Whoa - Hijacking Christianity! Colbert King nails religious right scumbags

compares them to KKK.

B-I-N-G-O!

Hijacking Christianity . . .

By Colbert I. King

<SNIP>

But will that occur in American pulpits tomorrow? The Christian right counts on the religiously timid to keep their mouths shut. So why not exploit religion for their own ends? They will if we let them.

And that's just it. Americans of faith -- and those lacking one -- ought to vigorously resist attempts by power-hungry zealots to impose their religious views on the nation. That means standing up to them at every turn.

It means challenging them when they say of Americans who support a woman's right to choose; the right of two adults to enter into a loving, committed, state-sanctioned, monogamous relationship; the right to pursue science in support of life; the right of the aggrieved to launch aggressive assaults against racism, sexism and homophobia, that they are not legitimate members of the flock. Where do those on the religious right get off thinking they have the right to decide who is in and who is out? Who appointed them sole promoters and defenders of the faith? What makes them think they are more holy and righteous than the rest of us?

They are not now and never will be the final arbiters of Christian beliefs and values. They warrant as much deference as religious leaders as do members of the Ku Klux Klan, who also marched under the cross.

<SNIP>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10688-2005Apr22.html

thats their cover.

...in the first place because it's such a one-size-fits-all mythology.

My favorite description of Christianity comes from something Dr. Samuel Johnson said to an aspiring author after reading his book:

"The work is both original and good. Unfortunately, the original parts are not good and the good parts are not original."

it freaks the right out when we compare them to Hitler (and I understand the reasons we should not) but the KKK? Yes. How can they possibly complain?

...the shoe fits.

.

They wrap Christianity around their activities and say they are doing their gods will. Anyone can use religion to justify any kind of hate or love, whatever you wish.

op-eds against the christian extreme right that I think I have read. I am firing off a thank you to him asap. His points were salient and the whole op-ed was cogent, direct and resembled a call to arms. I loved it. Spread this one around.

with this note from me:

Dear Editors,

In light of the frequent focus on religious interests, specifically a Christian slant I see in your newspaper, I am sending you this article from the Washington Post.

(Let me support my use of the phrase, Christian slant, with a particularly blatant example from last year: in March, this paper chose to hide in a small box on page three, the news of an unprecedented event, one million people marching on Washington DC in support of Women's Lives, in favor of a human interest story on a local Christian Evangelist couple. This story, bemoaning the hard unfairness Christian Evangelists must bear in a prejudiced society --and I take issue with that impression of victimization given by the story-- took up one-half of the front page. Letters of objection sent to the editor were ignored.)

I hope you will take the time to read this powerful editorial printed in the Washington Post. I'm hoping that someone in your offices will see the truth that this courageous article points out. Perhaps you will even print it.

Respectfully,

me
----------
Hope it hits SOMEBODY over the head. Hope its okay that I copied and sent Mr. King's superb piece in full.

to send your own thanks, be my guest... :)

Dear Mr. King,

I saw your article referenced in a web blog I read. (I live in NY state, don't get the Washington Post).

It was superb. I can't commend you enough for so powerfully and insightfully speaking the truth. I copied it and sent it to our local newspaper, the Democrat and Chronicle, along with brief comments about their pattern of frequent Christian Evangelist personal interest stories (deceptively portrayed as news, in my opinion).

I am not a Christian, but of course it is clear that the basic tenets of religion or, among non-religious people, basic tenets of right behavior--truth, compassion, courage, self-correction, respect for other beings--find no home in the "Christian" rightwing, conservative movement.

And thank you for your description of twisted conservative "patriotism" circa 1969; it provided a powerful historical bellwether for the events happening now.

I hope your writing serves to wake up even one more person.

Thank you again,

D & C sucks! I refuse to spend any money on them (I wish Mr Fuzz would stop buying their POS rag.)

I'm glad to know you see it too--am I right, do they seem like cheerleaders for the fundies to you? I still get enraged when I think of that f-ing "boo hoo the poor fundies" story front page after the women's march. In their shitty 3rd page "article", they named none of the dignitaries but made sure to quote some local shithead anti-choicer who DIDN'T ATTEND the march.

<< ... Americans of faith -- and those lacking one -- ought to vigorously resist attempts... >

"Lacking"?

