I'm not sure why you flagged me at #130, since it doesn't seem to quote me.
Here's my problem with the article... it's all about dying and complaining. Even if I agree with many of the complaints, I find her bleak and unbalanced outlook to be a turn-off.
It isn't really tempered with hope and light to any degree, is it?
Now she's an atheist?!
I didn't say that, I said the article gives me a hint of what it's like at an atheist's bedside. She called attention to herself with this article by virtue of the fact that she is dying. Then all she did was complain about the physical and the secular. Given that context, and the absence of any spiritual sense of Eternity beyond the physical, or any sense of gratitude for the good things she actually did have, don't you find her sense of priorities a bit odd?
Look at this statement:
But I don't want to talk about love. I want to talk about freedom.
Well, I guess that means I *do* want to talk about love. Because I love freedom more than I love anything. Really, more than I ever loved my husband. Even more than I love my kids -- and I think they'll understand and forgive me for saying so, even though that statement might require a little more explaining for strangers who might be reading this.
I have to say it again. I love freedom more than I love anything. More than I ever loved anything. And that's what makes the thought of dying so bitter, and at the same time, so welcome.
I take her at her word here, and I find this to a remarkably narcissistic statement. And I don't care what her family thinks.
Would I give up my freedom for the sake of my child? Of course I would, because I love my child more than my freedom. She doesn't. Her words, not mine.
But to be absolutely honest, now I wish neither one of them would have children. I don't think Edyie will. We've talked about this. She's a lot like me in some ways, and I think she won't bring a child into a country like this one is becoming.
Wow, wishing barrenness upon one's daughter. How monstrous. How hopeless.
And it's sense of evangelical hopelessness that she conveys in her article that I'm responding to. I reject it.
She says she loves freedom, but is a harbinger of despair.
A despair not born of a love of freedom. I reject her despair.
I choose hope.
I'm not sure why you flagged me at #130, since it doesn't seem to quote me. To save time.
I find her bleak and unbalanced outlook to be a turn-off.
It isn't really tempered with hope and light to any degree, is it?
I didn't find her unbalanced. And exactly what hope would you have put into this article, keeping in mind she chose to limit THIS particular letter to freedom? And please note, this woman died in November of 1997. In her position, having given so much of her time to raising her children and trying to make her children's future hopes in this country better?
Look at what goes on in Washington DC daily. Please point out where you see the hope? And I'm not talking about the touchy feely content of speeches. But the hard reality of facts. GWB's heart is good, I believe, but our government has expanded in ways we would not have believed possible 4 months ago. And she didn't even see Clinton out of office. How was your handle on hope in '97, even with the thought of MANY years ahead of you?
Now she's an atheist?!
I didn't say that, I said the article gives me a hint of what it's like at an atheist's bedside
A man who writes sonnets as you do knows very well the power and ability of a word or phrase to convey a clear message. You may not have said it in exact terms, but, as usual the meaning rang clear.
Then all she did was complain about the physical and the secular. Given that context, and the absence of any spiritual sense of Eternity beyond the physical, or any sense of gratitude for the good things she actually did have, don't you find her sense of priorities a bit odd?
No, because she stated what her article was about at the very start. If you had expected it to be a spiritual piece you had a chance to stop reading when she states this letter's purpose. Where does it state in it that this is her complete and total view of her life's total worth.
I had someone I loved very much die, with prior knowledge of that fact. He wrote me several letters. Each about different thoughts on different subjects. It was the totality of them that expressed the whole person.
Look at this statement:
Yes let's. But in all fairness, may I have a turn at adding the emphasis?
But I don't want to talk about love. I want to talk about freedom.
Well, I guess that means I *do* want to talk about love. Because I love freedom more than I love anything. Really, more than I ever loved my husband. Even more than I love my kids -- and I think they'll understand and forgive me for saying so, even though that statement might require a little more explaining for strangers who might be reading this.
I have to say it again. I love freedom more than I love anything. More than I ever loved anything. And that's what makes the thought of dying so bitter, and at the same time, so welcome.
Maybe it is just me, but that last emphasis leads me to believe her a spiritual person. In death we gain true freedom, at last.
Would I give up my freedom for the sake of my child? Of course I would, because I love my child more than my freedom. She doesn't. Her words, not mine.
And where does she state "I would not give up my freedom for my child."
And look at your statement. You would give up your freedom for your child. Would you? Take it out of the context of being faced with a situation of your freedom or her life at stake. No one is taking a child and saying "Unless you give up your freedom we will kill your child. " or "she will lose all of her freedoms". But why are you on this forum? Isn't it to watch and guard what you believe to be the chances of government taking freedoms from you that will make this nation worse for the next generation?
What does "guardians of the Constitution" mean to you? To me it means NOT being someone that will give up her freedom precisely for the sake of the future.
Loving freedom IS loving her husband and her children. Not everyone has your gift of words. I believe she even mentioned the fact she lacked it in this letter. Agreed, she could have expressed that better.
And as for this:
But to be absolutely honest, now I wish neither one of them would have children. I don't think Edyie will. We've talked about this. She's a lot like me in some ways, and I think she won't bring a child into a country like this one is becoming.
I don't have time to look and this post is already too long, but I have read Bible verses (it may be Mark 13) stating that one should hope, even pray, not to be with child when troubles come upon the earth. (This thought has crossed my mind as well. Does that make me an atheist or less loving? )There are many who believe the end is drawing near. Maybe you're not one of them, maybe she's not. But I think the rest of her statements may back up the suggestion she did. And to say she wished her daughter barren is unbalanced itself. I'll bet she wished her daughter could have many children born to enjoy true freedom, instead of what this country appeared to be heading for in 1997.