Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Letters to the editor are quite often some of the most depressing things one can read. They are a powerful reminder that a sizable percentage of our fellow citizens, armed with the right to vote, are utter morons. I do not here propose a remedy for this problem, only a recognition of it. And as evidence I offer this letter from a Michigan resident named Earl Davis.
After first saying that he does believe that homosexuality is not a chosen trait, he launches into this weird diatribe:
The gay marriage issue is really getting out of hand, as it seems that the gay community is becoming very hostile toward the straight community. They are claiming all sorts of discrimination and all their rights are being violated. The fact of the matter is that the only real rights that any of us really have is the right to follow the law, as it is.The law is that marriage is between a man and a woman. Anyone has a right through proper procedure, to get a law changed, but can't ignore it in the meantime. Actually, no one's right is being violated, anyone following the law can get married.
Mr. Coe seems to think that everyone is entitled to their unlimited rights. That's not possible. That's why we have laws, to settle the differences.
Mr.Coe also says that "Our nation's heritage is the rule of law, not at the accuracy based on religious beliefs." Actually that's just backwards. We are a theocracy (a nation based on the belief in a higher power, the evidence of that belief is everywhere), and the rule of law that we employ is nothing more than an in-depth enforcement of the Ten Commandments, which is really nothing more than trying to help us all get along.
Again I remind you: This guy has the right to vote.
Politics
Comments
It is scary that people like that can vote--but then, that's how W got in. At any rate, the idiot seems totally oblivious to the concept that laws immutable and eternal, but changeable in accordance with the wishes of the society those laws govern.
Posted by: gary l. day | June 11, 2009 9:21 AM
"an in-depth enforcement of the Ten Commandments, which is really nothing more than trying to help us all get along"
Yeah, that part about "only Our God" helps folks get along so very much, doesn't it?
Posted by: Coragyps | June 11, 2009 9:21 AM
It seems my three years of law school were wasted. Who knew?
Posted by: kehrsam | June 11, 2009 9:32 AM
"Everyone that has the right to get married" is a common argument. The usual response is "why do you want to me to marry a woman and live our entire lives in misery? Or do you just want us to be like you?"
And of course we don't enforce half the commandments in law so whatever...
Posted by: yoshi | June 11, 2009 9:35 AM
Posted by: Taz | June 11, 2009 9:41 AM
Well...at least he's up front about his support for theocracy. I've been repeatedly frustrated in debates with religious righters who insist that the entire country should be governed according to their personal religious beliefs, but also adamantly deny that this would constitute theocracy.
Posted by: Wes | June 11, 2009 9:50 AM
Yep. I don't know what your paper is like there but being in the heart of the old South, Charleston SC our Letters to the editor section is constantly filled with some of the most ignorant right wing stupidity. You can almost see the spittle flecks on the letters and monitors. It doesn't help that the editorial staff is right leaning already so I always wonder how many letters get tossed because of that.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 11, 2009 9:52 AM
Is it really only half? Aside from stealing, murder, and perjury, the rest are either horribly unconstitutional or simply unenforceable.
Posted by: Captain Mike | June 11, 2009 9:53 AM
So if I got a law passed saying that Mr. Davis could not vote would he claim a right had been violated or not?
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | June 11, 2009 9:54 AM
If I ever lose faith in Democracy, it will be because of people like these. I simply do not understand how it is possible to read the Constitution and the Decalogue without noticing that they are diametrically opposed on major issues...
Posted by: GBM | June 11, 2009 10:01 AM
The law is that marriage is between a man and a woman. Anyone has a right through proper procedure, to get a law changed, but can't ignore it in the meantime. Actually, no one's right is being violated, anyone following the law can get married.
Are gay couples getting married somehow in Michigan? How can they be ignoring the law rather than going through proper procedure? Does the government say, "I don't know how you got married, since it's not legal, but I guess we'll have to honor the legal benefits anyway."
