PUBLIC VIEWPOINT

Interpretation Of ‘No’ On Opposition Election Sign

Have you seen the sign just south of the Arkansas Tourist Center in Bella Vista? It reads, “No Ticky - No Washy; No School - No Tax.” Perhaps some explanation of its meaning is in order.

No Ticky - No Washy (Translation of old Chinese laundry slogan): If you no got ticket, we no washy your clothes.

No School - No Tax (Ozark translation): If you’uns don’t git us’uns no new school, we’uns ain’t gonna give you’uns no new tax.

Nuff said. Any questions?

JIM PARSONS

Bella Vista HOBSON OVER THE LINE

In his Aug. 18 commentary

Art Hobson laments the turmoil in the Middle East (and rightly so) where Muslims are killing Muslims as well as Christians, andthreaten to annihilate Israel.

He then launches into his metaphysical view of man’s evolution over millions of years.

Well, if evolution were true, isn’t what Mr. Hobson laments to be expected?

After all, isn’t evolution about survival and struggle? It is not about morals (there is no right or wrong), being rational or logical (these are not the fruits of chance evolution) or having personal freedom.

Bertrand Russell and B. F. Skinner held sway in the philosophy and psychology departments (respectively) where I took classes. For Skinner, man was just a sophisticated rat. Russell is best known for “Logical Positivism,” which is one of those philosophical sinkholes that caves in on itself. As an atheistic evolutionist, Russell did not believe in moral absolutes and held to free sexual license. (This is in no way to say that all atheists live immoral lives, but theycannot derive their morals from evolution.) He became conflicted, however, when he lamented and decided to protest the Vietnam War.

To illustrate my point, and recognizing the weakness of some analogies, the following may help: Imagine a basketball court where one half represents a nonpersonal atheistic world, based on chance and evolution. There is no basket, as this would imply purpose. Meaning does not exist, as all is random and ends in oblivion. Rules (morals) do not exist and the ball is randomly dribbled about by human automatons.

The other half of the court represents the Christian world of the infi nite Creator God. There exists a goal (purpose), meaning, morals, and the players bear the Imago Dei (Image of God).

The atheist cannot live with the absurdities in his half of the court as they do not comport with the reality of life. Therefore, to make statements of meaning,purpose or morals, he must dribble into the backcourt where they exist. He then dribbles back to his half of the court, as though unseen. By doing so, he has committed a violation (over-and-back). Thus he has denied and refuted his own belief system. He lives in the same tension as did Bertrand Russell.

Mr. Hobson has a solution for the world’s ills: Get rid of all religion in general (Christianity in particular). Then, to have real Utopia where we live like “kings and queens” and take advantage of “our excellent brains” provided by evolution (evolution reifi ed), we institute “Scientism.” (He did not use this term, but it was defined by his statements.) However, like Russell’s “Logical Positivism,” “Scientism” (which is a close kin) collapses in on itself, because it relies on nonscientifi cally verifi able presuppositions. History has demonstrated whattakes place when Christian expression is denied or banned and an “ism” is set over the people.

Whenever an atheist writes or speaks, do a little oft ciating and watch for those over-and-back violations.

BENNY E. BEALS

Springdale IDEA ASSUMES TOO MUCH Dr. Joel Spalter (Public Viewpoint, Aug. 29) is correct in his assessment of the “defunding” option.

His presented idea seems a better method than doing that, the Aff ordable Care Act itself or the mess prior to act. It could be the best solution to the issue of making available lower-cost health care for U.S. citizens.

It could also be tweaked to make it smack even less of “socialism” to those more fussy citizens (whatever socialism, as used in currentpolitical discourse, is supposed to mean).

However, one great fl aw: It assumes the opposition wants to do anything positive concerning U.S. health care. The opposition drive appears only to want to turn the clock back to what was available during G. W. Bush’s presidency, which was not exactly the best system. We could go far afi eld debating opposition motivation, but such a debate would yield no profit, only acrimony as generated by debating, say, questions of politics, race, or religion.

Spalter’s idea should be explored, because the lack of a better lower-cost system is killing citizens, costing all too much money, burning out professionals such as Spalter, and discouraging needed new blood from entering the medical fields. The expenses, hours and lifestyle required are enough discouragement.

GERALD K. O’BRYAN SR.

Springdale

Opinion, Pages 14 on 09/08/2013

Upcoming Events