Letters, 7/7: Second language
Recently at a bar a woman asked if I had been to college and what I studied. I told her I have my bachelor’s degree in Spanish.
And then I heard “that” comment, again. She said to me, “It infuriates me that people speak anything but English in this country.” She told me it should be required to speak English, we should not teach Spanish, and that crime and violence exist mostly because of Mexican immigration.
I don’t know the statistics on crime and violence as it relates to Mexican immigration, but I do know that my best friend who lives in Luxembourg was required to speak four languages fluently by high school graduation and then had to choose a fifth, just for fun.
In this country, most of us learn a second language just for fun. I did desire to be fluent in Spanish. I have been to Mexico four times and love the ability to experience that connection with native Spanish-speaking people. I have seen the many benefits of learning a second language: social, educational, vocational, just to name a few.
I am not asking all to share my passion for a second language. I see the need for immigrants to learn English for survival and for integrating in our communities. However, I have met refugees and elderly who did not come here by choice exactly, some for safety and some for financial survival, who may not have the resources to take an English course immediately.
Instead of pointing fingers at our non-English-speaking neighbors, I propose we strive to offer affordable, if not free, courses in English to teach basic skills, such as how to communicate at the doctor’s office.
So, I want to say now to the woman at the bar, are you really sure our violence and crime are caused by non-English-speaking immigrants? Or could it be the underlying racism of American citizens toward these newcomers and our lack of desire to broaden our minds and focus on a real solution: better communication and decreased ignorance on our part. But then again, I was at a bar!
Erin Kinney, Lincoln
Time to ‘speak softly’
First they said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq — none were found. Then they said we had to free Iraq from a terrible dictator, Saddam Hussein. Then we bombed the hell out of Iraq, declared “mission accomplished” and got rid of the dictator.
Then we decided that we were going to turn Iraq into a democracy so that we could somehow democratize the whole region, but democracy will not work in a society that is almost totally controlled by Islam. The reason democracy works in the United States is that we have separation of church and state and that we tolerate all religions equally.
We might as well be on a crusade to establish Christianity in the Middle East as to try to bring democracy. The only democracy in the Middle East is Israel, and the goal of Islamic terrorism is to get rid of Israel. The best we can hope for in the Middle East is to keep Israel strong militarily and try to use diplomacy rather than pre-emptive wars to bring peace to the Middle East. In other words, “speak softly, but carry a big stick.”
The United States has the big stick to destroy any country, but our leaders chose war instead of diplomacy, and now we are paying the price of that decision in terms of lost lives, the total destruction of a country that had already been defeated in the first Gulf War by the United States, and the enormous cost that is destroying our economy.
It is time to bring our soldiers home. We can find better ways to spend the billions we are spending on this war. Diplomacy is not appeasement, and we need to get rid of leaders who prefer war over diplomacy. Talk is cheap, but war is expensive.
Robert D. Thomson, Lincoln
Elsewhere in Scripture
I am writing this in response to Pastor Andy Hergenreder’s letter on June 23 regarding his views on homosexuality. I disagree with his premise that one cannot be homosexual and Christian. My reasons are many. I will highlight two.
First, I take exception to his use of Scripture for this purpose. Within close proximity to the “a man shall not lie with a man as with a woman” passage, Leviticus 18:22, are statements such as the following:
“When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very edges of your field, or gather the gleanings of your harvest. You shall not strip your vineyard bare, or gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the alien.” (Leviticus 19:9-10)
“You shall not let your animals breed with a different kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; nor shall you put on a garment made of two different materials.” (Leviticus 19:19)
Clearly these passages do not carry equal weight with those who use Scripture as justification for defending a specific position on contemporary social issues. It is irresponsible for those of us who love Scripture to use it that way.
Secondly, to suggest that one cannot be gay and Christian is to suggest that any one of us can see into the soul of another. Only God can judge in matters of the soul. When I wear my silk/cotton blend jacket to church and call myself a Christian, you will likely not dispute my claim. How is it, then, that you can dispute someone’s claim to be homosexual and Christian? The logic is the same.
Jesus, as far as we know, never spoke about homosexuality. What he did say was, “You will know them by their fruits.” (Matthew 7:16) He spent most of his ministry healing, being with people the rest of his society thought were unworthy and spreading the news of the Kingdom of God.