Posted by: Odie | June 11, 2009 10:02 AM
I simply do not understand how it is possible to read the Constitution and the Decalogue without noticing that they are diametrically opposed on major issues...
Do you think this guy has read either one?
Posted by: Odie | June 11, 2009 10:05 AM
An argument I've been hearing lately is that there is no Constitutional right to gay marraige.
However, if these same people look at teh Constitution they will realize that there is no Constitutional right to striaght marraige either. But states have decided to give rights and protections such as community property rights, insurance rights, child support and alimony protections etc. to one group of people. Once teh states decide to do that then the 14th amendment kicks in:
"No state shall deny to any of it's citizens equal protection of the law."
So while there is no Constitutional right to straight marriage, the moment that the states give rights to straight people the gay people's right are automatically protected. Therefore, an argument could be made that there is a Constitutional protection of gay marriage, but not straight marriage.
Posted by: GregB | June 11, 2009 10:10 AM
@GBM
As soon as someone shows me a system of government that preserves liberty at the expense of democracy, screw democracy. The ignorant among us should not be able to vote IMO.
Posted by: Joshua White | June 11, 2009 10:10 AM
Not to mention, where in the 10 Commandments does it say gays can't get married?
Posted by: Gretchen | June 11, 2009 10:11 AM
Fun trick: Whenever a Christian starts ranting about how our morals are based on the Ten Commandments, ask him or her to name them. All ten. Most cannot do it.
Of course, it's complicated by the fact that nobody even agrees on what the ten commandments actually are...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_commandments#Division_of_the_Exodus_20_Commandments
As Hitchens has pointed out on several occasions, somewhere between 40% and 60% of the Ten Commandments are a reasonable yet incomplete first attempt at a basic moral code (not that other civilizations hadn't come up with much better formulations thousands of years prior, but hey...) The other half is just sectarian bullshit.
Posted by: James Sweet | June 11, 2009 10:15 AM
I counted ten logical fallacies and/or false assertions out of a total of 12 sentences. Excellent!
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 11, 2009 10:15 AM
Fascinating commentary from Shep Smith about the crazies. Smith is Fox's anchor at 7:00 p.m. in Eastern Time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxvunbIWNyI&feature=player_embedded
I do not watch him so I have no idea how he stacks up relative to his competitors who also do straight news. I have seen other videos of him calling out his own company's style of news as he is inferring here and where he called "enhanced interrogation techniques" torture and decrying our apology for it.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 11, 2009 10:22 AM
Just plain scary to say the least. He has the right to vote and believes the country is a theocracy.
Posted by: Goldbrick4 | June 11, 2009 10:30 AM
I personally think you all missed the really disturbing part of the guy's letter, which is:
This isn't just sectarian bullshit, this is a fascist version of liberty. This is the idea that needs to be rebuked, ferociously.And I have little doubt this guy thinks of himself as a real patriot, despite the fact that he just denouced Jefferson's words in the Declaration of Independence and claimed that all our founding fathers acted illegitimately.
Posted by: James Hanley | June 11, 2009 10:30 AM
@ Odie
I was trying to be charitable and assume that he had, but now that you point it out, I'm not sure which is more charitable; assuming that he is a liar or assuming that he is an idiot...
Posted by: GBM | June 11, 2009 10:37 AM
In my opinion, much worse than letters to the editor are the anonymous on-line comments that people ad to articles in mainstream newspapers (like Freep.com for instance). It's SCARY.
Posted by: Paul | June 11, 2009 10:49 AM
@ Joshua White
Yeah preserving liberty would be a problem in a non-democratic form of government, but I think that perhaps a greater problem is coming up with a workable legal definition of 'ignorant.' Anything that I can imagine off the top of my head is likely to be far too static to avoid suppressing revolutionary new ideas, and anyway it sounds like the sort of thing that would be far too easy to manipulate for political ends. It seems to me that any attempt to get 'government-by-Einstein' is just as likely to end up with 'government-by-Hovind.'