Those words make it sound as though a certain group of people are deficient. I'm not "lacking" anything when it comes to belief or faith. Why not just say "Americans of faith -- and those without" or "all Americans, no matter...".

Sure I'm picking nits... but frequently, the language people use when describing or referring to people who do not believe as the theists believe ends up painting them in less than flattering terms.

Other than that, I thought the article was fine.

-- Allen

Remember this feeling when you attack other people for getting "defensive".

Peace

That was quite personal...

What I posted was, almost to the word, the same comment he made to someone in another thread. He accused them of being touchy about the words people use to talk about religion.

Do unto others and all that.............

Peace

it's only fair that you drag it in in context. I very much doubt that he responded in such a way without a valid reason. Point me to the thread so that I can judge for myself.

Oh Molly,

(Sigh.) That is quite possibly one of the most arrogant things I've read today.

Sorry, Molly, there is no object-lesson here for me to remember. Anyone who thinks that has a vivid imagination. Do you honestly expect me to believe that you cannot see the difference between the two things? That's absolutely astounding!

In the above instance, we have a writer who takes a wholesale swipe at non-believers by suggesting that they are "lacking" something... that they are somehow deficient. That choice of words was unfair.

What you're doing now is engaging in Herculean efforts to try and draw a parallel where none exists. It's fascinating to watch, but ultimately it fails.

I'm always perplexed why a reasonable person would try to justify the hypersensitive reactions of folks who take deep personal offense whenever the Pope is criticized. Unless these people are actively or passively supporting the Popes bigotry, then they really have no reason to be offended. No matter what they try to claim... no matter how much they whine about being "persecuted victims", the scorn that's heaped on those who deserve it is not at attack on all.

These folks are indeed "touchy". Efforts such as yours--that attempt to compare valid criticism of the Pope with the unfortunate choice of words (ie: the word "lacking") used by that writer--are simply absurd.

I'm sorry, but as much as you wish it were true, and as victimized as you feel... that simply has no correlation to fact or reality.

-- Allen

I repeted what you said to another poster just this morning. Either people should be touchy about words used or they shouldn't. Which is it? You can be touchy but people who disagree with you can't?

I must admit that your apparent disconnect from reality leaves me at a loss to try and explain things to you. I don't know how to illustrate the difference in terms that are any simpler than my previous attempt.

I can say, however, this is my LAST attempt... after this, you're ON YOUR OWN to try and make some sense of it.

Either you'll get it, or you won't. I just don't have the patience to waste my time on you with this.

<< I repeted what you said to another poster just this morning. >>

Yes, I caught that you "repeted" my words. It's very easy to see that you're more interested in scoring points than you are in trying to understand how people feel when they are the intended targets of the Pope's condemnations. ("Ideology of evil"... "wicked"... indeed!) :eyes:

<< Either people should be touchy about words used or they shouldn't. Which is it? >>

Sigh. :eyes: You are making a false analogy, Molly. In order to answer your question, we must first assume that your analogy is correct. But that's not the case. Your analogy is FALSE.

Here's the difference:

In one instance we have someone using loaded language to describe non-theists as "lacking". This implies that they are deficient in some way when compared to believers. To say such a thing and to use such language is definitely an undeserved broad swipe AT A SPECIFIC GROUP of people. Namely, those who are without deities.

You are trying to compare that direct stipe to the IMAGINED insults that a specific group of touchy individuals claim whenever their church leaders are scorned.

Now... it's also possible that a certain group of individuals here take exception to my harsh criticism and scorn because they DESERVE the harsh criticism and scorn. When I heap scorn on those who support the pope's bigotry... and they choose to OWN it, then they are admitting to being bigots themselves or of consenting to bigotry.

<< You can be touchy but people who disagree with you can't? >>

Certainly they can be touchy all they want... they are free to feel any emotion they desire. But, if those are the people that are upset with me (the bigots and the enablers) for calling out their bigotry... then so what? I don't care. They will get NO SYMPATHY from me. The scorn that is being heaped upon them is DESERVED.

If they have ANY emotions at all, one would hope that it would be GUILT for supporting, condoning, approving, giving their permission, and making lame excuses for the backwardness, regressiveness, and bigotry of the Pope, the church and other church leaders.

-- Allen

I don't know which is funnier, you leaping up to complain about somebody failing to use the least flattering description of atheists YOU could conceive of, or trying to make a distinction between the religious who are touchy for a BAD reason and you, who is touchy for a GOOD reason.

