| |
|
Letters
to the Editor
Dear
Editor,
Tolerance or Intolerance?
“Evangelical Christians are the scum of the Earth. May a
horrid death find them soon. I for one will laugh and clap my hands
with joy.” Let me ask a question: Are these the words from
a person who is really tolerant of other people, or those who have
a dissenting opinion? These words are coming from a person who wants
Christians, like myself, to tolerate and accept his lifestyle. When
in all actuality, he and others who share his beliefs are not tolerant
of the way I (and others like me) chose to live our lives. I was
taught that tolerance is not a one way street. So Mr. Kruse, practice
what you preach for once.
As for the comment about Christianity, that is nothing but “legalized
discrimination.” True Christians do not hate anyone, including
those who believe differently than they do. A disagreement does
not equal hatred. Are Christians really the hateful ones? It is
obvious in reading Mr. Kruse’s latest article that the hatred
is really coming from him. If I said these same comments (note:
I do not personally hold these beliefs, and I condemn hatred) about
the homosexual community that Mr. Kruse stated about the Christian
community, I would be branded a hateful bigot (and rightfully so).
Does anyone see this clear double standard? I know I do.
Remember Mr. Kruse, Jesus died for everyone, including you and me.
All He asks in return is that we turn away from a life of sin, and
believe in the life He promises us as an eternal reward.
Peace in Christ,
Beth Heithoff
Dear Editor,
I wish to complain in the strongest possible terms about the letter
in the November 17 issue of the Stater. I was deeply hurt upon reading
Mr. Kruse’s letter. This man claims that Christians are a
hateful and persecuting bunch of people, when he himself is being
hateful and is persecuting Christians. This is a contradiction.
This man calls Christians hateful and then has the nerve to write
such things as “Evangelical Christians are the scum of the
earth.”
Religion is not limited to a belief in God; it is a structured set
of beliefs that men ought to follow. Our Constitution is a structured
set of beliefs, and democracy is a religion in and of itself. So
to remove religion from our government would mean removing the Constitution
and all it stands for, and our country would fall.
No law can be passed that grants total freedom to all; laws are
made to restrict from certain “wrong” behavior. Therefore,
no law can be made without holding to the belief that right behavior
exists. In the same way, no one can vote and leave their beliefs
at home. If you could, what would be the point of voting? If you’re
going to vote without your beliefs, then you may as well flip a
coin. So if you, Mr. Kruse, are against religion, then you are either
in support of total anarchy or you just hate God. In either case,
your reasoning is not logical.
Sincerely
Scott K. Schultz
Dear Editor,
I pose only one question in response to Daniel Kruse’s letter
of November 17: Who is the narrow-minded one?
Sincerely,
Sister Maria Gabriel
|
Letters
to the Editor
Dear
Editor,
I would like to comment on Mike Nemmers’ letter
in the last issue.
I do not claim that Bush’s supporters are just a bunch of
homophobic zealots. My main point is that in our strange electoral
college system there were clearly some states, especially the
ultimate swing state of Ohio, where the heavy anti-gay-marriage
vote was crucial for Bush’s voter turnout. Books will no
doubt be written on what really happened in Ohio. There are already
numerous newspaper and magazine articles about it. So, if you
get on Lexis-Nexis, you can look some of them up as I did, and
find that a number of authors from various religious and political
perspectives including evangelicals and Republicans, have already
credited the gay marriage issue for Bush’s narrow Ohio victory.
For a good generic account, you might try the article by Joel
Mowbray in the Washington Times on Nov. 5, documenting my main
point quite well. So it’s certainly fair to say that if
the gay marriage issue had not been on the Ohio ballot Kerry would
probably be our president-elect today, and it’s equally
fair to say that if it had not been on the ballot in 10 other
states, Kerry would have had an excellent chance to win the total
popular vote. That’s not exactly what I’d call a landslide
for Bush.
Voter turnout was the key to this election, and the gay marriage
issue brought a lot of Bush voters to the polls. Even so, there’s
no question in my mind that Bush currently has a broader base
of political support than some people who don’t like him
are willing to admit. But it’s hardly a mandate, and Lord
Acton’s time-honored advice to people in power is still
quite applicable.
The recent departure of moderate voices from the cabinet and other
key federal posts should be a danger signal to the true apostles
of democracy. On the other hand, Bush now has a rare opportunity
to remember his original campaign promises of four years ago by
becoming a “uniter not a divider,” and maybe even
a genuine “compassionate conservative.”
Some suggestions along that line are made in Jonathan Alter’s
excellent article in Newsweek on Nov. 15.
For the sake of our nation, that’s what we should all be
praying for, not the imposition of a monolithic moral code on
a pluralistic culture.
Fortunately, there are millions of Bush supporters who favor a
more moderate course. They and the more moderate Kerry supporters
have now become a “silent majority” in our country,
and maybe it’s about time for the loud ideologues on both
sides to listen to the quiet voice of the center.
Sincerely
Tom Cook
Dear
Editor,
George W. Bush won. I, and over 59 million others,
are pleased with the outcome.
If you don’t like it, too bad. Why don’t you spend
the next four years finding a Democratic candidate who can win?
Sincerely,
Sheena M. Zoucha
|