At the end of the day, IMO the problem is that you can't build a political system that is immune to being gamed or beaten by the deceitful backed by the ignorant. The only real recourse we have is to try to get some of the more delusional of our fellow citizens to come and join us in the reality-based community.
Posted by: GBM | June 11, 2009 10:50 AM
So I guess the American Revolution was illegitimate since it was against the law, and a King, no less.
Posted by: KeithB | June 11, 2009 10:50 AM
Whenever someone gives me the "everyone has the right to get married" crap, I come back with this comparison. Suppose we outlawed kidney transplants (for whatever reason, they violate Leviticus, w.e.). Now, no one can get a kidney transplant. The majority of the population doesn't care, but there are some people who need kidney transplants, of course. But, according to the maker of the "everyone has a right to get married", people who need kidney transplants aren't being discriminated against, because no one can get one.
Usually they have a hard time arguing around that.
Posted by: valor | June 11, 2009 10:56 AM
@GBM and @Joshua White: Well, heh, it's called a republic...
Seriously. For the forseeable future, most humans are going to be complete idiots. Even the most rational of us behaves pretty irrationally a lot of the time. That's just the human condition.
And as GBM rightly points out, any attempt to exclude idiots from the political process simply gives those who are currently in power an opportunity to consolidate their power.
So the best alternative is a republic. As frustratingly dumb as the average politician is, they probably as a group make better decisions than, say, a decision made collectively by a hundred million people like the guy who wrote this letter.
Oh, and if you want to see how screwed up direct democracy is, consider this: California is one of the most progressive states in the nation, and at one point was on the forefront of gay marriage. But because the California constitution empowers a 51% majority to do whatever the hell they feel like, it is now likely that California is going to be very late to the party in terms of permanently legalizing gay marriage. (And don't even get started on their budget problems...)
Posted by: James Sweet | June 11, 2009 11:03 AM
@GBM and @James Sweet
Could not agree more. Like I said, as soon as someone shows me a system that preserves liberty at the expense of democracy. I kind of like the idea of meritocracy myself, but I can't see how that could avoid eventually turning into a dictatorship. I think that we live under a government that is the current best solution. Hopefully someday someone think of something better and trigger another revolution (idea based and not violent preferably) to a better form of government. I certainly don't think I know what would work.
In the mean time I am about to switch from being a molecular biology technician to high school science teacher. Hopefully I can do some good at solving ignorance. Since I live in Texas Ill need all the idealism I can muster.
Posted by: Joshua White | June 11, 2009 11:19 AM
Of course, I shouldn't pick on California and their nigh-direct democracy too much. Over here in New York State, we've got a representative government in complete meltdown:
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wxxi/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1515921§ionID=1
Facepalm!
(Oh, and once again, it ALL comes back to gay marriage... the impetus for this debacle is that NYS was on the threshold of legalizing gay marriage, so two homophobic Democratic state senators defected to the Republicans to stop it from happening. Double facepalm!)
Posted by: James Sweet | June 11, 2009 11:23 AM
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
--Anatole France
Posted by: xebecs | June 11, 2009 11:26 AM
You should allow yourself some optimism James! Yes there are disappointing situations like the one you cite, and they should be monitored. But I think we can be hopeful that the ball is rolling. If you told me at this time last year that ten percent of the states would have gay marriage in a year I would have thought you crazy. I have found myself more and more celebrating arrival marriage for gays, and the rantings of folks who know they are on the losing side.
Posted by: Joshua White | June 11, 2009 11:35 AM
Valor,
I think that analogy points out pretty neatly the fact that the government can unjustly discriminate against people based on things other than circumstances of birth (gender, race, etc.) or religion. "People who need X" or "People who want to do Y" are also categories of people who can be discriminated against without good reason. The same people who go on about how gays are perfectly able to get married if they marry someone of the opposite sex would be up in arms screaming if we banned all sports but golf, or all pets but cats, or all hairstyles but bald. Sure, you can own a pet just like everybody else-- it just has to be a cat! Quit yer bitching dog lovers, tennis players, and wearers of mullets! We must all be the same-- we must all want the same things!
