We heartily disagree

To The Eagle:

After reading the indignant response of “No we didn’t” by the contributor who took exception to the use of the all inclusive ‘We’ in the letter titled “Looking in the mirror,” I was inspired to imagine an 18th century discussion between two fellow American colonials in 1787.

“Nathan! Have you read the latest balderdash by that uppity snit, Jefferson?”

“Nay, I avn’t. Wot’s he sai?”

“He says ‘We The People’ are all created equal and have ‘rights’ given by God Almighty!”

“Blimey! Wot bloody peepal? Hoose this damned ‘We’ as s’posed ta be eekwal? Wots’ee mean by God’s rights?

“It means nothing good. It means ‘We’ must allow female creatures liberties! It means ‘We’ should free our slaves! It means ‘We’ must allow Papists to build churches! It means ‘We’ must tolerate the base desires of the common un-godly rabble!”

“Zounds! T’is the bloody end to civlizatin as ‘We’ know’t! ‘We’ aven’t agreed to none’o that!

Much later at Britain’s Whitehall palace, King George mutters “We Are Not Amused ” after reading that ‘Declaration of Independence’ by his troublesome colonists.

The gentleman doth protest too much methinks. If the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t wear it. Anyway, the usage of the “royal We” is, to me, merely a sidebar to the dominant message of “Looking in the mirror” written two issues ago, pointing out the disconnect between pious Christian’s and their frequently appalling, hypocritical behavior as they pursue their chimerical “morality.”

I mentioned that disconnect to a religiously devout, otherwise rational person, who then declared with a self righteous smirk that “it didn’t matter what I thought or said about the matter, because as a liberal free thinker, I was certainly going to hell.” Already been there, thank you.

The author of “No we didn’t” finally declared “We are entitled to our beliefs, so they should not be questioned by you or anyone else for that matter.” We heartily disagree.

JB Bouchard

Puget Island