This from the guy who said NOTHING is off limits to criticism, suddenly conveniently finds something that is: namely, his own self and his own beliefs, and his own ability to scorn whoever is defined, by him, as supporting bigotry and a whole list of other bad things.

It seems that a prickly self righteousness isn't the sole preserve of the religious.

<< I don't know which is funnier, you leaping up to complain about somebody failing to use the least flattering description of atheists YOU could conceive of, >>

Actually, Inland, that's NOT what I was complaining about. There seems to be a disconnect between what you're describing and reality. -- The fact is that I was complaining that the writer *WAS* using language that insinuated that non-believers were deficient from believers. That's a wholesale swipe and painting with a broad brush.

Reasonable people have little trouble comprehending this simple point. Whatever reasons you have for not understanding it escape me.

<< or trying to make a distinction between the religious who are touchy for a BAD reason and you, who is touchy for a GOOD reason. >>

No, that is also incorrect. They are touchy for NO REASON... not a "bad" reason. The people in question are not the pope, therefore they have no legitimate reason to be offended when someone heaps scorn on the pope or other church leaders.

Again... the difference is so plain that I can only assume you are pretending not to understand in order to score some sort of flame war points.

But let's not forget the ACTUAL bigots. If they are offended that someone calls them on their bigotry... who cares? I don't care if their feelings are hurt because they get called out. -- Do you care? Do you coddle bigots who use religion to justify their bigotry?

<< This from the guy who said NOTHING is off limits to criticism, >>

Really? I don't recall saying anything like that. Are you confusing me with someone else? That's a pretty inflammatory thing to throw out there without proof.

<< suddenly conveniently finds something that is: namely, his own self and his own beliefs, and his own ability to scorn whoever is defined, by him, as supporting bigotry and a whole list of other bad things. >>

That makes no sense at all. Is English your first language? But... as long as we're stringing random words together: cat ball shoebox string popcorn towel.

<< It seems that a prickly self righteousness isn't the sole preserve of the religious. >>

Ah... a very clever way to try and circumvent DU rules against name calling. Not entirely unexpected. It does seem to fall right in line with those who argue that intolerance of religious bigotry is itself "bigotry".

Indeed! :eyes:

My goodness, how you sound like all those people to whom your congent response was...and correct me if I'm wrong..."wah wah wah". I don't remember you joining me in any of my posts asking for recognition that not all christians are evil deluded fools.

But even withotu that, even the most prickly defender of the Pope would be ashamed to notice that a particular phrasing "insinuated believers to be deficient from non-believers". Aren't you one who would declare that no religious person is immune from criticism---stop me if you disagree--but you picks up on a not-flattering phrase. Pretty funny. But the difference is that someone else deserved it, whereas you deserve nothing less than the most complimentary phrasing possible. And when was that rule made? I don't remember getting the memo.

And of course, the "deserve it" is simply that broad brush thing you decry, a little bit of definition whereby every religious is complicit in everything done in the name of religion. It seems just a little bit of convenience--anything can be discussed, as long as everyone agrees on who deserves scorn and who deserves reverence. Suddenly, your positions seem the other side of the piestic coin.

So here is MY lesson for the day. If the OP had slammed atheists--athiests who are on his side in stopping a religious minority from taking over--then he would be making a stupid political mistake by letting a religious belief get in the way of a valuable political alliance. My advice to him would be to make nice and make friends if the politics are right. Same advice to you.

<< My goodness, how you sound like all those people to whom your congent response was...and correct me if I'm wrong..."wah wah wah". >>

It was "Oh whaaah!" and a photo of a crying Lucy. And it was delivered in response to the crybabies who claimed that "they" had been bashed because the Pope had been scorned. :eyes: How absurd!

Let's cut to the chase. The entire gist of your argument and your defense is that intolerance of bigotry is itself bigotry. Eh? And you further go on to try and accuse me of being hypocritical because I point out the broad-brush slam against ALL non-believers.

That's absolutely astounding. What an imagination you have!

<< I don't remember you joining me in any of my posts asking for recognition that not all christians are evil deluded fools. >>

You flatter yourself if you think that I'm inclined to keep tabs on every one of your posts. Was I out of town? Did I not log on that day? And you fault me for THAT? Oh brother! -- Besides, what would be my motivation to join you in defending your imaginary enemies and invented insults? That makes no sense at all.

