Argument was selective

February 8, 2014

Sheila Suess Kennedy should not have endorsed the Christian Theological Seminary president’s position [Jan. 27] even though his conclusion is the one she prefers. Matt Boulton says that the state should not impose its will on the people by supporting House Joint Resolution 3, but, on the contrary, the state should impose its will on the people by setting HJR-3 aside.

It is interesting how the progressive arguer wants the state to impose its will only when it favors their position. The state is bad if you don’t like it and the state is good only if it acts as they wish it should. Why Kennedy would endorse such an argument confounds me. I had believed that she was a better, more thoughtful and reasonable thinker.


Dick Schultheis

Comments powered by Disqus