Muslims hold prayer service in National Cathedral celebrate by cutting off head of American aid worker

Followers of the “religion of peace” but ignorers of their religion’s hypocrisy, its true violent nature, its misogynist stand against women’s rights, its murderous homophobia, its violent anti-free speech stand and its war against modernity gathered in the National Cathedral on Friday for a “worship service.”  This is such a BS move on so many levels it’s infuriating.  Preachers across the land ought to ask Imams to reciprocate by opening the doors of their mosques to allow Christians to hold worship services inside.  Wanna bet what the answer would be?    

Shortly after the practitioners of the “religion of peace” vacated the Cathedral, the face of Islam cut the head off of another American.  There is not a single report of Muslims in any numbers taking to the streets to protest that action.  But if someone draws a cartoon picture of Muhammad all hell breaks loose with these people. 

It’s time to admit that the overwhelming majority of the practitioners of “the religion peace” either do not care, actively support, or are too afraid to speak up against the barbarians who have become the face of their “religion.”  Those that are left could be listed on a 3 X 5 index card.  They are heroes.

"Abortion is murder" debate continues with local fish wrap 

In the Nov 3^rd posting on this page, Lex took on a pro abort editorial republished in the Ft. Wayne Journal Gazette.  The J-G published my letter under the inaccurate and unnecessarily provocative title “Abortion is murder, check the ultrasound.”  On Nov 10^th I sent the J-G another letter protesting the title that they assigned my original letter.  That letter is contained in the Nov 10^th posting under. 

By Friday when I had yet to receive a response, I resent my letter.  I got this note from the editor back:

Mr. Schumick,

 If you are adamant about your point being made, we will publish this [my Nov 10^th letter] -- minus the last paragraph -- on Dec. 9, when our 30-day publication limit on letter-writers will have passed. I do not intend to publish a correction, as no error was made.

In submitting a letter to the editor, you surely knew that a headline would be added. I do not believe the copy editor's work is contrary to the message you intended and to suggest "ignorance or true malice aforethought" is outlandish.  In fact, we received a letter this week praising your letter (identified by its headline) and another letter as "well-stated and with undeniable truths," along with an appreciation to The Journal Gazette for publishing them.

Here’s my response:

Dear Ms. Francisco:

Thank you for your quick reply to my e-mail. 

First, I am adamant.  Although I’m disappointed that the letter will not appear until 30 days after what I consider to be a grossly misleading and inaccurate title over my letter, I appreciate your agreeing to let me set the record straight since the J-G won’t.

With regard to the J-G not admitting error in this matter, try this simple experiment.  Show my letter, without title, to any group of honest people you choose.  Then ask them to answer a simple multiple choice question:

1.  Which is the best title for the content of the letter:

      A)  It’s a baby, check the ultrasound

      B)  Ultrasounds provide proof of life

      C)  Bloodletting and abortion barbaric

      D)  Abortion is murder

Seriously, send it to any college, high school or even Jr. High English class and see what happens.  I will cover anything you are willing to wager on which of those titles will be the extreme outlier on the low end – D - hands down, no question.  You know it.  I know it.  100% of reasonable people – even fair-minded pro abort people - know it.  So titling my letter “Abortion is murder” is not an error?  Please.

Surely I do know that editors will assign a title to letters.  Surely you’d expect that editors would assign a title that accurately reflects the content of the letter (See question 1.).  An editor assigning a title that is unnecessarily provocative, inaccurate and misleading and then refusing to own up to it is what is outlandish.  After all, it is the J-G that is in the word and accuracy business, isn’t it?  Questioning the editor’s motives for such outlandish decisions is reasonable.

Pointing to a letter you received that identified mine by the title J-G editors assigned it as proof of the title’s accuracy is a red herring.  How else do you ID a letter? 

Method A)  Re: Abortion is murder, check the ultrasound, Letters, Nov 9, 2014

Or:

Method B)  Re: That letter that guy wrote about abortion being murder  

See how easy it is to get it wrong?

Nor is it surprising that a bit over 50% of the people would agree with the reasoning contained in the letter.  That’s the point.  That’s why I am so adamant about correcting the inaccurate and misleading title of my letter.  Abortion is a hot button issue.  I wouldn’t want to further inflame the argument by introducing inaccurate and incendiary words. Nor would I ever want to create more angst in some poor woman’s heart who regrets her decision to abort her child by equating her to a murderer.

Please do not misconstrue my adamancy about wanting to correct the inaccurate title of my letter with being ungrateful for the J-G agreeing to publish my letter in the first place.  The J-G’s civic responsibility to provide a fair opportunity to both sides of an issue aside, I do appreciate your choosing my letter for publication.

Last, words have meanings.  I have used the word “inaccurate” several times to describe the J-G’s use of the word “murder” over my letter.   You have to know that the word “murder,” by definition, is the wrong word in this case (See question 1.).  Simply admit it.