<< But even withotu that, even the most prickly defender of the Pope would be ashamed to notice that a particular phrasing "insinuated believers to be deficient from non-believers". >>

Huh? The syntax and grammar in that sentence is quite tortured, but I think I'm able to figure it out. -- Okay. And? So what?

Was there any reason you typed that? Not only is it difficult to read, but it seems out of place in this "conversation".

<< Aren't you one who would declare that no religious person is immune from criticism---stop me if you disagree--but you picks up on a not-flattering phrase. >>

I don't recall personally arguing that point in that manner, or making such a declaration (as you put it), but I do agree with it--to the extent that a religious person is not immune from criticism regarding their own bigotry and support of bigotry.

<< Pretty funny. >>

Odd... I think it's damned serious. Laugh all you want.

<< But the difference is that someone else deserved it, >>

Yes... when someone is engaging in or supporting anti-gay bigotry and using their religion as a defense or justification for it, then indeed they do deserve my scorn.

<< whereas you deserve nothing less than the most complimentary phrasing possible. >>

Other than merely EXISTING, what are atheists doing that are such an affront to others? How does my mere EXISTENCE and non-belief interfere with others rights to exist and believe? That's where the difference is.

Unless someone is being willfully ignorant, I fail to understand how anyone can fail to comprehend the differences.

But then again, when I consider these posts of yours in the context of your previous posts on the same subject... and when I consider the apparent fascination you have with me, then I really ought not be surprised. Obviously it benefits you more to not understand (or at least to pretend not to understand).

<< And when was that rule made? I don't remember getting the memo.>>

Oh, come on! You're a big boy now! You'll just have to rely on your common sense and sense of decency to figure these things out without having someone spoon-feed you all the necessary information.

<< And of course, the "deserve it" is simply that broad brush thing you decry, >>

That's false. It's not broad-brush. It's targeted very specifically at BIGOTS, their defenders, and anyone who uses religion to justify their bigotry. Hardly the stuff of wholesale "broad-brush" attacks.

I have no hesitation about that, and I will not mince words. Yes... the religious bigots (those who justify their anti-gay bigotry by calling it religion) DESERVE ever bit of scorn that I can heap upon them.

<< a little bit of definition whereby every religious is complicit in everything done in the name of religion. >>

That is UNTRUE. You should be aware that the frequency and the sense of urgency with which you continually repeat the same FALSE statements lead me to the conclusion that you are doing so deliberately.

Frankly, I don't buy their "victim" act. I don't think you do either. But... if it makes you feel better to defend them, if it gives you some purpose or satisfaction, then there's very little I can do to stop you. Knock-yerself-out!

<< It seems just a little bit of convenience--anything can be discussed, as long as everyone agrees on who deserves scorn and who deserves reverence. Suddenly, your positions seem the other side of the piestic coin. >>

I think you're smarter than you're letting-on. Again, you're obviously and deliberate mis-stating and mis-characterizing. Enough already.

Your analogies are false. On one side we have religionists who ACTIVE participate in anti-gay bigotry and who deserve every ounce of scorn and criticism they get. On the other side we have non-believers who are characterized as being "lacking" or deficient for simply existing.

Are you seriously trying to argue that both things are the same. :eyes: Again... I think you just saw an opportunity to score flame war points... to settle some old grudge you have, or maybe just to exercise your fingers. It's all very silly.

<< So here is MY lesson for the day. If the OP had slammed atheists--athiests who are on his side in stopping a religious minority from taking over--then he would be making a stupid political mistake by letting a religious belief get in the way of a valuable political alliance. >>

I don't understand what you're talking about.

<< My advice to him would be to make nice and make friends if the politics are right. Same advice to you. >>

Heh-heh! Please. You're wasting your time and mine. Advice from you is something that I can do without. Thanks.


edit: syntax, typo, spelling, clarity, emphasis

>>It was "Oh whaaah!" and a photo of a crying Lucy. And it was delivered in response to the crybabies who claimed that "they" had been bashed because the Pope had been scorned. How absurd!<<

Oh, I don't think so. I think it came because you can't see the difference between bigotry, religion, and somebody asking for a distinction. And just to make sure nobody tried, you bring out the truly scornful post.