Posted by: Gretchen | June 11, 2009 11:35 AM
@Joshua: Oh yeah, sure, I'm really optimistic in that sense. To steal a metaphor from NOM, there really is a "gathering storm", and I am shocked at how rapidly the momentum is building. (The other NOM phraseology I like to steal is, "If gay marriage is made legal, our children will be taught a new way of thinking." Awesome! The best thing I could wish for my son is that he will be constantly learning new ways of thinking throughout his entire life.)
It's just depressing what's going on in the NYS legislature -- and not just because of the gay marriage issue, but because this debacle is going to screw up everything else the legislature was supposed to get done this session, too. grumble, grumble
Posted by: James Sweet | June 11, 2009 11:48 AM
@ James White
I agree that Republics help, but you don't need to look any further than Michelle Bachmann or Steve King to find out how fallible those institutions are. As you say the real problem is that all of us are probably idiots about something, and so long as that something includes a meaningful aspect policy-making we're pretty much boned.
@ Joshua White
Kudos for fighting that good fight
Posted by: GBM | June 11, 2009 12:14 PM
KeithB @24: It was rebellion against a theocratic empire, at that!
Posted by: Jon Lester | June 11, 2009 12:17 PM
And of course by James White I meant James Sweet... Sorry, it's pretty late here in Asia.
Posted by: GBM | June 11, 2009 12:22 PM
Not to redirect the general direction of this, but as a spittle-flecked journalist, a few observations:
You should read some of the letters that aren't published. I have too: It's my job. Frequent applications of soothing liquids -- a nice single malt, or a draft Bass -- keep my mind lubricated. My paper reserves the right to edit letters for accuracy -- and we do check. I'm expecting a call from a reader whose claim President Obama was born in Kenya was excised from his letter. We also reserve the right to notify the Secret Service -- and have.
Fun things to do with the 10 Commandments: Ask which version. There are three -- or four, or five; I forget because I've broken most of them.
I will trade James Sweet the Indiana General Assembly for the New York General Assembly straight up -- I'll even throw in some Hoosier Lottery tickets.
Posted by: mediajackal | June 11, 2009 12:30 PM
Joshua White: It's great to see you choosing a noble profession. Teaching needs more people who want to fight ignorance, and even if you can't solve ignorance, you can certainly help fight the good fight.
Posted by: GB | June 11, 2009 12:37 PM
@mediajackal: No dice. Wasn't it you guys who pitched the infamous Pi bill?
Ah yes, indeed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_pi_bill
heh, okay, I feel a little better about my state representatives now. Thanks!
Posted by: James Sweet | June 11, 2009 1:05 PM
A fascist theocracy? Well that explains the support for the current Republican party...
In the mean time I am about to switch from being a molecular biology technician to high school science teacher. Hopefully I can do some good at solving ignorance. Since I live in Texas Ill need all the idealism I can muster.
Oooph, I don't envy you. I teach government/political science in southern Arizona, supposed to be the "liberal" part of the state. Every year it is a battle to explain why you can't just outlaw the Democratic party; that the first amendment has to protect speech you don't like, otherwise it's pointless; that you are innocent until proven guilty ... the list goes on and on. Every other year I have parents glowing about the fact that I'll be able to share with their kids how our government is founded on the 10 commandments [face palm], or I have a parent complaining about how liberal we are here in Arizona (inevitably they're from Utah or Texas). All of the complaints, arguments, etc.? Don't amount to 1/10th what the biology teachers get.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 11, 2009 1:15 PM
You would think that if Christianity, the Bible, and/or the Ten Commandments were in fact the foundation of the country, maybe the Founders might have, ya know, mentioned it once or twice in the Constitution.
It amuses me somewhat that Commandment #1: "Yahweh or the Highway!" is in direct conflict with Amendment #1: "... no law respecting an establishment of religion...".
