Letters to the Editor 09-28-2004
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By -
- Civil Rights - Scare Tactics - Election Issues - Vote - Meaning Of The Cross - Unjust Wars
Civil Rights
Editor, Times-Union:I am informed that the Republican and Democratic candidates for governor of Indiana are in favor of "civil rights" for Hoosiers based on sexual orientation. This is a radical shift from millenniums of Judeo-Christian morality, and ought to be a jolting affront to every Hoosier that holds to a Judeo-Christian heritage as the core of his guiding principles.
Strident voices to the contrary notwithstanding, accepting what this heritage in the Scriptures condemn as unnatural and perverse, is to condone profound moral declension and endanger the institution of marriage. Politicians who claim to be "born again" and at the same time condone perversion, are guilty of sophistry, disingenuousness and political pandering. The same Scriptures that reveal how one is to be born again, transparently condemn sodomy as an egregious and heinous sin.
A Judeo-Christian heritage of thousands of years has clearly and unambiguously stressed that marriage is just as God originally ordained it: between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:18). This biblical and moral standard is now under attack by the agents of social change in which some have termed "culture wars."
To say that the disallowance of same sex marriages is "discrimination" is offensive in the extreme. Africans by the billions brought over the Atlantic as chattel property and in chains and unspeakable suffering, cannot and ought not be compared to persons who have deliberately chosen a life of perversion and unnatural lusts. To say this is discrimination, to be consistent, one would have to allow special civil liberties for felons and miscreants.
One must ask our politicians who agree with same sex marriages, "What is your moral compass?" It cannot be the Scriptures. If our two major gubernatorial candidates continue to support sodomy in their platforms, Hoosiers who fear God and his revealed word will have to in good conscience vote against them, and for men, who though they be a minor candidate, stand for righteous principles.
Ronald E. Williams
Winona Lake
Scare Tactics
Editor, Times-Union:The latest gambit of Democrats; Kerry, Howard Dean, Charley Rangel, etc., is scare tactics!
Telling young people not to vote for President Bush, because President Bush is going to re-instate the "draft" and they, the young people, will have to go to Iraq.
President Bush cannot "reinstate" the draft! The present Selective Service Act is discriminatory in that it selects only males! Congress would have to enact a new act that would also select females!
Women today have about 98 percent equality in the Armed Forces. They are forbidden to serve in Army and Marine Corps infantry, armor or artillery units - there are no females in Special Operative: Army Rangers, Green Berets, Navy Seals, Marine Force Recon, submarines ot the Marine Corps Silent Drill Platoon.
I don't believe any family today would accept daughters being drafted. I certainly don't believe the Congress would ever attempt to legislate a matter of this importance.
Shame on these desperate Democrats - they should have given this "thought" to Dan Rather and let him run with it!
Don Guard
Leesburg
Election Issues
Editor, Times-Union:It is widely held that the two primary issues in this election are the war on terrorism and the economy. I contend that they are the sacredness of innocent human life and the priority of traditional marriage. No nation has ever allowed either of these to be devalued without suffering a corresponding loss of freedom, including even the Chosen People.
America clearly needs to retain a president who is clearly conservative on both counts. Even more importantly, he names judges who are like-minded. We are long overdue for judicial authorities with the common sense to place every possible limit on such atrocities as partial-birth abortion, child pornography and "redefining" the very cornerstone of civilized societies - traditional marriage.
This leaves the legislative branch - supposedly the centerpiece of a government responsive to its people. A substantial majority of Americans favor a federal marriage amendment; yet it somehow gets pushed aside on Capitol Hill. Likewise, certain elitist legislators use procedural manipulation to block the confirmation of judicial appointees for lengths of time that are unheard of! Such arrogance over the "common people" is an outrage that screams for a change in Congress.
If every citizen who agrees with me will simply exercise his great American privilege of casting a meaningful vote, we just might be able to preserve that privilege for a few more generations.
Rex Stairs
Plymouth
Vote
Editor, Times-Union:Just a friendly reminder you have until October 4 to register to vote.
We are so fortunate to live in a country where we have the freedom to vote and other freedoms we take for granted every day.
As an evangelical Christian, I have a responsibility to vote and I hope the rest of the Christian community takes this election very seriously.
So if you haven't registered, do so! Then on the first Tuesday in November, vote!
Phyllis L. Barger
Warsaw
via e-mail
Meaning Of The Cross
Editor, Times-Union:I have seen the cross dangling from the ear of a baseball player, and I have seen it on a chain around the neck of both men and women. I have seen the cross tatooed on the arm of a young girl. Has the cross lost its true meaning? Let me tell you a story told to me by a man from the hills of Kentucky some 40 years ago.
There was a one-room school with eight grades and one school master; also in this school was a "bully."
One day the bully got his lunch pail down from the cloak closet and found only one sandwich for his lunch - he was used to having two sandwiches. When he got home, he yelled at his mother, "Why was there only one sandwich in my lunch pail today?" His mother answered quietly, "Son, I put two sandwiches in your lunch today."
