Now
Mostly Cloudy
61°
High
64°
Low
48°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > Letters
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Letters, 2/15: Best start cracking down

Comments 20 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

Wednesday, Feb 15, 2006 - 10:13:58 am CST

In seeing that Jon Bruning has an interest in taking care of those “children” out there that are having sex with adults, I hope to see his interest go up in the other areas this involves as well.

For instance, how many 14-year-olds do you see running around with children? A lot more than one, I can tell you that. How many children are defiled by their parents or other adults that are simply left to slip between the cracks because we would rather spend our time and tax money to put a man in prison who was actually taking care of his child?

I see too many children on welfare and go without because their “daddy” is nowhere to be found and mom is left to fend for herself, yet it seems to me like we are not doing anything about it! If we are going to make these issues a case, then you best start cracking down and getting all of them, not just the one that is trying to do right and raise his child so I don’t have to support his kids like I do all the other ones.

I personally think we can spend our money and time in a better way than the attorney general is.

Jill Eisenhauer, Lincoln

Prison isn’t the answer

Matt Koso doesn’t deserve prison time. Too harsh.

He’s not running away from his responsibilities. More leniency should have been considered, since he has a wife and child and should be taken into consideration.

Their love is strong now. Being separated and Matt Koso in prison will not solve the problem and could bring more harm than good.

Doris Westcott, Denton

Not a back-page story

What a coincidence that the Backpage of the Feb. 5 Sunday Journal Star was devoted to the state of feminism on the day after our guru, Betty Friedan, died.

For those of us still in the struggle for equality, that feature belonged on the section front page, for it is far more important than the pseudo cult Super Bowl holiday.

Sue Schreiber, Lincoln

Work on your issues

To all of those persons who have griped, complained and groused about Sen. Marian Price’s bill trying to right the wrong of using bullhooks on elephants:

She saw a wrong and has taken steps to right it. That doesn’t mean that she cares less about these other issues that the writers have written in about to this column, only that she chose an issue on which to work and possibly make a difference.

Instead of bitching that someone else has not done something to help your favorite cause, do something yourself. Get involved! If you think a legislative bill can help change the situation, write to a senator and propose a change which can be put into a bill. Then work toward getting that bill passed.

In the meantime, donate your time, talents and money to your cause. Join an organization and others who work with your concerns and help them in whatever way you can.

If something is important to you, stop complaining and expecting others to do your work and fulfill your wishes; get out there and do something positive to achieve your goal.

Susan A. Hanlon, Lincoln

‘God’s will’ is personal

Regarding the recent front-page Lincoln Journal Star article “Minister driven by God’s will,” while I honor the Rev. Tom Swartley’s right to have a perspective on “God’s will,” it is only his opinion. I have no problem with him sharing his opinion with his congregation, but attempting to influence lawmakers is another matter. Beliefs concerning “God’s will” are a personal matter, to be kept out of politics.

Historically, any attempts made by religions to convince the world through political means that they were right and everyone else was wrong always caused war and tremendous human suffering. They eventually learned they couldn’t control people’s minds (although some religions still try even today) because “God’s will” is different for every individual.

An article I read recently said the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who claim over 98,000 congregations worldwide, believe God forbids blood transfusions. This is just one example of the many varying religious beliefs concerning “God’s will” in our world.

In this case, I don’t agree with the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ view, but I honor their right to have a faith and I certainly wouldn’t go to their churches and preach to them that I think they’re wrong, because I don’t think they are. The sacredness of one’s faith is what makes it right for them, and who am I to say otherwise?

I believe the first step towards peace on the planet is in admitting that God’s will for me is not necessarily God’s will for another, and that’s OK.

Paul Reinig, Lincoln

Lobbying in disguise

The recent zealous lobbying effort in the guise of an opening prayer by the Rev. Tom Swartley is an intrusion into the affairs of government presenting a specific religious point of view held by a particular religious sect. This is an effort to inject religious “law” held by some religious organizations into the law of the land.

Many religious organizations have different views about when the life of a human being begins. The topic of evolution viewed as against God’s law is also a specific religious view not accepted by a large number of educated people. The views of Rev. Swartley injected into the law of the land are not something the majority of Americans will accept.

It seems to me that the custom of an opening prayer for the Legislature needs, at the very least, to be restricted to a nonpolitical oration and a broad variety of different religious representatives invited, or preferably abolished altogether.

Earl B. Barnawell, Lincoln

On freedom of speech

After reading Ralph B. Palmer’s Local View, I realize even more just how important free speech is. How important freedom is. Freedom to say and write what you feel is true to you no matter how naive your thoughts appear to others.

