My articles have been generating a lot of comments lately, some good and some bad, some directed at me and others at the people whom I wrote about.
I don't mind complaints, they come with the territory. In fact, I am glad when people write and express their opinions, because it means they are reading The Blade.
But sometimes, the criticism is just plain baffling.
Take, for example, a letter to the editor published in The Blade today by a retired Catholic priest, the Rev. Earl Loeffler. He complained that I wrote a story about an atheist, Nica Lalli, that ran on the religion page July 14. (Here's a link to the story.)
Father Loeffler (who, for those who care about such things, doesn't wear a Roman collar) felt it was the equivalent of running a sports story on the business pages. Then he added this bizarre comment: "It does make one wonder about The Blade’s desire to be accurate and precise."
Really now, give me a break!
What is the correlation between accuracy and precision in reporting, and putting a story about an atheist on the religion pages?
Where would a story about an atheist be better suited -- on the news pages? Not unless an atheist blew up a church or something. Where else, then, in the comic section because you personally don't agree with her worldview? The editorial pages? The health section? No, the only appropriate place for such a story is the religion section.
To quote the dictionary, religion is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usu. involving devotionial and ritual observances, and containing a moral code for the conduct of human affairs."
Atheism is defined as "the belief that there is no God."
Writing about atheism involves a person's belief system or worldview, i.e., whether they believe in God or no God. Atheism fits the first part of the dictionary definition of religion, regarding a "set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe." It doesn't include a "superhuman agency," but that's not a necessary part of the definition of religion.
I try to write about all religions and faiths and traditions, and even those who don't believe in religion. The religion section is the perfect place for such articles.
To be perfectly frank, the fact that someone would question the "accuracy and precision" of The Blade's news coverage because an article about an atheist ran in the religion section is one of the most ignorant and inappropriate criticisms I've ever seen.
* * *
On the other hand, I received a scathing letter over the weekend about my column on The Simpsons Movie, and the criticism is well taken. The writer made some valid points.
The letter writer was offended by the naked skateboarding scene in which Bart Simpson's cartoon genitalia were briefly displayed, and also by a homosexual kiss between two male police officers, by Marge Simpson's use of the Lord's name in vain when she yelled at Homer to "throw the G.D. bomb", and by a young boy's comment (Wiggum) after seeing Bart skate by that "now I like boys."
The woman's criticisms are valid and her points are justifiable and reasonable.
I'm sorry that I forgot about mentioning Marge's language. But I thought the nude skateboarding and the gay kiss were No Big Deals, considering their cartoonishness (is that a word?) and the fact that it was The Simpsons.
I'm surprised the complainant did not mention "The Boob Lady" who rescues Homer from a snowstorm, then appears as an image in the sky when he is about to collapse and uses one of her giant breasts to point him in the right direction.
I tried to point out in the column that this is not the Veggie Tales... of course there will be some questionable scenes. But I still was amazed at how reverently the Simpsons Movie treated Ned Flanders and religion in general.
This time, the writer's complaints were valid, unlike Father Loeffler's strange and twisted logic.
Toledo, Ohio
August 6, 2007