A Rant on the Evils of IslamConnie Tuttle's slam against Christianity (April 26) is just the latest example of anti-Christian bigotry that appears in your paper on a regular basis. When she starts dredging up the Crusades and inquisitions, it is really pathetic, and her arguments are already lost.
There is only one major religion today that uses coercion, intolerance and violence to see that either it is the only religion around or that other religions are kept in a second-class status, and that is Islam. The best Christians and Jews can expect in a Muslim nation is apartheid existence.
I was amazed that her attempts at analogies were so off the mark, as when she talked about the Romans, etc. Then to cap it off, she tried to paint Islam as having a big tent, and claim that the Bahá'ís are under that tent!! The truth is that the Islamic world wants to squish the Bahá'ís out of existence with its thumb. I couldn't believe how ignorant Tuttle was about that. The Bahá'í faith came out of Islam but has been an independent religion for around 150 years. As a rule, Muslims consider Bahá'ís as heretics and have been persecuting them from the beginning.
Tuttle suggests to readers to read about the "breadth of Islam" in Wikipedia. Two pages earlier in your paper, Danehy compares doing that to consulting an Ouija board. Does the right hand know what the left hand is doing at the Weekly?
Tuttle's Religious Analogies Missed the MarkI hate stereotyping and agree with Connie Tuttle that the anti-Muslim T-shirt she described is despicable. However, it is quite a leap from the T-shirt to her spurious analogies.
The Jews at Masada were the first Zealots who held out against Roman attacks for three years. According to historian Flavius Josephus (who heard testimony from a woman who hid and survived the mass suicide), their leader in his final oration said, "We have preferred death over slavery." They killed themselves, but not others. And the Christians who died in the Coliseum also did not invite others to join them.
Additionally, while I despise the war in Iraq, our young soldiers are not given direct orders to kill civilians. There is no question that suicide bombers have not only their own deaths as a goal, but those of innocents. Even if the above examples of "martyrdom" occurred at exactly at the same moment in history, they are still not analogous.
Opinions Need Substantiation!Two articles published on April 26 displayed a lack of logical thinking: one by Tuttle, and one by Imani Williams (Guest Commentary).
Tuttle tries to equate 21st-century terrorists--seeking eternal reward by murdering innocents in the marketplace--with the first-century Masada Jews' self-destruction to avoid Roman capture, and with the early Christians' choice of death over renouncing their religion. Unfortunately, for this argument to have credibility, the latter two groups would have had to massacre others--which they didn't.
Meanwhile, Williams expresses deep anger over Don Imus' terrible "NHH" remark, while the disgusting anti-woman words pouring out of the mouths of rap and hip-hop artists are barely mentioned. It is the latter who caused such hateful words to be commonly used. Also, Williams refers to Imus' audience (if he went to satellite radio) as "right-wing conservatives." The truth is that his audience ran the political gamut from far left to far right, precisely because the show was not partisan. Stars from the liberal mainstream news media (The New York Times, Newsweek, NBC, CBS, etc.) gave the show great credibility. Elites--such as David Gregory, Andrea Mitchell, Tim Russert, Bob Schieffer, Evan Thomas and Thomas Friedman--were constantly guffawing with and complimenting Imus.
Facts are stubborn things. In reading these two articles, a persuasive essay judge would find much to circle in red pen and write, "Substantiate, please."
A Straight Vanilla Has ComplaintsI'd like a double shot! First shot (Guest Commentary, April 26): Duh! For crap's sake, is it possible to say something new? Even "misogynist" is a stretch. How about starting out with "people" instead of "young women," and "never" instead of "no longer?"
I assure the writer that most of us outside the good-ol'-boy AND good-ol'-girl networks, even straight vanillas like me, get plenty of opportunity to experience the same shit!
Second shot: "Christ Their Lord." WTF, Tucson Weekly? I thought, "If I could only hold off until the end, it would be worth it." It wasn't. She hates Christmas and loves pot. Whatever. Do you know you could have sold some serious advertising space here?
Claim: Danehy Madea Statement ... With Enormity?Does Tom Danehy, in his photo-radar piece (May 5), realize the enormity of his statement, "and, generally, don't be an asshole" (May 3)?
Good grief. If adults, generally, stop being assholes, who will be role models for our youth? If adults, generally, stop being assholes, we may raise a next generation with manners. Manners! Whoa, wait a minute, that sounds un-American to me. Get outta my way, bitch; I'm going through that red light, and I ain't gonna hang up, either! Ah, now that's America. Ya gotta love it. Doncha?
Tucson's a Laughingstock ... Because We Have No Freeway?Regarding Tom Danehy's rant on photo radar, all I can say is: I wish the Tucson "powers that be" would install freeways as quickly as they want to install photo radar. Elsewhere in this country, Tucson is the laughingstock as a supposedly "modern" city, a metropolitan region of more than 400 square miles and, for the most part, no usable freeways. Gee! Imagine the concept!
Peter Van Keuren
Independents Tend to Be Open-Minded, UnbiasedI always look forward to reading the Tucson Weekly. However, I strongly disagree with the article by Tom Danehy against independents voting in primary elections (April 19). Though I am a registered voter with one of the major political parties, I recognize that some candidates do not support their party's platform on every issue. Also, in situations where one party is almost certain to win, I would rather vote in that party's primary than be limited to wasting my vote in the general election. The time to support one's political party is before the primary, to help the best candidate(s) get on the ballot.
Independents are not all disillusioned about politics, as Danehy assumes. It's the people who don't vote who are. Independents want to vote for the best candidate(s) on issues affecting their lives, regardless of the candidates' party affiliation. They are unbiased and open-minded, so I welcome independents to vote in my party's primary.
People I know who condemn politics as too despicable to be involved in do not vote, and just assume whatever will be will be, so their vote would not make a difference. Then these nonvoters whine and complain.