Rather than worry about who is in or who is out, let’s spend our time and talents helping that vision come to fruition.
The Rev. Nancy Erickson, Lincoln
More wells isn’t the answer
A letter in the June 29 Lincoln Journal Star implied that drilling for petroleum will solve our energy problems.
This is a serious misunderstanding. Petroleum reserves are a poor indicator of our energy future. The rate of petroleum production is the appropriate indicator. Our country has many years of petroleum reserves; we simply can't extract it fast enough to supply demand.
We consume roughly 20 million barrels of oil per day, of which we import two-thirds. Drilling could supply us with at most 2 million additional barrels per day, which wouldn't even replace decreasing production capacity.
Worldwide, the rate of petroleum discovery peaked a few decades ago. A small number of large fields supply half the world's petroleum. As their production decreases, smaller fields simply can't replace them.
Countries with profligate energy consumption face bleak futures. Small cars, electric cars, public transport, alternative fuels and altered urban planning are in our near future. Our politicians and news media haven't prepared us for this.
Les Lane, Lincoln
Take a shot at crime
The Supreme Court’s recent decision to lift the ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., is, to paraphrase Leon Satterfield, the court’s attempt to salvage clarity from our confusion. Writing for the minority, Justice Breyer’s opinion that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with individual defense and everything to do with a “well regulated militia” (outdated though that may be) is correct.
A common refrain is “the Second Amendment gives me the right to own a gun.” Well, no, it does not. Through misunderstanding and guile, the Second Amendment has, ironically, become part of the problem. It has become an expedient and disingenuous crutch for those who are looking for a solution before adequately defining the problem.
Yes, we should use whatever lawful means we have at our disposal to protect ourselves, our family and our property. The immediate circumstance may be breaking and entering or robbery, but the actual problem is the poverty, drug addiction, mental illness, greed, etc., that compel a person to do these things.
Extinguishing the symptom will not eradicate the illness. Don’t hide behind the Second Amendment as a substitute for courageous and innovative problem solving. We cannot shoot our way to a cure.
Larry McClung, Lincoln
And then I heard “that” comment, again. She said to me, “It infuriates me that people speak anything but English in this country.” She told me it should be required to speak English, we should not teach Spanish, and that crime and violence exist mostly because of Mexican immigration.
I don’t know the statistics on crime and violence as it relates to Mexican immigration, but I do know that my best friend who lives in Luxembourg was required to speak four languages fluently by high school graduation and then had to choose a fifth, just for fun.
In this country, most of us learn a second language just for fun. I did desire to be fluent in Spanish. I have been to Mexico four times and love the ability to experience that connection with native Spanish-speaking people. I have seen the many benefits of learning a second language: social, educational, vocational, just to name a few.
I am not asking all to share my passion for a second language. I see the need for immigrants to learn English for survival and for integrating in our communities. However, I have met refugees and elderly who did not come here by choice exactly, some for safety and some for financial survival, who may not have the resources to take an English course immediately.
Instead of pointing fingers at our non-English-speaking neighbors, I propose we strive to offer affordable, if not free, courses in English to teach basic skills, such as how to communicate at the doctor’s office.
So, I want to say now to the woman at the bar, are you really sure our violence and crime are caused by non-English-speaking immigrants? Or could it be the underlying racism of American citizens toward these newcomers and our lack of desire to broaden our minds and focus on a real solution: better communication and decreased ignorance on our part. But then again, I was at a bar!
Erin Kinney, Lincoln
Time to ‘speak softly’
First they said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq — none were found. Then they said we had to free Iraq from a terrible dictator, Saddam Hussein. Then we bombed the hell out of Iraq, declared “mission accomplished” and got rid of the dictator.
Then we decided that we were going to turn Iraq into a democracy so that we could somehow democratize the whole region, but democracy will not work in a society that is almost totally controlled by Islam. The reason democracy works in the United States is that we have separation of church and state and that we tolerate all religions equally.
We might as well be on a crusade to establish Christianity in the Middle East as to try to bring democracy. The only democracy in the Middle East is Israel, and the goal of Islamic terrorism is to get rid of Israel. The best we can hope for in the Middle East is to keep Israel strong militarily and try to use diplomacy rather than pre-emptive wars to bring peace to the Middle East. In other words, “speak softly, but carry a big stick.”