A few days later, the bully found only one sandwich in his lunch pail. The bully went to the school master and told him someone was stealing a sandwich out of his lunch pail. A few days later, the school master caught a little boy taking a sandwich out of the bully's lunch pail. He took the boy by the ear and led him to the front of the room, where he was ordered to take off his coat. He fumbled with an eight-penny nail that held his coat together because it had no buttons. There was a gasp when the little boy had no shirt or undershirt. He stood there naked to the waist. The teacher ordered him to lay across the teacher's desk to receive 12 strikes of the yard stick. SMACK - the room was deathly silent - SMACK - the second time. A little girl began to sob. The teacher raised the yard stick to strike again when a voice said "STOP!"
"What," said the teacher, "you know the rule for stealing, 12 strikes with the yard stick."
"Yes I know the rule, but I want to take his place for the other 10."
So with that, the bully came forth and took the little boy's place.
That is what happened on the cross - Jesus took our place so we could have eternal life if we only believe in him. Read John 3:16.
Dale Beery
Claypool
Unjust Wars
Editor, Times-UnionA recent letter by Ron Neeley, while rambling and repetitive, missed the entire point - Iraq was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
To use 9/11 as the set-up to justify the expense of our Iraq disaster is comparing apples and oranges.
Obviously Mr. Neeley has a short-term memory, or maybe he's bought into the Republican brainwashing. Either option is troubling.
Osama bin Laden caused 9/11. Iraq did not. That's fact.
Regardless, maybe W shouldn't have (illegally) diverted money approved for Afghanistan on his early Iraq war plans and then we could have found the real culprit of 9/11, the one who deserves the blame.
Instead he put only a token number (comparatively) of troops into the Osama hunt while pulling out all the stops in Iraq.
Maybe if Osama had tried to kill his daddy he would have gotten the grand W war treatment. But then again, Afghanistan isn't a major player in the world oil supply so it probably wouldn't have mattered.
And FYI, I don't mind being a member of the Democrat party. At least its current leaders aren't responsible for ruining the lives of more than 1,000 families (and counting) by sacrificing their sons or daughters in a misguided quest for oil and revenge. And we shouldn't forget the 10,000-plus Iraqi civilians killed along the way.
And I'm glad you swerved to the "gun" debate, the one issue everyone who votes on "one issue" always seems to returns to, although with any conservative writer, it's usually inevitable.
I know I'll sleep better knowing that a man who can't seem to remember that Iraq wasn't responsible for 9/11 can now legally restock his cabinet with brand-new AK-47s.
Unjust wars and assault weapons for all - now that's what I call leadership.
Matt Perry
New Orleans, La.
via e-mail
[[In-content Ad]]
Latest News
E-Editions
- Civil Rights - Scare Tactics - Election Issues - Vote - Meaning Of The Cross - Unjust Wars
Civil Rights
Editor, Times-Union:I am informed that the Republican and Democratic candidates for governor of Indiana are in favor of "civil rights" for Hoosiers based on sexual orientation. This is a radical shift from millenniums of Judeo-Christian morality, and ought to be a jolting affront to every Hoosier that holds to a Judeo-Christian heritage as the core of his guiding principles.
Strident voices to the contrary notwithstanding, accepting what this heritage in the Scriptures condemn as unnatural and perverse, is to condone profound moral declension and endanger the institution of marriage. Politicians who claim to be "born again" and at the same time condone perversion, are guilty of sophistry, disingenuousness and political pandering. The same Scriptures that reveal how one is to be born again, transparently condemn sodomy as an egregious and heinous sin.
A Judeo-Christian heritage of thousands of years has clearly and unambiguously stressed that marriage is just as God originally ordained it: between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:18). This biblical and moral standard is now under attack by the agents of social change in which some have termed "culture wars."
To say that the disallowance of same sex marriages is "discrimination" is offensive in the extreme. Africans by the billions brought over the Atlantic as chattel property and in chains and unspeakable suffering, cannot and ought not be compared to persons who have deliberately chosen a life of perversion and unnatural lusts. To say this is discrimination, to be consistent, one would have to allow special civil liberties for felons and miscreants.
One must ask our politicians who agree with same sex marriages, "What is your moral compass?" It cannot be the Scriptures. If our two major gubernatorial candidates continue to support sodomy in their platforms, Hoosiers who fear God and his revealed word will have to in good conscience vote against them, and for men, who though they be a minor candidate, stand for righteous principles.
Ronald E. Williams
Winona Lake
Scare Tactics
Editor, Times-Union:The latest gambit of Democrats; Kerry, Howard Dean, Charley Rangel, etc., is scare tactics!
Telling young people not to vote for President Bush, because President Bush is going to re-instate the "draft" and they, the young people, will have to go to Iraq.
President Bush cannot "reinstate" the draft! The present Selective Service Act is discriminatory in that it selects only males! Congress would have to enact a new act that would also select females!
Women today have about 98 percent equality in the Armed Forces. They are forbidden to serve in Army and Marine Corps infantry, armor or artillery units - there are no females in Special Operative: Army Rangers, Green Berets, Navy Seals, Marine Force Recon, submarines ot the Marine Corps Silent Drill Platoon.
