Letters to the Editor 03-02-2004
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By -
- Atwood Success - Powerful Portrayal - Rejecting Jesus - Freedom Of Speech - Defining Marriage
Atwood Success
Editor, Times-Union:I congratulate the students, staff and principal at the Atwood School for achieving their excellent ISTEP scores. Atwood has proven itself to be one of the premier grade schools in the state of Indiana. When Mrs. Brandenburg became principal in the school year of 1997-1998, Atwood School was on probation because of the poor ISTEP scores in the previous years. Five of the current seven teachers have been teaching during this entire time. By working with the staff to introduce solid educational and behavioral programs, Mrs. Brandenburg has guided Atwood School to the highest standards that it is now achieving. It is unfortunate more recognition has not been given to the Atwood School. Those involved know why. The school board and the public should be asking the administration why Atwood has not only been recognized for their achievements, but used as a model for other grade schools. Again, congratulations for a job well done!
Bruce Ferguson
Warsaw, via e-mail
Powerful Portrayal
Editor, Times-Union:"The Passion of the Christ" is a stirring, reverent and significant motion picture for believers and nonbelievers alike, and is among the most powerful and important films our our lifetimes. In addition to being faithful to the biblical account, it is easily the most heart-wrenching, powerful portrayal of Christ's suffering that I have ever seen. Unbelievers will be tempted to marginalize Jesus as a tragic or misguided historical figure will be confronted with the harsh reality of who he was and why he died.
This is more than a respectful biography, though. There's an important spiritual dimension here. The portrayal of Satan as a player in these events wonderfully pulls the proceedings into the supernatural realm - a fact that should have answered the critics' statements of anti-Semitism since it shows a diabolical force at work beyond any political and religious agendas of the Jews and Romans.
Charges of "anti-Semitism" are really just a smokescreen. I believe that the real problem the liberal establishment has with this movie is that it has the audacity to portray Christ as he really was - not only as an historical figure, but as the savior of mankind. That is an offense to the our morally relativistic culture. The fact that Mel Gibson actually hopes to use his movie as a vehicle to reach unbelievers only incites liberals. We should not be surprised when the true story of Christ - whether depicted on film or declared from the pulpit - creates controversy.
Patrick Sells
Warsaw, via e-mail
Rejecting Jesus
Editor, Times-Union:This letter is concerning an article in the Times-Union Feb. 12. On the back page of the Sports section the heading was "Scholars Find a Unique and Varied American Jesus." Most of the article was from a book by Stephen Prothero, Boston U. Professor. One quote caught my attention: "Jesus won't become a national figure unless he can move outside Christianity." For Mr. Prothero's information, Jesus has had more influence on this old world than any other person in history.
Jesus' sole purpose in coming into this world was to seek and to save the lost, Luke 19:10, and mankind sure as **#! are lost.
The liberals are rejecting the teachings of Jesus as the sacrificial lamb given for the sins of the world. Period.
Dale Beery
Claypool, via e-mail
Freedom Of Speech
Editor, Times-Union:"Some sort of infringement on freedom of speech." "I suppose that is true to a certain degree." These were the words used by Mr. Gerard, a newspaper editor. A man who makes his living on the freedom of speech. Maybe I missed the point, but the FCC sets the standards and guidelines, Clear Channel was the one trampling the freedom of speech. By bowing down and kissing the hand of the FCC instead of supporting the people that make them their money, Clear Channel opened the door for the FCC to do exactly what Mr. Gerard alluded to, censorship of newspapers and anything or anyone else who disagrees with the new standards and guidelines. Up to this point, we might not have agreed to what was aired on radio, television or written by newspaper editors, but they had the freedom to say it. I believe we have just taken our first step on the wrong side of that slippery slope. It was infringement, not sort of, and it was true that freedom of speech was trampled, but it was beyond a shadow of a doubt, not to a certain degree. I feel that Mr. Gerard missed the boat on this one, in his profession he should be leading the right of free speech, not standing on the curb paying it lip service.
