Letters, 2/8: Religious truth?

 9 comment(s)  
 E-mail Story
 Print Story
  Share

 digg it!
 Facebook
 del.icio.us
Seed Newsvine
Fark It
Reddit

Text Size: 

Tools Sponsor

Hey, another pastor shows the courage of his convictions! Let’s picket the funeral of a soldier killed in Iraq serving his country to show everyone he’s been punished by God, because he’s from a nation that harbors gays.

Surely this man of God also will be invited to abuse and insult the hospitality of our Legislature with his own “blessing” on the proceedings. And surely the Journal Star will follow with a full front-page top story applauding him for speaking God’s words with courage.

Religious conviction is not always truth. It is not always appropriately voiced, nor defensible, nor rational, nor inoffensive, nor palatable to the majority, nor generous, nor loving, etc., etc. It does not justify abusing and insulting the families of our heroes, not to mention the heroes themselves.

Tom deShazo, Lincoln

Lesson in faith

Thanks, Tom Swartley, for sharing your prayer with the Nebraska legislators. A prayer is defined as “communication with God” and that is what Swartley offered.

I was once asked to offer a prayer to a large group, and as I approached the stage, I was told, “By the way, you can’t say God or Jesus.”

No one should change his or her prayer requests depending on who is listening. Thank you for the lesson on being “bold in your faith.”

Cindy Swinney, Lincoln

Asked and answered

Reading the article “State of Feminism” in Backpage of the Sunday Lincoln Journal Star gave me a lot to think about.

However, by juxtaposing that article with “Easy ways to turn back the clock,” I believe you may have answered your own question.

Jacqueline England, Lincoln

Insightful editing

The “State of Feminism” article (LJS, Feb. 5) was undermined by the “Easy ways to turn back the clock,” which cited a man as the source.

What insightful editing! It was good for a belly laugh.

It was too bad Cindy Lange-Kubick did not ask about the glass ceilings that still exist and prevent real equality.

MaryAnn Cassatt Dunn, Lincoln

Where it’s not at

When I was growing up and I asked my mother something like “Where are my shoes at?” she would reply, “just before the at,” which was a constant reminder that there is no need for the redundant “at.”

In fact, it signals a lack of knowledge of good grammatical usage. It is not a felony to use it — but in a large newspaper headline! That should not happen.

Perhaps our language is changing, but there are some things that

go too far. When my wife and I go to a restaurant and are greeted at the door with, “How are you guys?” it demeans my wife. Then the waitress comes to the table and asks, “Are you guys ready to order?” How would the man feel if the greeter at the door asks, “How are you girls tonight?” It is the same thing. I am not a girl and my wife is not a guy.

Am I just an old prude? Is the informal trend in dress code and language usage a natural progression and those who do not agree are out of step with the rest of the world?

Recently we attended an event at the Lied Center, and I felt completely out of character wearing my necktie and jacket until I saw several other brave men in similar dress clothes. I suppose I just as well give up and only dress up for black tie events. But I refuse to add an “at” at the end of my sentence.

David L. Chambers, Lincoln

Cast your vote

One of our greatest gifts and privileges is the opportunity for free expression via the ballot box. The awesome decision-making power of casting a vote can positively and effectively be witnessed on Feb. 14 by affirming the need for the school bond issue and voting “yes.”

For almost a year, I have participated in the process of taking ownership of a challenge to make better an already excellent Lincoln Public Schools system.

In return for this commitment of hours and soul-searching, the board was challenged to fully disclose all aspects of the LPS bond issue to avoid any perceptions of hidden agendas or tax rate increases. Neither issue exists.

I endorse, without reservation, the LPS bond issue.

Jim Lisec, Lincoln

Kindness to animals

I applaud Sen. Marian Price for having the compassion to introduce a bill to ban the use of bullhooks on elephants in Nebraska.

Jennifer Dick’s recent letter criticizes her for placing animal treatment ahead of “more important” human issues such as autism. It is a common fallacy to assume that those who seek humane treatment for animals ignore human problems in society. Price and many of those advocating humane treatment of animals frequently are more active advocates of human causes than their vocal critics.

Kindness (or cruelty) to humans and animals are closely related. A social worker tells me that when she sees neglect or abuse of animals, she immediately looks for child abuse and vice versa. Indeed, an examination of the backgrounds of such serial killers (of humans) as Jeffrey Dahmer, Charlie Starkweather and Ted Bundy reveals a common thread in their early years — abuse of animals.

If the bill would drive circuses and animal cruelty out of Nebraska, so be it. But I’d be willing to bet that circuses without elephants will continue to visit Nebraska despite what the well-paid lobbyists from the opposition would have us believe.

And I wonder whether we have to solve all of the ills of human society before we can be kind to animals.

Keith Heim, Lincoln

Another view

I would like to comment on Marge Schlitt’s recent letter regarding her efforts to contact Congressman Jeff Fortenberry.

I commend Schlitt and members of her church group for taking part in the political process allowed by our democratic freedom. Too few take advantage of this privilege.

I am, however, surprised by her last paragraph regarding Fortenberry. It reads: “I don’t know who he is representing, maybe the lobbyists or fat cats. He doesn’t seem to want to talk to mere constituents.”

I, too, contacted the congressman regarding a matter of importance to me. I received a reply within a few days. After additional dialogue, I received a letter from Fortenberry. I was very pleased with the professionalism of his staff and the effort the congressman took to respond.

I believe the voters who elected the congressman — and those who take the time to notice his efforts — know who he works for. They may have found Schlitt’s comment as insulting as I did.

Schlitt exercised her freedom of speech to make a derogatory comment. As a reader, I exercise my right to evaluate her agenda and motive.

Mike Herring, Lincoln