I don't believe any family today would accept daughters being drafted. I certainly don't believe the Congress would ever attempt to legislate a matter of this importance.
Shame on these desperate Democrats - they should have given this "thought" to Dan Rather and let him run with it!
Don Guard
Leesburg
Election Issues
Editor, Times-Union:It is widely held that the two primary issues in this election are the war on terrorism and the economy. I contend that they are the sacredness of innocent human life and the priority of traditional marriage. No nation has ever allowed either of these to be devalued without suffering a corresponding loss of freedom, including even the Chosen People.
America clearly needs to retain a president who is clearly conservative on both counts. Even more importantly, he names judges who are like-minded. We are long overdue for judicial authorities with the common sense to place every possible limit on such atrocities as partial-birth abortion, child pornography and "redefining" the very cornerstone of civilized societies - traditional marriage.
This leaves the legislative branch - supposedly the centerpiece of a government responsive to its people. A substantial majority of Americans favor a federal marriage amendment; yet it somehow gets pushed aside on Capitol Hill. Likewise, certain elitist legislators use procedural manipulation to block the confirmation of judicial appointees for lengths of time that are unheard of! Such arrogance over the "common people" is an outrage that screams for a change in Congress.
If every citizen who agrees with me will simply exercise his great American privilege of casting a meaningful vote, we just might be able to preserve that privilege for a few more generations.
Rex Stairs
Plymouth
Vote
Editor, Times-Union:Just a friendly reminder you have until October 4 to register to vote.
We are so fortunate to live in a country where we have the freedom to vote and other freedoms we take for granted every day.
As an evangelical Christian, I have a responsibility to vote and I hope the rest of the Christian community takes this election very seriously.
So if you haven't registered, do so! Then on the first Tuesday in November, vote!
Phyllis L. Barger
Warsaw
via e-mail
Meaning Of The Cross
Editor, Times-Union:I have seen the cross dangling from the ear of a baseball player, and I have seen it on a chain around the neck of both men and women. I have seen the cross tatooed on the arm of a young girl. Has the cross lost its true meaning? Let me tell you a story told to me by a man from the hills of Kentucky some 40 years ago.
There was a one-room school with eight grades and one school master; also in this school was a "bully."
One day the bully got his lunch pail down from the cloak closet and found only one sandwich for his lunch - he was used to having two sandwiches. When he got home, he yelled at his mother, "Why was there only one sandwich in my lunch pail today?" His mother answered quietly, "Son, I put two sandwiches in your lunch today."
A few days later, the bully found only one sandwich in his lunch pail. The bully went to the school master and told him someone was stealing a sandwich out of his lunch pail. A few days later, the school master caught a little boy taking a sandwich out of the bully's lunch pail. He took the boy by the ear and led him to the front of the room, where he was ordered to take off his coat. He fumbled with an eight-penny nail that held his coat together because it had no buttons. There was a gasp when the little boy had no shirt or undershirt. He stood there naked to the waist. The teacher ordered him to lay across the teacher's desk to receive 12 strikes of the yard stick. SMACK - the room was deathly silent - SMACK - the second time. A little girl began to sob. The teacher raised the yard stick to strike again when a voice said "STOP!"
"What," said the teacher, "you know the rule for stealing, 12 strikes with the yard stick."
"Yes I know the rule, but I want to take his place for the other 10."
So with that, the bully came forth and took the little boy's place.
That is what happened on the cross - Jesus took our place so we could have eternal life if we only believe in him. Read John 3:16.
Dale Beery
Claypool
Unjust Wars
Editor, Times-UnionA recent letter by Ron Neeley, while rambling and repetitive, missed the entire point - Iraq was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
To use 9/11 as the set-up to justify the expense of our Iraq disaster is comparing apples and oranges.
Obviously Mr. Neeley has a short-term memory, or maybe he's bought into the Republican brainwashing. Either option is troubling.
Osama bin Laden caused 9/11. Iraq did not. That's fact.
Regardless, maybe W shouldn't have (illegally) diverted money approved for Afghanistan on his early Iraq war plans and then we could have found the real culprit of 9/11, the one who deserves the blame.
Instead he put only a token number (comparatively) of troops into the Osama hunt while pulling out all the stops in Iraq.
Maybe if Osama had tried to kill his daddy he would have gotten the grand W war treatment. But then again, Afghanistan isn't a major player in the world oil supply so it probably wouldn't have mattered.
And FYI, I don't mind being a member of the Democrat party. At least its current leaders aren't responsible for ruining the lives of more than 1,000 families (and counting) by sacrificing their sons or daughters in a misguided quest for oil and revenge. And we shouldn't forget the 10,000-plus Iraqi civilians killed along the way.
And I'm glad you swerved to the "gun" debate, the one issue everyone who votes on "one issue" always seems to returns to, although with any conservative writer, it's usually inevitable.
I know I'll sleep better knowing that a man who can't seem to remember that Iraq wasn't responsible for 9/11 can now legally restock his cabinet with brand-new AK-47s.
Unjust wars and assault weapons for all - now that's what I call leadership.
Matt Perry
New Orleans, La.
via e-mail
[[In-content Ad]]
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092