>>Let's cut to the chase. The entire gist of your argument and your defense is that intolerance of bigotry is itself bigotry.<<

Nope. And I didn't realize I was defending anything. I thought I was pointing out that you are pretty touchy, and seem to be making rules on who deserves scorn and who doesn't that were really personally convenient for you.

>> Eh? And you further go on to try and accuse me of being hypocritical because I point out the broad-brush slam against ALL non-believers.<<

Don't remember you ever trying to make a distinction. Rather, I remember you as working against any such distinction as "defending bigotry." But maybe there was something beyond the picture of Lucy I never got to.

>>You flatter yourself if you think that I'm inclined to keep tabs on every one of your posts.<<

I just remember you have lots to say about lots of religious stuff, all of it negative. One would have thought you were a pretty gloves off type of debater, until you found a less than flattering reference about atheists. That's why it's time for a little lesson, and if you were less defensive about yourself OR less offensive about religion, you could learn it.


>>Heh-heh! Please. You're wasting your time and mine. Advice from you is something that I can do without. Thanks.<<

Really? Because it's along the lines of the same lesson that the OP had, something that you thought was pretty good until you let your emotion cloud your senses. So don't take advice from me. Take advice from him. You don't have to agree on religion, doctrine, what is or is not a sin, or much of anything to be agreed on the threat of established religion or a good deal of politics. Therefore such disagreements should be ignored as irrelevant rather than scabs to be picked.

... and a rambling string of disjointed and unrelated thoughts, but I'll do my best to figure it out.

<< Oh, I don't think so. I think it came because you can't see the difference between bigotry, religion, and somebody asking for a distinction. And just to make sure nobody tried, you bring out the truly scornful post. >>

That's untrue. I have almost daily first hand experience in such matters (both here and in real life), so it's pretty obvious that I'm perfectly capable of seeing the difference.

<< Nope. And I didn't realize I was defending anything. I thought I was pointing out that you are pretty touchy, and seem to be making rules on who deserves scorn and who doesn't that were really personally convenient for you. >>

Also untrue. I'm convinced that you know exactly what you're doing.

<< Don't remember you ever trying to make a distinction.>>

Of course you don't "remember".

<< Rather, I remember you as working against any such distinction as "defending bigotry." >>

You're starting to lose me. I'm having difficulty in following your train of thought.

<< But maybe there was something beyond the picture of Lucy I never got to. >>

I didn't realize how such a little thing could be so distracting for you. My apologies.

<< I just remember you have lots to say about lots of religious stuff, all of it negative. >>

The negative stuff bugs me. I won't remain silent to please you.

<< One would have thought you were a pretty gloves off type of debater, until you found a less than flattering reference about atheists. >>

I can hardly "debate" the author of that piece. All I can do it point out his choice of loaded terminology and ask the question "why?"

<< That's why it's time for a little lesson, >>

I assure you... if there's any lessons to be learned, you are possibly the least qualified person to teach them to me.

<< and if you were less defensive about yourself OR less offensive about religion, you could learn it. >>

So now you're making ME the subject? You're attacking the messenger instead of the message? Nice.

<< Really? Because it's along the lines of the same lesson that the OP had, something that you thought was pretty good until you let your emotion cloud your senses.>>

Huh? I don't know what you're talking about. Try to stay focused...

<< So don't take advice from me. Take advice from him. You don't have to agree on religion, doctrine, what is or is not a sin, or much of anything to be agreed on the threat of established religion or a good deal of politics. Therefore such disagreements should be ignored as irrelevant rather than scabs to be picked. >>

Now, you're wandering off into some unrelated tangent there. I haven't a CLUE what you're driving at.

You're wasting my time, Inland.

I mean, the sentence by sentence approach is fine, if you want to confuse yourself and make everyone look for what you left out.

It was pretty clear, but you aren't able to approach it unemotionally.

Maybe on one hand, "treat others as you would have others treat you" is simple enough.

Sleep on it. Have a good night.

<< Try reading the post through once. >>

I do. In fact, I have to read and re-read your posts to try and make sense of them. Missing words, tortured syntax, awkward phrasing, run on sentences. Disjointed thought patterns. It's all rather challenging actually.

<< I mean, the sentence by sentence approach is fine, if you want to confuse yourself and make everyone look for what you left out. >>

There's just no pleasing you, is there?