Robert Alsman
Warsaw, via e-mail
Defining Marriage
Editor, Times-Union:The traditional definition of marriage has been under attack in courts across America by special interest groups representing the same-sex rights lobby. Recently, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriages must be recognized under state law. A similar effort is under way in Indiana, as the Indiana Civil Liberties Union has sued on behalf of three same-sex couples to have their relationships recognized as marriages in the Hoosier state.
The concept of one man, one woman marriage has been enshrined in our history, our laws and our religious traditions for thousands of years and I believe it should be protected and promoted. Efforts to legitimize same-sex marriage hurt the traditional institution of marriage and open the door to legal challenges in favor of polygamy and other outlandish behaviors.
Indiana law, as well as the law in 37 other states and federal law, currently defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. However, if these interest groups are successful in their court challenge, an amendment to the Indiana Constitution is the only means available to protect our law and our traditions. Four states currently have such an amendment, and President Bush called for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution in his State of the Union speech, and again recently.
To address this attack on traditional marriage, I co-authored Senate Joint Resolution 7, which was introduced by Sen. Brandt Hershman, to amend the Indiana Constitution to define marriage and prevent recognition of same-sex couples. SJR 7 would have to be approved by two separately elected general assemblies and put on a statewide ballot for voter approval before it could become law.
The measure passed the full Senate by a vote of 42 to 7 after several hours of cordial debate and discussion. Unfortunately, when the resolution passed to the House of Representatives for consideration, the Speaker of the House declared that he would allow no public hearing on the matter. In response, House Republicans lobbied for several weeks and attempted a variety of legislative maneuvers to convince the Speaker to reconsider. At the time of this printing, the issue is unresolved.
I believe this is a matter which should be addressed by the entire legislature and the citizens of Indiana through a statewide voting referendum, rather than through the actions of an activist judiciary. If the resolution is not addressed this year, voters will not be able to express their opinions until 2008.
Kent Adams
Indiana State Senator, Indianapolis, via e-mail
[[In-content Ad]]
Latest News
E-Editions
- Atwood Success - Powerful Portrayal - Rejecting Jesus - Freedom Of Speech - Defining Marriage
Atwood Success
Editor, Times-Union:I congratulate the students, staff and principal at the Atwood School for achieving their excellent ISTEP scores. Atwood has proven itself to be one of the premier grade schools in the state of Indiana. When Mrs. Brandenburg became principal in the school year of 1997-1998, Atwood School was on probation because of the poor ISTEP scores in the previous years. Five of the current seven teachers have been teaching during this entire time. By working with the staff to introduce solid educational and behavioral programs, Mrs. Brandenburg has guided Atwood School to the highest standards that it is now achieving. It is unfortunate more recognition has not been given to the Atwood School. Those involved know why. The school board and the public should be asking the administration why Atwood has not only been recognized for their achievements, but used as a model for other grade schools. Again, congratulations for a job well done!
Bruce Ferguson
Warsaw, via e-mail
Powerful Portrayal
Editor, Times-Union:"The Passion of the Christ" is a stirring, reverent and significant motion picture for believers and nonbelievers alike, and is among the most powerful and important films our our lifetimes. In addition to being faithful to the biblical account, it is easily the most heart-wrenching, powerful portrayal of Christ's suffering that I have ever seen. Unbelievers will be tempted to marginalize Jesus as a tragic or misguided historical figure will be confronted with the harsh reality of who he was and why he died.
This is more than a respectful biography, though. There's an important spiritual dimension here. The portrayal of Satan as a player in these events wonderfully pulls the proceedings into the supernatural realm - a fact that should have answered the critics' statements of anti-Semitism since it shows a diabolical force at work beyond any political and religious agendas of the Jews and Romans.
Charges of "anti-Semitism" are really just a smokescreen. I believe that the real problem the liberal establishment has with this movie is that it has the audacity to portray Christ as he really was - not only as an historical figure, but as the savior of mankind. That is an offense to the our morally relativistic culture. The fact that Mel Gibson actually hopes to use his movie as a vehicle to reach unbelievers only incites liberals. We should not be surprised when the true story of Christ - whether depicted on film or declared from the pulpit - creates controversy.
