Feb 20, 2007 - 04:11:47 CST
MandanI would like to comment on a recent column by David Forth in which he related his shock at learning that Timothy McVeigh somehow found value or comfort in the poem, "Invictus," written by the British poet William Ernest Henley. If this had been the first time Forth mentioned "Invictus" and McVeigh together I probably would not have paid much attention, but this is at least the second time I am aware of.
The title, "Invictus," is Latin for "unconquered," and as such it has inspired many who push themselves to or beyond the limit to achieve their goals, noble or heinous. Hensley himself defied the medical authorities, doing what they said he could not do, thus the poem "Unconquered."
It would appear from the third line of the poem that Henley was at best an agnostic, as to his belief in a deity. His last two lines clearly indicate that he put no faith in any but himself. In fairness to Henley's memory, not all agree that he meant to say that, but that is the meaning of the words he chose.
Timothy McVeigh declared himself to be an atheist, and as such it would seem to me very fitting that he should find aid and comfort from the poem. He found a kindred spirit in Hensley. Believing he was a product of matter plus chance plus time, McVeigh was not responsible to anyone but himself, as the poem indicates. Without a creator, that is, a moral law giver, there can be no objective moral law, and with no moral law there's no right or wrong. When he destroyed so much that fateful day, he was simply worshipping his god his way.
Friedrich Nietzsche, the 19th century German philosopher who popularized the "god is dead" idea in "Thus Spake Zarathustra," prophesied that because man now lived like there was no god, the 20th century would be the bloodiest century in the history of mankind. In spite of the gross violations of the word of God by those claiming to be followers of Christ (as Mr. Forth points out), their misdeeds pale in comparison to the atrocities of the naturalists. Nietzsche's prophesy has come true. First we had atheistic, communist Russia, than Hitler, a follower of Nietzsche and Darwin, then communist Red China, followed by the Angka Loeu movement in Cambodia. Add up the millions those atheistic-nihilistic regimes slaughtered, and those that have died because of religion fall far short. Timothy McVeigh was simply carrying out the philosophies of the naturalists that went before him and glorified "Invictus."
It's time to ban smoking in bars
By CAROL M. RUSSELL
Bismarck
I recently moved back to my roots in North Dakota and was dismayed to see that senate majority members were laggards rather than leaders in opting not to protect our people from environmental tobacco smoke in bars and truck stops.
The voices of opposition smacked of tobacco industry influence.
I wouldn't say this but for the fact I'd heard it all 10 years ago when I was chief of program services for the California Department of Health Services' Tobacco Control Program, when we worked for smoke-free public places, including bars, throughout the state.
The tobacco industry threw everything they had at us to stop, defeat or bend smoke-free initiatives that stood in their way. Their arguments were the same as what you recently heard in Bismarck. After smoke-free legislation in California, businesses continued to prosper as evidenced by tax receipts.
Government intervention? You bet. We're surrounded by government interventions to protect the public's health. Our faucets run safe water. Our sewage systems protect us from such diseases as cholera and worse. Traffic lights, laws against drunk driving, rabies vaccinations, immunizations - the list of governmental public health interventions is extensive and widely supported by our communities. Second-hand smoke is a public health issue as well. It causes cancer and kills. The science is clear.
I do congratulate North Dakota lawmakers for their first steps in creating smoke-free public places. Now it's time to take that next step and once more prioritize the public's health above monetary gain. Workers in the bar and hospitality industry deserve our protection too. Unlike customers, their choices are much more limited. They can't easily jump from job to job nor should they have to. And what about liability when a worker becomes seriously ill from longterm exposure to environmental tobacco smoke? Regardless of all the arguments, the fact remains: a bar shouldn't have to rely on toxic air to stay in business.
Morality wrote on Feb 20, 2007 3:36 PM:
md wrote on Feb 20, 2007 10:27 AM:
Larry wrote on Feb 20, 2007 8:01 AM:
Mel wrote on Feb 20, 2007 6:48 AM:
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.