My son Justin John is this very minute at Fort Riley, Kan., preparing to leave for Iraq in March with the 308th Transportation Company from Lincoln. He is a “Young Republican” and a “Born-Again” Christian who put his trust and faith in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior long before he voluntarily joined the Army Reserves. He knew then that he probably would get the chance to defend our rights and freedoms, freedom of speech included.

Palmer says we lost Vietnam because of the no-shows, and that’s his right.

Now I wonder if it was because of the lack of sound judgment of the armed forces’ intelligence reports. Or if the two presidents who got us into that mess lacked a plan to win or get us out with a victory.

Johnny Barta, Western


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Letters > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
Brian in Lincoln wrote on February 15, 2006 10:40 am:
" If Matt Koso was indeed taking care of his two children (wife and baby) why did they not have a home? What was his job? Did it have benefits? Who paid for the birth of the childs baby? You all want to put this guy on a pedestal "for doing the right thing" but from what I can tell, Mr and Miss Taxpayer were there from the beginning with all sorts of assistance, so dont tell me he was taking care of his family. Sex offender and child rapist are the two best ways to describe this man....it is sickening to see people try to defend his actions. "

 Josh wrote on February 15, 2006 11:54 am:
" The evangelicals say Tom Swartley’s political prayer at the state legislature was ok and no one should criticize him for his words. I wonder what their response would have been had a pastor advocated equal rights for the gay and lesbian community. I have a feeling the evangelicals would have fought like heck to have that viewpoint censored.... "

 Christi wrote on February 15, 2006 12:04 pm:
" Thank you Brian!!! This entire business about him doing the right thing because he married her is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Matt Koso is a pervert. He was interested in this girl when she was 12 years old and no one intervened and he had a history of being interested in other 12 and 13 year old girls in the community. This entire thing could have been prevented with intervention from either his parents or her parents. And what kind of mother says really marry my junior high school student? He's a sex offender, period. The mother needs to be charged with child endangerment for allowing it to occur in the first place and this little girl needs a whole lot of birth control and to get her butt in school so that she can make a life for her child. Being a teenage mom is hard, I know because I was one, and I can tell you, I never took one cent of public assistance so I know it can be done. "

 Allen T. wrote on February 15, 2006 12:36 pm:
" Paul Reinig: Having the right to have faith (which you very kindly bestow on people) without the right to lobby the government is no right at all. If I believe something, then my First Amendment rights to free speech allow me to petition the government on behalf of those beliefs. The suggestion that ideas rooted in faith have no place in government is wrong. The government is not allowed to establish a singular religion, endorsed by the government; however, that does not mean that people of faith are not allow to try and influence the government. As the United States uses a representative government, we are supposed to try and influence our legislature to "represent" us. That's what freedom of (not from) religion and freedom of speech (not freedom of speech that you happen to agree with) means. "

 Troy in Lincoln wrote on February 15, 2006 12:56 pm:
" In response to Jill, it seems Bruning only takes the cases that will get him front page attention (ie Koso & current grand jury case). He clearly sees his own attention as a greater factor than consistency in his job. "

 Brian in Lincoln wrote on February 15, 2006 2:45 pm:
" Well Troy, when you are appointed AG, you can perform the job as you see fit. That is still not the point. If the AG has matters like this brought to his attention, it is his duty and obligation to prosecute. If you know of other cases, similar to this one, the by all means bring them to his attention and he will do the same. If you don't, then don't say he is not prosecuting all of them. If there is a complaint about a specific person brought, Im sure it would be handled the same way......why defend the pervert here, do you think what he did was right? "

 Allen T. wrote on February 15, 2006 3:01 pm:
" Josh: I doubt seriously that any evangelical would seek to censor a pastor advocating gay and lesbian equality. Having been censored ferociously for the last 20 years, Evangelical Christians sympathize with any person whose right to speech and public discourse is being infringed. By censor, do you mean speaking against a particular view? Of course Christians would speak against certain points of view, but not to the point of censorship. Such a policy would only end up hurting Christians more, as people become less tolerant of views different than their own and continue to attack Christianity. Disagree with us…fine, but don’t ask us to not speak what we believe. That is censorship. "

 TC wrote on February 15, 2006 3:46 pm:
" Allen T.: Did you read the prayer given to the legislature? The freedom of religion is not in question -- but the mis-used opportunity to voice personal agenda items. As for freedom of speech, it is still wrong to interject person agenda items while giving a prayer to begin a legislative session - he was there to say a blessing, not force his personal opinions on a captive audience. "

