Sheila S. Kennedy

An Open Letter to "X"

Filed By Sheila S. Kennedy | August 12, 2007 3:44 PM | comments

Filed in: Living
Tags: bigotry, civil discourse, Indianapolis Star

Those of you who know my writing mainly through blog postings here and elsewhere might be surprised to know that my twice-a-month column for the Indianapolis Star is much more restrained (or so I like to think). I measure my words in that venue carefully—in large part because I only get 500 of them, and it can be hard to make complex points within that limit. (Try it if you don’t believe me.) I also try to hold down the snark and make my points politely and reasonably, on the assumption that my readers (inexplicable as it seems) will not all agree with me.

Nevertheless, I get some email and snail-mail that is critical of my motives, my intellect, my personality and occasionally my parentage. Last Wednesday I got snail-mail that included a recent letter to the editor criticising a column I’d written. (It was a perfectly reasonable criticism, which makes me doubt it was written by my correspondent.) The letter itself—in its entirety, capitalization, etc. in the original—read as follows:

“SSK—the only good jews are the messianics who read and understand the O.T. and its prophets. You have alot to learn. Hitler’s holocaust will seem like a tea party compared to the coming tribulation where you and yours will be snared. In addition you are a big S.O.B. -- X”

I’m quite sure the person who penned this charming message is not a reader of blogs, but just in case, if you’ll bear with me, I’d like to respond with an open letter to “X.”

“Dear X,

I have received your letter, and having read the Old Testament, I certainly understood your none-too-veiled reference to The End Times. I know that Christians who are biblical literalists believe that when the End Times come, they (and only they) will be “Raptured” while all the sinners (defined solely as those who fail to believe what you do) will burn in perpetual agony in hell. With respect to my prospects for the hereafter, I’m prepared to take my chances, since I’m inclined to think that a God worthy of the name would be favorably disposed to those of us who spend our energies working for a more tolerant and compassionate world, whatever our faults.

Religion aside, I’m always bemused by people who cannot respond to ideas with which they disagree by specifying the nature of the disagreement. If I have written something with which you have a dispute, why not explain the basis of that dispute? Did I have my facts wrong? Which ones, and how do you know? I’m certainly capable of making mistakes, but if you cannot explain what they are, correction is unlikely.

I’m tired of ad hominem attacks, whether they are attacks on me or anyone else. Responding to a policy argument with the equivalent of “I hate you and your mother wears combat boots” is neither persuasive nor witty. What do you think you are accomplishing by expressing such vitriol? And what was it that I wrote that so agitated you that you could not frame a meaningful response? Have you considered why my opinion—whatever it was—hit so close to home that you felt compelled to lash out with venom? (And I’m curious—is this sort of behavior consistent with your definition of being a good Christian, worthy of being Raptured?)

Finally, why not sign your name? Are you too embarrassed by your own inability to articulate your criticism? Does some small part of you recognize that failure to take ownership of your correspondence implies cowardace and intellectual poverty? Maybe my columns are riddled with errors. Perhaps my policy prescriptions are facile or unworkable. But I sign my name, because I want to play fair. I want serious, thoughtful people to feel free to engage in dialogue with me, to point out holes in my logic or mistakes of fact. That is the only way I’ll learn.

Until you are equally willing to own your words, equally willing to defend your beliefs in calm, reasoned discourse, don’t expect me—or anyone else—to take you seriously.

Yours truly, Sheila Kennedy”

I feel better now.

[UPDATE]In case my reference to the End Times eluded you, THIS explains it all.

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

Steve Ralls | August 12, 2007 3:52 PM


What a great response! The Tribune should publish it.

Do you know which column the writer was referring to? (And do you have a link?) It'd be great to see what sent him veering over the edge of sanity! :-)

I agree with Steve! I'm curious - which column did X respond to? If he sent you someone else's letter to the editor, which one was it about?

I appreciate the nice comments. I really am at a loss, however, to know which of my columns sent this person over the edge. The Indianapolis Star column that the enclosed letter responded to was about how to address the recent spike in Indianapolis' property taxes--not, one would think, an emotional issue.

The only thing I'm pretty sure of is that s/he doesn't like Jews.......

Zach Adamson | August 12, 2007 11:37 PM

My money is on Brian Bosma. But its neither here nor there.. The simple fact is that whatever article you wrote, clearly did its job. Whatever you wrote was apparently about them, or they thought it was. I think most neo cons bathe regularly in delusions of grandeur. That combined with constant down pours of self righteous arrogance make for irrational lashing out. Its good to see Sheila, like a fine wine, you get better as the years roll along.. Keep it up!

Don Sherfick | August 13, 2007 7:34 AM

Sheila, with all due respect (and I have tons and tons of that for you) I think you are significantly over-reacting to “X”, and unfairly critical of his motivations. For example, what makes you think that his reference to “O.T.” refers to the Bible? To me the meaning was clear and unambiguous: “Online Tabloid”. And “S.O.B.”? What else other than “Sheila on Bilerico”? [Insert Fanfare here]. I also didn’t see anything purposefully slamming in the fact that the letter didn’t capitalize “jews”, or for that matter “messianics”. Had “X” intended to be mean, surely she would have capitalized “holocaust”. (I’m still thinking about “Tea Party”. Probably it’s a veiled reference to the anti-property tax rally in broad ripple recently.) Lastly, relax about his signing an “X” to the missive. Perhaps she just misplaced her rubber name stamp. Or it could be the only letter of the alphabet it knows.

Go on Don, admit it. You sent the letter. We've all seen how you sign your posts "X." I just thought you were a messed up Zorro...

In all seriousness though, Sheila. It kills me that you're subjected to this kind of thing for your faith. When I make fun of the uber-Christians it isn't for their religion, it's for their hypocrisy. I know plenty of pious Christians that are great examples of living for Christ. Unfortunately, some don't live up to his example - and apparently this is one of them. *frowns*

Sheila, I enjoyed your letter immensely. I too agree that X should have signed his name. I despise these people who apparently have the guts to call you every name in the book but can't seem to put their own names out there. What is he afraid of? And I personally do not intend to spend my after-life (whatever that might be) with people of his nature! I'd rather go to the other place.

Sheila -

Your response to "X" shows such dignity and class -- what a great example of how to handle ignorance and prejudice. Thanks for sharing it with all of us.....I'll keep in my file on how to best handle always, you are a beacon of grace!


Sheila, all I can say is ...

May God bless you. The world would be a better place if it had more people like you.

Also ... Illigematii non carborundum. (I don't know if it's true, but someone once told me that, or something like it, is Latin for "Don't let the bastards grind you down." Any Latin teachers out there? I doubt that I have it exactly right.)