Posted by: Disciple of "Bob" | June 11, 2009 1:24 PM
It amuses me somewhat that Commandment #1: "Yahweh or the Highway!" is in direct conflict with Amendment #1: "... no law respecting an establishment of religion...".
Actually Bob, I had a theocrat explain that one, we all misunderstand the first amendment, it simply means we can be any branch of Christianity we want, but we have to be Christian. [face palm]
Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 11, 2009 1:28 PM
Disciple of "Bob", one of the bizarre arguments I have heard is that the framers of the Constitution intended it to be a Christian document, because they used "Anno Domini" at the end.
Posted by: Tommykey | June 11, 2009 1:33 PM
kehrsam wrote
We all knew. It's true by definition!Posted by: James Hanley | June 11, 2009 1:43 PM
dogmeatIB,
Your examples are well..
face/palm
YIKES I don't understand how anyone can believe some of these things then crow about how proud they are that the USA is a democracy and they have freedom etc. I guess there is a gross lack of empathy and a lack of imagination. For some reason this type cannot imagine that if you outlaw the Democratic Party, you can then outlaw the Republican or Liberarian or whatever party it is they belong to.
Anyway, I was raised by fairly conservative parents in a fairly conservative part of Maryland (a supposedly liberal state), but never encountered these ideas until the internet! I guess, looking at the encounters you describe, we shouldn't be suprised that people will think one can legislate science :(
oy.
It makes my brain hurt :(
Posted by: kelly | June 11, 2009 2:00 PM
For some reason this type cannot imagine that if you outlaw the Democratic Party, you can then outlaw the Republican or Liberarian or whatever party it is they belong to.
I point that out to them a great deal (as well as religious speech, religion itself, etc.). They don't seem to get it that if you make it easy to outlaw something you don't like, others can use that precedent to outlaw stuff they don't like (but you might like). It's amazing how some kids in their final year of high school have never even attempted, let alone mastered, critical thinking skills. The other part of this is the fact that many of them haven't developed a sense of empathy. They don't see themselves as ever being in a given situation so they don't have much of an ability to see things from the other person's point of view.
I truly enjoy and love what I do, but there are days...
Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 11, 2009 2:15 PM
dogmeatIB,
And of course many who have not mastered critical thinking by their senior year of high school have not mastered it by their freshman year of college, either (or sophomore, junior...).
Until recently this drove me crazy, because it makes my job of teaching so much harder. But I finally came to grips with it, and decided that it is in fact my job to teach them these skills, rather than to assume they ought to have them coming in. And, amazingly, my attitude shifted from being driven crazy by them to enjoying trying to teach them critical thinking and analytical skills, and watching the improvements. In fact I think my changed approach has made me more successful in creating improvement because I shifted from a condemning response to their bad claims to a constructive response.
Not that there aren't still those days, but they're fewer now.
Posted by: James Hanley | June 11, 2009 2:28 PM
James Sweet@38.
So, you're saying that rounding down is wrong? Picky, picky.
The Indiana legislature opens a special session soon to craft a state budget. They met for three months earlier this year with the sole obligation of passing a state budget. No deal -- although they did find time to declare sugar cream pie the official pie of Indiana.
That's pie, not pi ...
Posted by: mediajackal | June 11, 2009 2:58 PM
10 Commandments
I am the Lord your God
You shall have no other gods before me
You shall not make for yourself an idol
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
Honor your father and mother
You shall not murder
You shall not commit adultery
You shall not steal
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
You shall not covet your neighbor's wife
You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor
:: laughs ::
Posted by: Enna | June 11, 2009 3:32 PM
You gotta check this out -It's called an
Electronic Cigarette
Tobacco companies are trying to make it disappear!
Posted by: johnny5 | June 11, 2009 3:33 PM
@dogmeatIB
Where in southern Arizona do you teach? I'm from southern Arizona originally. I was born and grew up in Tucson. I came to Austin to go to graduate school. Turns out I love being a TA more than I like research so High school science seemed the place where I would be most valuable.
Posted by: Joshua White | June 11, 2009 4:40 PM
Thanks for the kind words GB.
