People most defensive about examination of religion

Although I prefer writing humorous columns, often rooted in injustice, they are the most difficult.

Despite their melancholy nature, it is easier to write about people overcoming obstacles and tragedies to claw a bit of salvation out of life’s drama.

The easiest columns are fact-based ones, although that doesn’t preclude upsetting people who prefer alternative facts.

People are the most defensive about examinations of religion — so I tread on that subject sparingly (but honestly). Most people subscribe to the religion they grew up with — neither hindering nor enhancing their basic goodness.

The only hostile comments I have received are from Christians.

One blogger wrote a parable about a dog named after Newton, the scientist, who was “emotionally overcome as he remembered his mother.”

Shortly before the blog, I had posted a Facebook photo from the ’70s in which I had long hair, and the writer commented on how becoming the dog’s mother had thought long hair was on Newton.

I had also recently posted about my mower being stolen, which was transformed into a bicycle being stolen.

The smoking gun was the parable referred to a Facebook discussion many readers participated in about a column I’d written speculating whether the universe is finely tuned expressly for humans, or whether humans evolved because of the way the universe is tuned.

If the former is true, then the universe must also be finely tuned for the good and bad things that happen to and because of humans.

The blogger had cherry-picked one word about humans having irrational minds to generalize anything I wrote was irrational — while ignoring the column’s substance.

According to the blogger — who falsely called me a “self-proclaimed atheist” and included me in “the shallowness of atheist zealots,” although I’ve never labeled myself and simply admit I don’t know what I don’t know — I had trouble “comprehending” his point.

I didn’t, but since word counts don’t allow me the luxury of dissecting the nuances of every word — and I expect readers to use common sense — his argument seemed a pedantic gambit to win rather than engage in a fruitful exchange about an interesting subject.

Those arguing on the side of the universe being finely tuned for humans were in the minority in our discussion and could have used a reasoned voice.

Although the blogger had previously called me a “Facebook philosopher, the Protagoras of Portales,” I was probably too “emotionally overcome” about my late mother — whom I’ve written about several times — to deserve such a lofty title since, most likely, Protagoras (486-411 BC) didn’t have word counts to prevent him from parsing every word on his papyrus tablet.

Since I have never initiated any negativity toward the blogger — only been assertive in responding to their inaccurate speculations about me — I wonder if religion would convert me into one of those kind and gentle souls more interested in respectful, enlightening discussions than winning at any cost?

Contact Wendel Sloan at: [email protected]