Column by Taylor Shelton
The past several weeks have brought an extremely interesting set of debates to the pages of the Kernel and the Web site comments that accompany the online edition. In fact, I find it delightful to see a sustained debate over issues that are of some importance — whether they are important or helpful to all or most may be an entirely different matter.
The mere fact that such a debate can be had on our campus is a testament to what I see as the ultimate ideal of our university, our state and our nation.
For all of the meaningful discussion of politics, religion, culture and what it means to be this or that, we are confronted with an amazingly large portion of our population who have very little or no interest in such a constructive exchange.
Individuals like Daniel Essek, a Whitley County resident whose claim to fame, until now, was garnering 14 percent of the vote in a primary challenge to Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell this past May.
He now has, however, the dubious distinction of calling into question the legal qualifications of President-elect Barack Obama to be our next commander in chief; specifically challenging that soon-to-be President Obama was not born in the United States and is thus not legally able to serve as president.
Perhaps rather than worrying about the future president’s birth certificate, Essek, who is also seeking to have court fees waived because he claims to be impoverished, should be worrying about how to make a living in an economy in recession or in what ways he might be able to contribute to rebuilding a nation that has lost its luster on any number of levels.
Unfortunately, Essek doesn’t seem to be alone in his odd quest to waste everyone’s time with trivialities (which have already been proven untrue).
Because of this, we have some considerable soul searching to do. What is it that makes us so eager to jump on the bandwagon of hate and ignorance? When was it that thinking became such a taboo activity?
Instead of working through our differences in the spirit of free and enlightened thought, we become preoccupied with lashing out at the preachers who proclaim that our destinies are in hell. Perhaps it is too easy for us to generalize that all Christians are intolerant or that all non-Christians are sin-loving devil worshippers.
I’m not sure exactly what it is, but I know that I don’t like it. Professions that some are more or less moral, more or less ignorant, more or less inclined to uphold “Christian values†or more or less American, are the antithesis of our country’s founding principles.
A dogmatic adherence to Christianity was not written into our Constitution, as much as some wish it were. Likewise, a steadfast hatred of those not like one’s self is not somehow the mark of a “patriotic†American.
Freedom of religion should not mean the dominance of a single denomination. Freedom of speech should not mean freedom to say anything, regardless of how offensive, slanderous or poorly thought out such a statement may be. The freedom to assemble should not be limited to those assemblies that bring favor to those in power. The right to bear arms should not mean the right to inflict harm on another. And the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness should most certainly not be limited only to those wealthy, straight, white and Christian males that still dominate the halls of government in our country. And while it hasn’t always worked out as such in practice, the thing that makes our country special is spelled out in the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.â€
We should, regardless of our religious denomination, political party affiliation, race, ethnicity, gender, socio-economic status or thoughts about the recently dismal state of some UK athletic teams, make sure that each and every thought we think, word we say and action we do express the fullest respect for one another. That’s what our country was supposed to be about. So why don’t we start acting like it?
Taylor Shelton is a geography and political science senior. E-mail opinions@kykernel.com.
great article taylor
I really agree with all that you’re saying. Debate is healthy and beneficial to our society; the intention I had when writing my articles has been to start discussions, to ask questions. I hope I haven’t come across as one who thinks Christians aren’t tolerant–almost all are. We can agree that we are all in this together, and it is definitely time to start acting like it. You are right on the mark.
That’s a curiosity to me, Kremer. I’m fairly certin that the article I responded to last week that you wrote was pretty accusational, presumptuous, and all-around hateful. And now you’re trying to play Mr. Niceguy as though you’re that open-minded and tolerant. Your column sure didn’t make you seem like that.
Well then it appears, Mr. Blake, that you lack the ability to read thoroughly. If you can’t understand my point that the Bible might not be the best place to look for moral value, then I’m not sure what I else I can say. Instead of adhering to dogma, as it seemed Mr. Green was doing in stance against homosexuality (keep in mind, this was the article I was responding to), we should follow through with the notion that Sheldon reiterates in this article– that all are created equal, and we are all in this together.
My article was never intended to be hateful, the title of it didn’t exactly help my cause (it was titled by the KY Kernel). If you’ll notice, I am simply holding Mr. Green accountable for his stances. If he is against gay marriage because the Bible says it’s wrong, then he should be consistent with what he takes from the Bible. Cherry picking moral values doesn’t seem the best way to run things. It is using the Bible to make cheap political points. A religious law should have no place in a secularist society. We seem to agree that it is bad to take the Old Testament literally, as this would deem almost all of us as immoral sinners that should be stoned to death. So enough with the discriminating against Gays, please.
All I was asking in my article was to not use Biblical law to discriminate against others, especially when the issues become political. Loving another person, no matter their sex, is something that I think Jesus would approve of, yes?
If some of the things I said offended you, I am sorry. It was clear from your response in the Kernel that you didn’t understand my point. I never said the Bible was crap. It contains some great stuff for sure; but it also creates some pretty questionable things, things that seem to clash. This is because it is, after all, a book written and stitched together by man, there is no denying that, Andrew.
