others in the same basket of unbelief) to which the reply was directed, routinely misquotes, twists, and misapplies Bible verses to demean, denigrate, and otherwise cast asparagus … oops … aspersions on believers in God. On second thought, maybe it is rotten asparagus garnished with the cheese sauce of ignorance or stu … naw … couldn’t be. Of course, what the writer wrote is the truth, so what I wrote was too provocative and is the “source of fighting over biblical interpretation that uses scriptural citations as ammunition,” says Ms. Oakley. The Bible verses are provocative and lead to fighting, but the misquoted text and bilge couldn’t possibly be anything but the truth. Actually, what the correct verse does is answer in such a way that the writer referred to must either accept the truth that he is wrong or continue to deny God. (All she needed to do was remove the citation of book, chapter, and verse. Oh no, can’t have those words of truth. No siree bob anyhow no way. It might make the unbelievers unhappy and we can't have unhappy unbelievers.)

But this isn’t the end of the story. In my letter sent to Voices, the word implied was substituted for announced. The line as it was written is thusly: “He has with a few key strokes announced that those who wrote the Bible are liars.” Now when someone denies the truth of the scriptures, they aren’t implying anything, they are stating that the writers are liars all. To declare the scriptures false is to say liar. Now we know that truth is provocative, causes fighting, and irritates editors.

As Paul Harvey would say, “Now for the rest of the story,” but in this matter it is more of the story and the editing of truth from the letters. Keep in mind that the letters section isn't religious as you read more of the editing story. A letter the first part of the year was written to Voices by another writer who made assertions that once again were presented as truth. Were his statements edited? Apparently they weren’t, but the last part of my answer to him was edited. You know by now what I wrote was too religious even though the writer made ridiculous religious statements about Christians. You must remember that what he wrote isn’t religious because he thinks it’s the truth and presumably … uh … well … suffice it to say his nonsense was allowed to stay in the letter.

But before we get the last line of my answer letter that was removed, another line taken out was in answer to the statement of the writer who said Europe was run by Christians. The line removed that refuted that nonsense is: Facts show that Western Europe is secular and has rejected any mention of God in the European Constitution, lest anyone be offended.  The reason that God was left out of the European document was so not to offend any sensitive unbeliever. I am beginning to learn and understand that truth is dangerous and will lead to being edited.

Now to the line that was ammunition for a fight, or at least that is what I think is the reason. Since it isn’t a Bible verse, it is confusing. The writer said believers were no better than the Taliban since we are preaching the gospel and believe that all men should come to the knowledge of Jesus Christ which is tantamount to trying to force our religion onto him. In answer I wrote: “Taliban, you say. How is Jesus being imposed on anyone, Mr. Blank? Please tell us.” An answer to that would be nice, but since it was edited out, alas and alack, no answer will be tendered, not that it would have been. Idiotic statements such as the writer’s assertions are difficult to defend when they are asked for an explanation.

Again, recall that Voices isn’t a religious page and Bible content is the “source of fighting over biblical interpretation that uses scriptural citations as ammunition,” Ho Ho Ho and for good measure throw in a Yee Haw. “It’s not a religious page” line has risen up to bite once again. On May 15, 2007, a letter expressed the view that homosexuality is immoral and revealed that men with men working that which is unseemly is vile affections (my notation: paraphrase of Romans 1:26-27) and that if a man lies with mankind as with a woman, it is an abomination (Actual verse is Leviticus 20:13,  If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.) The writer also paraphrased 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12, And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12  That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. Now “them is fightin’ words,” provocative, and ammunition for more dissension.  By Jove laddie, I got it, there isn’t any verse citation in them thar fightin’ words. But aren’t the words religious? What are they doing on a page that isn’t religious? Somebody has some splainin’ to do and it “ain’t me.”

At the risk of incurring the wrath of Ms. Oakley to a greater degree than what she exhibited in one of the messages to me, I will relate what I did, according to her. (There was nothing in what was written that implied or stated that whatever was in the correspondence would remain private. In fact, she is free to publish every word I sent to her with the reference letter included and to tell anyone she chooses.) In reference to the statement that “It is a religious page,” and in view of the fact that she allowed cockeyed religious references from the unbelievers, I wrote that she was hiding behind religion to avoid answering the question of why she edits my letters (and others) and allows the unbelievers free reign. I suggested she should try the truth [referring to the religious page excuse instead of trying to slide by the issue.] That brought the line that I made a hateful insinuation that she was a liar. When you can’t address the issue at hand (unnecessary and selective editing) and win an argument by doing so, resort to obfuscation and accusation. In the words of the late great Jack Webb, Sgt. Joe Friday of Dragnet, “Just the facts ma’am, Just the facts.” Dum dee dum dum.

In Sorting It Out good readers, make up your own minds about what you read in this article. You may have the same thought I had when I learned that the Voices Page wasn’t religious. My word, I didn’t know that.  

© 05-18-2007 DEC