Posted by: Joshua White | June 11, 2009 4:42 PM
People like Earl Davis are why I moved out of Michigan and why I will never, *ever* live there again. People of his ilk are far too ubiquitous in Michigan, and with the notable exception of the areas immediately surrounding Detroit, Ann Arbor, and Lansing, it often seems as if you've been dropped into a parody of stereotypical southern-American bigotry, traditions and attitudes.
Posted by: Marcy | June 11, 2009 5:48 PM
Where in southern Arizona do you teach? I'm from southern Arizona originally.
I'm in the so called "Madison of the West," Tucson. I have to tell you, I've been to Madison, Tucson ain't it. ;o)
Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 11, 2009 5:49 PM
Hitchens? Pffft. George Carlin's explanation is much better...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkRYaMiP4K8
Posted by: Brain Hertz | June 11, 2009 6:34 PM
It scares me that people like that vote. But it scares me even more to think that they reproduce and spread their mental virus to others.
Posted by: Buffy | June 11, 2009 7:27 PM
It's gotta be in there somewhere.
Posted by: Skemono | June 11, 2009 8:06 PM
Dogmeat and James,
I quit teaching for years and went back to a HS in DC that had 20% future Ivy League and Duke types. I taught a lot of these kids. They do not know anything. Public School is a total failure. I am done. I might teach again but I think it would have to be in Private School or otherwise it is high paid baby sitting.
This is in Liberal DC too where people are supposed to think.
Posted by: King of Ireland | June 11, 2009 8:41 PM
King,
They don't think, no matter where they are, until we teach them to.
Posted by: James Hanley | June 11, 2009 8:43 PM
Yeah, what possible reasons could we have for being reflexively hostile towards straight people?
Posted by: Bachalon | June 11, 2009 9:30 PM
Skemono@56:
Well, I suppose you could invoke the commandment that says thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's ass ...
Posted by: mediajackal | June 11, 2009 10:07 PM
King,
I've never seen education as "baby sitting" except when I was a substitute.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 11, 2009 10:29 PM
We need licenses to drive a car but not to vote on who should be the leader of the "free world."
And my vote counts the same as this moron's. Brilliant.
Posted by: woodstein312 | June 11, 2009 11:14 PM
@62- Hey now, careful. There's a lot of dumb people out there, but trying to control who should or shouldn't be allowed to vote rarely ends well. Every citizen has a right to vote, even stupid ones.
Posted by: Finch | June 11, 2009 11:27 PM
James,
Most do not want to learn they either are 5 years behind or know it all. But I agree.
Dogmeat,
It is where I am at simply because there is zero discipline and weak principals hired by a "reform" minded Chancellor. It is a joke. If you do the right thing and begin to try and straighten it out they mess with you. It truly has become little more than paid baby sitting even in the best of classes. At least in DCPS
Posted by: King of Ireland | June 11, 2009 11:50 PM
I'm Canadian, and I always thought the States were a theocracy. I mean, doesn't your money say "In God We Trust"?
Posted by: Kate | June 11, 2009 11:58 PM
Finch - here we have a slightly different take on voting:
Every adult citizen has a
rightresponsibility to vote, even stupid ones.It still lets morons into politics, but on the plus side, that saves on sheltered workshops. ;) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 12, 2009 12:03 AM
Kate: And yet Canada (like my own New Zealand) is in fact the theocracy, because your Head of State is the head of the Church of England.
Posted by: James K | June 12, 2009 2:40 AM
the rule of law that we employ is nothing more than an in-depth enforcement of the Ten Commandments
I coveted my neighbor's wife last night. Should I turn myself in or will they send a squad car?
Posted by: ??? | June 12, 2009 9:52 AM
Only since sometime in the 1950s, around the same time the words "under God" were added to the pledge of
mindless obediencealligence; the time of Joe McCarthy, commies under the bed, and Bolsheviks in the washroom.Posted by: blf | June 13, 2009 2:56 PM