The United States has the big stick to destroy any country, but our leaders chose war instead of diplomacy, and now we are paying the price of that decision in terms of lost lives, the total destruction of a country that had already been defeated in the first Gulf War by the United States, and the enormous cost that is destroying our economy.
It is time to bring our soldiers home. We can find better ways to spend the billions we are spending on this war. Diplomacy is not appeasement, and we need to get rid of leaders who prefer war over diplomacy. Talk is cheap, but war is expensive.
Robert D. Thomson, Lincoln
Elsewhere in Scripture
I am writing this in response to Pastor Andy Hergenreder’s letter on June 23 regarding his views on homosexuality. I disagree with his premise that one cannot be homosexual and Christian. My reasons are many. I will highlight two.
First, I take exception to his use of Scripture for this purpose. Within close proximity to the “a man shall not lie with a man as with a woman” passage, Leviticus 18:22, are statements such as the following:
“When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very edges of your field, or gather the gleanings of your harvest. You shall not strip your vineyard bare, or gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the alien.” (Leviticus 19:9-10)
“You shall not let your animals breed with a different kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; nor shall you put on a garment made of two different materials.” (Leviticus 19:19)
Clearly these passages do not carry equal weight with those who use Scripture as justification for defending a specific position on contemporary social issues. It is irresponsible for those of us who love Scripture to use it that way.
Secondly, to suggest that one cannot be gay and Christian is to suggest that any one of us can see into the soul of another. Only God can judge in matters of the soul. When I wear my silk/cotton blend jacket to church and call myself a Christian, you will likely not dispute my claim. How is it, then, that you can dispute someone’s claim to be homosexual and Christian? The logic is the same.
Jesus, as far as we know, never spoke about homosexuality. What he did say was, “You will know them by their fruits.” (Matthew 7:16) He spent most of his ministry healing, being with people the rest of his society thought were unworthy and spreading the news of the Kingdom of God.
Rather than worry about who is in or who is out, let’s spend our time and talents helping that vision come to fruition.
The Rev. Nancy Erickson, Lincoln
More wells isn’t the answer
A letter in the June 29 Lincoln Journal Star implied that drilling for petroleum will solve our energy problems.
This is a serious misunderstanding. Petroleum reserves are a poor indicator of our energy future. The rate of petroleum production is the appropriate indicator. Our country has many years of petroleum reserves; we simply can't extract it fast enough to supply demand.
We consume roughly 20 million barrels of oil per day, of which we import two-thirds. Drilling could supply us with at most 2 million additional barrels per day, which wouldn't even replace decreasing production capacity.
Worldwide, the rate of petroleum discovery peaked a few decades ago. A small number of large fields supply half the world's petroleum. As their production decreases, smaller fields simply can't replace them.
Countries with profligate energy consumption face bleak futures. Small cars, electric cars, public transport, alternative fuels and altered urban planning are in our near future. Our politicians and news media haven't prepared us for this.
Les Lane, Lincoln
Take a shot at crime
The Supreme Court’s recent decision to lift the ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., is, to paraphrase Leon Satterfield, the court’s attempt to salvage clarity from our confusion. Writing for the minority, Justice Breyer’s opinion that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with individual defense and everything to do with a “well regulated militia” (outdated though that may be) is correct.
A common refrain is “the Second Amendment gives me the right to own a gun.” Well, no, it does not. Through misunderstanding and guile, the Second Amendment has, ironically, become part of the problem. It has become an expedient and disingenuous crutch for those who are looking for a solution before adequately defining the problem.
Yes, we should use whatever lawful means we have at our disposal to protect ourselves, our family and our property. The immediate circumstance may be breaking and entering or robbery, but the actual problem is the poverty, drug addiction, mental illness, greed, etc., that compel a person to do these things.
Extinguishing the symptom will not eradicate the illness. Don’t hide behind the Second Amendment as a substitute for courageous and innovative problem solving. We cannot shoot our way to a cure.
Larry McClung, Lincoln
Copyright © 2002-2009 Lincoln Journal Star. All rights reserved.