You say “Kremer is in no position to criticize and label something billions of people have followed for thousands of years”. We will have to disagree on this point. The fact that religion has been along for thousands of years is all the more reason to criticize it. We criticize political ideologies all the time, they’ve been around all that time too. Maybe it is you, Mr. Bake, that needs to keep the open mind.
Appeal to Jesus all you want. But do not step on the rights of others while doing it, as Mr. Green did. After all, which is worse: adhering strictly to an ancient text, or asking questions, evaluating it, and forming your own conclusions? I’ll gladly take the latter.
I am not saying all Christians are intolerant. I am not saying the Bible is full of crap and those that follow it are blind. I am simply asking the Christians like Mr. Green to evaluate why they believe what they believe, and to keep our politics free from religious dogmatic teaching.
just noticed i misspelled both taylor’s last name and andrew’s…my apologies
To the editors of the Ky Kernel: please do something to incite Taylor Shelton to say something! It seems like every time I pick up the Kernel, I read some new (but always bland) article by Mr. Shelton.
The latest, “Citizens must learn to respect differing opinions, one another,” did not buck the trend. Instead of taking a real stance on a particular issue, he used his valuable editorial space to issue trite, politically correct generalizations that don’t actually say anything.
Please, Mr. Shelton: I know you’re a political science major and judging by your writing you have a bright political future, but don’t be afraid to voice an opinion on something. You’ll have your whole adult life to hedge your bets with politically inoffensive opinions that don’t upset anyone.
Your writing will be more interesting and will engender discussion and debate like that of Mr. Kremer’s iconoclastic article (thank you for actually saying something, Mr. Kremer).
In my opinion, space on the editorial page is best used when one takes a stance on a relative issue, and makes a concise and persuasive argument.
I know you think “we should [...] make sure that each and every thought we think, word we say and action we do express the fullest respect for one another” is a bona fide editorial opinion, but I disagree. I believe it’s another bromidic statement; one that will be realized the same day all the people of the world throw away their weapons and hold hands.
Additionally, that is not what our country was supposed to be about. It would have been a nice sentiment, but it didn’t make it into a constitution that held that the value of black people was 3/5 the value of white people.
What did make it into the constitution was the freedom of speech–no matter how disagreeable. You say, “Freedom of speech should not mean freedom to say anything, regardless of how offensive, slanderous or poorly thought out such a statement may be.” That’s precisely what freedom of speech means, and how lucky we are to have it!
If freedom of speech should not include “offensive” or “poorly thought out” ideas, what the hell should it protect? Only inoffensive, status quo supportive thought? Who will determine what is offensive or poorly thought out?
Maybe Mr. Shelton will volunteer; he seems to think he dutifully occupies the moral high ground. I, however, would prefer that he and no other person get to decide that.
In summary, I’m simply hoping the next time I pick up the Kernel and look at the editorial page I don’t find sterile rhetoric or titles such as “Let’s give all the hungry people food” or “Time to listen to every single opinion, consider, and eventually render a judgment,” but I have a lurking fear I will be disappointed.
Mr. Sawyer – I sincerely hope you’ll check back and see this response to your comment. First of all, let me say that I’m sorry you find my writing to be bland, inoffensive and, more or less, inconsequential. I’ll say first that perhaps my thoughts didn’t translate so well into the printed word, but the intent of this column was not to to be politically correct, but to engender people to treat one another better – from the somewhat ridiculous back and forth in recent weeks (which I have occasionally participated it) over gay rights, religion, restoration of voting rights to felons, etc. More often than not, you’ll find much of the commentary on these issues is completely divorced from a) reality and b) a concern for the beliefs, rights and general humanity of the people being spoken about. Call that bland and politically correct if you wish, but I can think of few other things that require more work than being thoughtful and intelligent when making an argument. Hateful diatribes from one position or another on any given issue are not constructive – I hope you’ll agree.
Second, I would like to ask you a question: what other writing of mine do you find to be bland, inoffensive or sterile? I mean this quite seriously. If you read my blog (linked to in my comments on this page), any other blogs which I contribute to, my comments on articles on this very website, or even most of my articles that have appeared in this paper, you’ll see what I would consider to be quite opinionated and occasionally controversial articles. Although the comments from them disappeared when the Kernel switched web formats, my first several articles (printed over the summer) received something like 10-20 online comments on nearly everyone. having a discussion is what all of this is about, in case you were unaware. If you haven’t read all of these, I would hope that you will take some time to in order to acquaint yourself more with my positions, so as not to make generalizations about how bad of a writer you think I am or about how you believe me to be intentionally inoffensive so as to create some sort of political career for myself (it may be splitting hairs, but if you knew me, you’d know that not only am I uninterested in being a politician, but I lack any social aptitudes that would be required of one, so you’re a bit off base in your assumption based solely on my field of study. you should think about the geography part – that’s what I care about).
feel free to email me if you wish, as I am genuinely interested in hearing what you have to say. unfortunately I don’t have time to respond to every single qualm that you listed. but please, give it all a second look and let me know if you still feel the same…