Replies

This kind of thing makes me angry - angry enough that I fired off the following to the editor....

I just read this article and am wondering about something. Exactly what is David Leigh’s point? First of all, I have no idea as to whether ABC’s film was produced by that horrid and despicable ‘religious right’ any more than I know it was made by someone on the heathen ‘loony left’. Should I care? As far as I can tell, the only thing that’s important is whether or not the film is an accurate depiction of what actually happened in the years leading up to 9/11. That’s all, isn’t it? What is Mr. Leigh suggesting? Is he insinuating that a religious individual can’t be trusted with the job? That the religious qualifications of film directors must be vetted even if they are making films about non-religious subjects? That the film would have been far more trustworthy if it had of been directed by an atheist or someone who had renounced their religion? Would it have been more trustworthy if it had of been made by a Muslim? My goodness, you can’t have those Christians making films can we now!

Tell me, what did Jesus say about telling the truth and having ‘an agenda’? Try reading Matthew 5:37 ‘But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.’ Sounds to me like the way to get to the truth would be to hire one who follows the words of Jesus right to the letter, ok? Hmmmm…. Oh no, that would be one of those awful Christians!

As for it being important to know what the religious persuasion was the director of Path to 9/11, I can’t think of a solitary reason why it is important except for one. If one had a racist like hatred of Christians, it would be important to the individual to identify and single them out, right? We can’t have those Christians living quiet peaceful lives without pointing fingers at them for some perceived reason, can we?

I will give you an example of something that to me is far more relevant than anything Mr. Leigh might be suggesting with his vacuous question. In Canada here a few years ago, the Liberal government managed to push through legislation that allowed homosexuals to marry. Now one would assume that obtaining the right to marry would be beneficial at least to the homosexuals, correct? And therefore, if a Member of Parliament was voting on creating a law in which there was a personal vested interest in the outcome, do you not think that it would be fair to demand that he/she proclaim their sexual proclivity in advance? And if they balked at the idea or the answer wasn’t believed, why not insist on a means test? Funny, I don't recall THAT happening. The point here is that every action taken by every individual has or should have a point to it. I think Mr. Leigh is on pretty doggone soggy ground if he want to evaluate truth and worthiness of work and decisions strictly based on what he perceives that motive to be. Let the truth stand on its own merits.