Patrick Sells
Warsaw, via e-mail
Rejecting Jesus
Editor, Times-Union:This letter is concerning an article in the Times-Union Feb. 12. On the back page of the Sports section the heading was "Scholars Find a Unique and Varied American Jesus." Most of the article was from a book by Stephen Prothero, Boston U. Professor. One quote caught my attention: "Jesus won't become a national figure unless he can move outside Christianity." For Mr. Prothero's information, Jesus has had more influence on this old world than any other person in history.
Jesus' sole purpose in coming into this world was to seek and to save the lost, Luke 19:10, and mankind sure as **#! are lost.
The liberals are rejecting the teachings of Jesus as the sacrificial lamb given for the sins of the world. Period.
Dale Beery
Claypool, via e-mail
Freedom Of Speech
Editor, Times-Union:"Some sort of infringement on freedom of speech." "I suppose that is true to a certain degree." These were the words used by Mr. Gerard, a newspaper editor. A man who makes his living on the freedom of speech. Maybe I missed the point, but the FCC sets the standards and guidelines, Clear Channel was the one trampling the freedom of speech. By bowing down and kissing the hand of the FCC instead of supporting the people that make them their money, Clear Channel opened the door for the FCC to do exactly what Mr. Gerard alluded to, censorship of newspapers and anything or anyone else who disagrees with the new standards and guidelines. Up to this point, we might not have agreed to what was aired on radio, television or written by newspaper editors, but they had the freedom to say it. I believe we have just taken our first step on the wrong side of that slippery slope. It was infringement, not sort of, and it was true that freedom of speech was trampled, but it was beyond a shadow of a doubt, not to a certain degree. I feel that Mr. Gerard missed the boat on this one, in his profession he should be leading the right of free speech, not standing on the curb paying it lip service.
Robert Alsman
Warsaw, via e-mail
Defining Marriage
Editor, Times-Union:The traditional definition of marriage has been under attack in courts across America by special interest groups representing the same-sex rights lobby. Recently, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriages must be recognized under state law. A similar effort is under way in Indiana, as the Indiana Civil Liberties Union has sued on behalf of three same-sex couples to have their relationships recognized as marriages in the Hoosier state.
The concept of one man, one woman marriage has been enshrined in our history, our laws and our religious traditions for thousands of years and I believe it should be protected and promoted. Efforts to legitimize same-sex marriage hurt the traditional institution of marriage and open the door to legal challenges in favor of polygamy and other outlandish behaviors.
Indiana law, as well as the law in 37 other states and federal law, currently defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. However, if these interest groups are successful in their court challenge, an amendment to the Indiana Constitution is the only means available to protect our law and our traditions. Four states currently have such an amendment, and President Bush called for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution in his State of the Union speech, and again recently.
To address this attack on traditional marriage, I co-authored Senate Joint Resolution 7, which was introduced by Sen. Brandt Hershman, to amend the Indiana Constitution to define marriage and prevent recognition of same-sex couples. SJR 7 would have to be approved by two separately elected general assemblies and put on a statewide ballot for voter approval before it could become law.
The measure passed the full Senate by a vote of 42 to 7 after several hours of cordial debate and discussion. Unfortunately, when the resolution passed to the House of Representatives for consideration, the Speaker of the House declared that he would allow no public hearing on the matter. In response, House Republicans lobbied for several weeks and attempted a variety of legislative maneuvers to convince the Speaker to reconsider. At the time of this printing, the issue is unresolved.
I believe this is a matter which should be addressed by the entire legislature and the citizens of Indiana through a statewide voting referendum, rather than through the actions of an activist judiciary. If the resolution is not addressed this year, voters will not be able to express their opinions until 2008.
Kent Adams
Indiana State Senator, Indianapolis, via e-mail
[[In-content Ad]]
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092