Mr. John R. Dennis of Santa Clarita wrote a letter (Feb. 27) in rebuttal to my answers to the Rev. David Hegg’s questions, and he mischaracterized me with his opening sentence. I did not oppose the reverend, I merely offered an alternative. I didn’t say he was wrong. I said I didn’t buy into his perspective. I wasn’t fighting the man, I simply won’t follow him. I wouldn’t call that “opposition.” I would call it “passive disregard,” but “apathy” might be more accurate. Is this in the category of “you’re either with us of you’re against us”? Whatever. I really don’t care (pun intended).
But more to Mr. Dennis’ calling me out for my omission of lines 32 and 33 from the Gospel according to Matthew (6:25-34). It was deliberate, Mr. Dennis. I did it on purpose.
I was trying to make a logical point and lines 32 and 33 deal in the supernatural. I don’t deal in the supernatural when I’m trying to make a point. I also don’t deal in astrology, alchemy, sorcery, or witchcraft unless I’m making a reference to them in the form of a “documentary,” as in, “and this is what these people practice.”
Your letter of rebuttal doesn’t offer “a more complete answer” as the letter’s title states, but merely mirrors and repeats what the reverend preaches on a daily basis. Yes, I know, you have faith, and you believe, and I am abundantly clear on that. My own letter acknowledged as much and did not oppose the faithful for it. In fact, I encouraged the faithful to continue believing. How was that missed?
Arthur Saginian
Santa Clarita