 Allen T. wrote on February 15, 2006 4:40 pm:
" TC: There is a difference between forcing one's personal opinions on people and voicing one's personal opinions to people. The first usually involves a totalitarian, dictatorial government. The second is freedom of speech...regardless of what you think about it. "

 rb wrote on February 15, 2006 5:39 pm:
" Allen T. You are right about the freedom of religion but you are wrong about freedom from religion. The Constitution also gives us the freedom from religion. If you read the first admendment it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion(freedom from religion) or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (freedom of religion)! You have every right to practice your religion as you believe, but you do not have a right to impose your religious beliefs on me just like I don't have a right to impose my religious beliefs on you or anyone else! "

 Dennis wrote on February 15, 2006 6:25 pm:
" Regarding Matt Koso: Abraham Lincoln once asked how many legs a dog has if you call the tail a leg. His answer: "Four. Calling a dog's tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." Calling what happened between Matthew and Crystal Koso "rape" does not make it rape, even if the Attorney General is the one calling it that--even if the law itself is calling it that. They are a married couple, and thank heavens they will be reunited within a couple years to pick up where--thanks to a discredited politician--they had to leave off last week. All decent people wish them and their child the very best. "

 Christi wrote on February 16, 2006 7:21 am:
" Dennis, having sex with a child is rape there is no other definition, 12 year old girls do not have the capacity to consent to adult sexual acts with adult men. All decent people think that adults having sex with children is disgusting. "

 Stan wrote on February 16, 2006 8:24 am:
" Mark Twain put it well: "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." "

 Allen T. wrote on February 16, 2006 9:22 am:
" RB: You are right...to a limited extent about freedom from religion. However, the law only states that we are to be from religion "established" by Congress. That law does not say that Congress must cleanse the U.S. of religious expression. Praying what I believe in a public forum is not "imposing my beliefs" on you, anymore than a KKK rally revokes the Emancipation Proclimation and the 13th Amendment. The point I am trying to make is, people here seem to want to censor what this pastor believes because they don't believe it too. So what! If you don't believe it, then disagree with him...make your own speech. Start your own religion which believes and embraces everything he is against and then get persmission to pray before the legislature. But don't try to control his speech. "

 Doug wrote on February 17, 2006 10:58 am:
" Dennis, you have got to be kidding me. Are you saying a 13 year old girl is old enough to make this life decision? If so, what age is too young for you? 11, 10, 9? The law is made for a reason. Do we just bend or break the laws as you see fit? Sorry, it doesn't work this way. "

 Allen T. wrote on February 17, 2006 2:42 pm:
" Dennis: Actually, they were not married when the rape (not "rape") took place. What makes it a rape? The law, as determined by the legislature who represents the will of the people. This is not some gross interpretation of a law that is ambiguous at best. If you don't like the law then vote for someone that will remove the law from the books, though I doubt you'll find someone running for office that would openly admit to thinking that it is ok for 21 years olds to have sex with 13 year olds. "

 Dennis wrote on February 17, 2006 6:38 pm:
" Doug: Yes, the law is made for a reason, and the reason is to prevent young girls from being seduced and abandoned. That didn't happen here. There come times when a conscientious prosecutor has to set aside the law precisely because, in a certain case, the law is at odds with its own purpose. This was one such case. Jeffrey Goltz understood this; Jon Bruning does not. That's the difference between a principled public servant and a demagogue. "

 Denni s wrote on February 17, 2006 6:39 pm:
" Doug: Yes, the law is made for a reason, and the reason is to prevent young girls from being seduced and abandoned. That didn't happen here. There come times when a conscientious prosecutor has to set aside the law precisely because, in a certain case, the law is at odds with its own purpose. This was one such case. Jeffrey Goltz understood this; Jon Bruning does not. That's the difference between a principled public servant and a demagogue. "

 Allen T. wrote on February 18, 2006 12:45 pm:
" Dennis: No, the purpose of the law was not to keep guys from seducing then abandoning them...otherwise, the punishment for the crime...jail, doesn't really make much sense does it. If your suggestion were the purpose behind the law, we'd just make the guys marry the s...and pay child support. The purpose is to keep grown men from sleeping with impressionable s who like to think they are grown up...but not. "

 Dennis wrote on February 18, 2006 12:57 pm:
" Rape is a word that exists independently of a legal category. In my state, there is no legal category of "rape"; it is called criminal sexual conduct. Does that mean there is no rape in this state? Everyone knows what is meant by "rape"; forcible sexual penetration. That does not describe the Koso case, even if the law pretends otherwise. That is something called a legal fiction; a presumption of the law that may be factually untrue. "

More Stories In Letters

Ads by Yahoo!