<< It was pretty clear, but you aren't able to approach it unemotionally. >>

Clear to you perhaps... you wrote it. But it's not clear to the reader... it rambled.

<< Maybe on one hand, "treat others as you would have others treat you" is simple enough. >>

Sorry... tried that already. It doesn't work. It's a sign of weakness and it's just an open invitation for even more abuse and bigotry.

<< Sleep on it. Have a good night. >>

No need to sleep on it. I can tell you right now, and in no equivocal terms, that I will NEVER under any circumstances be one to "coddle" the bigots.

If you think that the bigots are the true "victims" and that they are being unfairly persecuted, then feel free to continue to aid and comfort them all you want to.

-- Allen

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

<< To think that it all started with a phrase you object to as less than flattering, >>

And the idiotic attempts of some people to compare it to the deserved scorn of the bigots, and to try and claim that the two are the same. :shrug: This disagreement is your creation and is the product of your overactive imagination.

<< and it ends up being because someone else is feeling unfairly persecuted. >>

Oh, the wonder of it all. :eyes:

<<And those someone elses are bigots because you say so, >>

No, they are bigots because they are bigots. It doesn't matter what I say about them. They will always be bigots not matter what.

<< and and I aiding them by pointing out your little foibles,>>

No that is incorrect.

<< and therefore I am comforting bigotry due to my vicious, vicious attack on the bulwark of lah de dah and the condemnation and self-justification reaches the sky. Phew! >>

Apple paper nail dog tree.

<< What a lot of bother to defend a prickly little objection? >>

I'm right, you're wrong. There's no two ways about it.

<< Why not just begin and end with "Me good, You bad, anyone disagree bigot"? Fewer words and the same myopic self-righteousness. >>

Heh-heh. You really do have a personal problem with me don't you? Why you insist on making it personal and resorting to juvenile personal attacks is beyond me. And to think you accuse me of being "emotional"... what a crock!

... with enormous success. It the "you do it too" line of argument, in which they try to deflect blame from themselves by claiming there is some sort of equivalency at work.

In this case, the claim involves a concerted effort to defend the horrifying bigotry of the catholic church... versus one poster who mentioned in one thread that a word-choice seemed a bit off.

Reasonable people would see there is a plain difference both in quality and scale. But then, we aren't always dealing with reasonable people. We're dealing, it seems, with an agenda.

hesitant to discuss "religion" with others.

My Granny always said that religion, politics and money were three topics best left out of polite conversation. But the time for manners is over.

I am one human who believes that every other person who shares this planet with me has the right to their own thoughts, beliefs and privacy. It is not up to me to judge their personal faith, their experiences or their lifestyle AS LONG AS THEY aren't hurting anyone else.

Today I have to push past my esteem for tolerance and say, "No, I cannot tolerate other humans who raise their "beliefs" to a level equal to, or above law, truth, hard science." This is hurting others. This is leading to violence, oppression, the degradation of our beloved Constitution.

But it's hard to form the right words. When a Baptist preacher stopped by last week - to invite me to church- he got an earful from me. My "sermon" as it were. And he knows now that at least one person who shares the planet with him is disgusted at the way churches twist the bible and justify war, torture, witch hunts, and greed.


He was speechless. And I felt so uncomfortable.

He needed to hear it! Courage to speak the truth is what we need.
Some of us have the opportunity to say it to a large audience, and some of us find the opportunity in small everyday ways. This opportunity knocked right on your door and you grabbed it! :hugs: :applause:

:hi:

yes indeed those evil republicans exploiting religion for their own power just like fascism,imperialism and the KKK. here are what i believe are the true values of a republican are 1)GOD 2)greens$ 3)guns

Your profile says you're a pagan, what's a pegan? :)

(On edit... :toast: :hi:)

We need more editorials like this one. I have long felt that this is the next national discussion that needs to take place.

I have contemplated a letter to the editor on this topic for over a year, but it would take a tremendous amount of courage to actually submit it.

Hats off to Colbert King for breaking the ice.

He won a Pulitzer last year for his column's coverage of activities in the District of Columbia, including a series dedicated to finding out what really happened to a young quadriplegic who died in jail because of a "bureaucratic mixup" about whether the jail had the proper medical care available when he was sentenced. He's one of the few who tells it like it is in a city where perception is everything.

the hitler version. Not to be confused with KJV.

That's the "most e-mailed" story. :woohoo: