One opinion isn't as good as another

Letter writer Gene Lemon (“Credibility of writer tainted,” Jan. 26) offered a shallow and in fact false critique of my letter on William Hadley's divisive attack upon Islam and good Muslim citizens.

First, after admitting that my letter “made many good points,” he neglects to mention even one of those points of potential solidarity! Thus at the same time that he fails the opportunity for solidarity that I proffered, he makes himself an example of the very disease I addressed, namely divisiveness within our community.

Then in addition to the above, he further eviscerates those points of potential solidarity with the summation that “in the final analysis he (Clark) tainted his own credibility and bordered on hypocrisy.” This means, I guess, that those “good points” will not stand on their own and have no claim upon conscience because the writer is infected with the same disease he critiques.

This claim would be fine if he had offered something to support it other than a shallow partisan reaction. But in fact all he offers to support an accusation of hypocrisy is the childish and self-contradictory notion that one opinion is as good as another — a notion that Lemon violates every time he takes a back pain to his doctor and not to his car mechanic!

I of course do not agree with Lemon that one opinion is as good as another — and neither does he so long as it is his opinion. So where, I ask you, is the hypocrisy? Is it in the words of a man who points out a disease in his community and invites his neighbors to become better persons and from that to build a stronger unified nation? Or is the hypocrisy in the person who concludes (i.e., judges) that, because this exhortation involves a necessary judgment, the man offering it must be a hypocrite?

The answer to this is obvious. Since a hypocrite is someone whose actions violate their own stated opinions, isn't it Lemon who is on shaky ground here? Apparently he believes that one opinion is as good as another and that therefore no one view deserves more weight than another — even his own. If so, why does he bother to speak and contradict himself? Based upon the relativistic notion that there is no truth and only opinions, all of which are equal, all declaratory speech is a contradiction, is it not? Doesn't he see that?

My advice then is for citizens to go ahead and state their opinions but defend them not with divisive attacks upon their neighbors, but with recourse to facts, “first principles” (for example: “all men are created equal”) and a sincere reason.

And so that Lemon will not fill the void with knee-jerk inferences rooted in partisan politics, I will state for the record that while I think Fox News is the worst, it is no different than the rest (including NPR) in having replaced genuine news with biased partisan opinion. The corporate media is not a “free press.” Similarly, censorship with a spin is not news but propaganda.

Furthermore, there are no sides in a problem as dangerous as this problem is to the Republic! Surely Lemon must see that. It is imperative that we stop bickering and come together around defensible first principles — i.e., “a house divided cannot stand.” Is that clear enough, finally?

J. Warren Clark

Yuma