Snapped Shot

Waldo,

I'm honoured that such a celebrity as yourself stopped by to comment, Sir! Of course, I didn't really mean to smear you personally--directly or indirectly--with my wholly invented "Waldoism," so I do apologize for the negative connotation that it inferred. I was doing my best to express my deep frustration over the brouhaha surrounding Jefferson's Quran and much of the surrounding hyperbole over the non-story in the press. Of course, part of that frustration is the misconceptions which many on the Left seem to have about Jefferson - for instance, about his Bible:

THOMAS JEFFERSON THE CHRISTIAN. While Jefferson is the "Poster Boy" of the "haven't got A-CLU" folks who spout out "Separation of Church and State", did you know that the much derided "Jefferson Bible" includes the words of Jesus on the Miracles? Or that the "Jefferson Bible" was a "Bible Study" done by the President in the White House to create a "Gospel Tract" to help evangelize the Indians to Christianity? So much for the false notion of "Separation of Church and State". Yet for centuries since Jefferson criticized some preachers for preaching "rags" (a Biblical allusion, by the way) that covered and concealed the pure words of Jesus, he has been attacked as "Not Christian, Unitarian, or a Deist." Might there be less than pure motives, or less than the best scholarship, in these "character assassinations" of President Jefferson?

Furthermore, Jefferson, in his ringing defence of Christianity as evidenced by his oft-misquoted letters to the Danbury Baptists, promised that the First Amendment would build a "wall of separation" protecting the church <i>from</i> government interference, rather than protecting the government from religious interaction, as his words are interpreted today.

Of course, of all of the reporters covering the Quran story today, not a single one of them felt compelled to mention that Thomas Jefferson waged a war against the Islamic pirates of the Barbary Coast, without the prior consent of Congress.

Conspiracy? Laziness? Your guess is as good as mine, of course.

Again, sir, I do hold you in the highest regards, as you've done quite a bit to civilize the wild frontiers of the Virginian blogosphere, and I do support your actions in the latest fluffle you're in. I remain,

Most Respectfully,
Brian L.
Reply  

Ha! Celebrity. It's after noon and I still haven't eaten breakfast. The shades are drawn because I'm too lazy to open them. I just finished cleaning up where the (foster) dog pissed on the floor. Ain't no celebrities here. :-)

!!!

Wow, where in the world can I sign up for "The Good Life?" Here I am getting up at "oh-dark-thirty" to make a living over here! (At least get a little bit of time at work to chime in here online once in a while, though...) Who knew you could make a living doing this stuff?



I have to agree that the coverage of Ellison and his swearing-in has been shallow lacked any meaningful detail, but so it goes. But now you've done your job as a citizen-journalism of explaining the ways in which the coverage is shallow, by way of your comment, and a good number of us have read it. The system works.

BTW, "fluffle"? That's an great word. I'm going to have to start using it.

Thank you for the kind words, Sir, but I do know my place here in the blogosphere:



I'm right down there under "Web Photos." To compare, I'm pretty sure that yourself and Vivian are somewhere up near Dental School.

Again, thanks for the kind words! It's always neat to encounter others on the Blogosphere like this, and have a chance to communicate directly. I never cease to be amazed by the delightful sorts of people I meet out here! In any case, I look forward to seeing you in politics sometime in the future here in the Old Dominion. No doubt you'll be in the Assembly before I know it.

Regards,
Brian
Reply  

Vivian,

Two celebrities in one day? I'm literally beside myself with all of this attention! It's doubly an honour to hear from you, Ma'am!



With regards to your question, I'd tend to agree with the sentiments posted by my astute readers, but if you will, allow me to elaborate a touch:

The first and foremost reason why it is wrong for the Commonwealth to apologize, is that history is immutable. Issuing written apologies for past events does nothing to change the events, and considering that said apology isn't coming from the actual "perpetrators" of the alleged crime, there is no resolution for the guilt involved.

Secondly, and equally important: An apology implies guilt on the shoulders of the Government of our fair Commonwealth, and as any lawyer will tell you, anything that implies guilt is grounds for a lawsuit, justified or not. Would you propose that we punish the citizens of our Commonwealth who arrived, as Hapkido said, recently, and had nothing to do with the events that transpired beforehand? After all, any lawsuit against our grand Nation (Sic Semper Tyrannis) will, by nature of the fact that its defence will come out of the Public treasury, be a punishment on every single Citizen thereof.

Finally, while our Lord calls upon all of us to be resolute and apologetic towards each other, I think you'll find that the standards He set for us were set on an interpersonal level, not on a governmental level. Our Lord never asked the Romans to apologize for enslaving the Jews - and His instructions to the Hebrews were explicit: The Government instituted above them was put there by God's design, and as a result, they were instructed to honour their Government ("Give unto Caesar," no?), even if their Government didn't honour the Lord.

In any case, Vivian, I continue to hold you in the highest regards! I enjoy reading your blog every day, because even if we don't agree on many issues, we certainly share a strong faith in the Giver of Life! I hope that my reply was sufficient to explain some of my rationale,

Your Humble Servant,
Brian L.
Reply