Steve Sedlmayr's letter as the self-appointed generation X/Y spokesman actually makes some good points but attacks the wrong guy (you can attack Roberts at will, but this time it's misguided). Sedlmayr states that none of the kids at the WTF protests could justify their presence. Really? That sounds like a load to me, as I would gladly guide you to entire online directories, downloadable documentaries and Internet diatribes about the subject. I saw a lot of stupid adults on TV at the Super Bowl LoDo riots, too, pal. Just because someone hits the ripe old age of thirty doesn't make him the brightest tomato on the vine.
There are many kids who are not "boring" and are "newsworthy" who are reaching out to their communities and discovering what it means to be a part of this world (and not just the U.S.A.). Being young is a fantastic time of discovering a belief system and a personal moral code -- if there is some hooch and ho thrown in there -- so what the hell's your problem? Didn't y'all do the same thing in your best years? Sounds like Roberts did.
If you're going to point the finger, please point it at the media. Demand that they represent stories that appeal to youth rather than downplay their importance as contributors to the economy and community. How about a story on the modern-art museum in Sakura Square, or the Mile High Youth Corps? How about a story on World AIDS Day? Until then, you can find me on the Internet, reading about our "real" homeland security bill, the war on terrorism (without the propaganda) and the largely news-neglected G-8 summits, from reputable media agencies that aren't just trying to snare me into spending a buck.
Swear on a stack of Bibles? I swear I didn't want to have to write you about David Holthouse's "Book, Chapter and Verse," but the letters in the November 14 issue irked me enough to speak up. Fred Williams, do your "advanced-degree scientists" who believe the "literal account of Genesis" have proof that the sun came around four days later than the earth? If so, what did the earth revolve around before that? Also, what fuel source did the plants live off of for those days without solar power? Besides that, what evidence is there of a "God" so intelligent and gifted that it could create two of every animal (cows and bulls, chickens and roosters) but so absentminded that S/He didn't have the mindset to realize that a human would need the same courtesy? "Nope," thinks this God, "I will only make a male human. What? Why is he so lonely? Well, here, let me introduce him to all the other animals I made. What? You don't want them? You want your own female? Oh, okay, here, let me break your rib off and make one from that."
I have to laugh when someone calls science a religion, because science is based on changing thought -- but religions are based on written words that they refuse to change. The Catholic Church took over 500 years to finally admit that the earth was not the center of the universe; it's not even the center of our solar system. Science starts on neutral territory and moves in the direction that the experiments point. Creation scientists start with the idea of God and try to only look at what points to that.
Using the B.C. Tours' analogy of the elephant, which one of these -- science or religion -- is going to stay chained to a tree, even though it's not chained anymore? Those who keep looking to see if they are, or those who keep believing because that's what the Bible says?