Letter to the Editor

Final judge

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Dear Editor,

The free will of men, especially in high places, can either have a salutary effect on humanity or wreak havoc and chaos on our species. When administrators such as Milliken, Mauer and Perlman give feeble arguments that they could, and already might have lost "great" scientists for the UNL science department, and by also putting pressure on their regents, especially the likes of a weak-kneed Jim McClurg, who vacillated all week long, knowing all the time that he would vote to please the "big boys," (despite his education in the field of biology).

We live in a universe that can easily be divided into "theocentric" (God-centered) and "anthropocentric" (man-centered), and from the vote made last week and the comments of the administrators in the "Journal Star," we can categorically say that the UNL administrators, Milliken, Mauer and Perlman, believe in an anthropocentric universe based on their speech, which indicates their motives, as well as regents McClurg, Schroeder, Hasselbrook and Whitehouse, all of whom avoid the use of the word "morality" in their speeches or defenses; instead, they are morally hoodwinked by UNL's science department's use of the "euphemistic" term "harvesting" instead of "destruction or murder" of human life, all in the name of bringing fame and prestige to the UNL science department.

One of the Old Testament prophets said "we are nothing but a breath in the nostril." When my anthropocentric administrators and their regent co-conspirators at UNL inhale and exhale for the last time, I sure would like to be a fly on the wall in the final court of justice in order to hear their feeble defensive arguments which were printed in the "Journal Star" as their final judge points to His commandment, "Thou shalt not kill."

"Kudos" to regents Clare, Ferlic, Hawks and Phares. You are a credit to the ethical and theocentric element and philosophy of UNL.

Sincerely,

J.G. McHale

McCook

Comments
View 1 comment
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • J.G. Sadly, you presume everyone has perused the article, of which you refer, in the "Journal Star," and know to what you refer. I'm dumb to your logic, since I did not read the article.

    Could you elaborate just a tad, if it is worth understanding?

    Terms, like 'harvesting,' when in reference to human life, today, tends to make me think that someone has weaseled funding for research, using aborted babies; especially when conjoined to an Old Testament referral to judgment for mortal acts, in research. I can only pray I do err.

    Should my fear be correct, may I join you in being Theocentric, and rejective to using dead babies for research. (I use dead babies, to include second and third trimester unborns).

    Elaboration would be appreciated. Arley

    -- Posted by Navyblue on Wed, Dec 2, 2009, at 10:55 PM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: