Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS


May 23, 2013

Dear editor: Today I read Mr. Bob Holland’s L-T-E with profound interest because I share many of Bob’s concerns. I however want to approach these concerns from a slightly different angle....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




May-23-13 6:40 AM

I seriously doubt your idea of morality even comes close to being true. What part of "separation between church and state" do you not understand. Your god is a concept of men. It is just a story. Once you figure that out you will realize that human beings are the Supreme Beings of this earth, not a non existent figure of your so called faith.

6 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-23-13 7:05 AM

RR, I guess you either lack the skill to read or comprehend what you have read. This letter was not address to people who have spoken from “Psalms 14:1.”

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-23-13 9:04 AM

Those who tout "separation of church and state" are too frequently hypocrites. They use the phrase to suit their position AT THE TIME. It is a Biblical principle to care for the poor, widowed, indigent. Yet those who oppose the Bible have no problem with our gov't sponsored socialist system which does just that. Do not recognize Christ, but let's ALL take a federal holiday to celebrate His birth! VERY well written, LOGICAL letter Mr. G.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-23-13 9:08 AM

P.S. Has there ever been a study done to see if those who decry God's existence and supremacy, actually say the words "God d-a-m-n it" ? Would this not also be hypocritical?

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-23-13 11:50 AM

25or26 -- When did "marriage" become a "basic human right"? I am NOT opposed to gays and lesbians living together and behaving as if they were "married". But I am opposed to anyone that attempts to impose their beliefs on others and attempts to force people to modify their religious beliefs. I presume that you would not support forcing a Muslim to burn a Koran. But it would seem that you are fine with forcing a Catholic to accept something against his or her beliefs. Gays and lesbians are not seeking the blessing of a particular church, they are seeking the legal and economic benefits of "marriage." Leave religion out of that mess and quit pushing your views on another group of people by erroneously creating yet another "basic human right."

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-23-13 12:15 PM

Mr. Gillette has "nothing to say" to me the same way someone who burns down your house has nothing to say to you. He is imploring our lawmakers to pass laws based on religion, not on common sense or ethics. Let me remind Mr. Gillette of the US's first international treaty, the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by Congress and President Adams in 1796: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,...." Keep your religion out of it, no matter what sharia laws you would like to impose.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-23-13 12:26 PM

Word of God? But which God? Zeus? If you are going with the Christian God, which of the many ambiguous and contradictory edicts in their Bible do we follow? Stonings for polyester/cotton blends? Use the fear of your God (really? is that what it is about?)for yourself if that is the only thing you think is keeping you from mass murder and pillage. But for the rest of us, we can quite dependably rely on compassion. And when that doesn't work, we have courts and jails.

6 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-23-13 12:28 PM

It's called "government by the people, for the people".

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-23-13 3:22 PM

25or624: I appreciate both the tenor and thoughtfulness of your response. My personal religious beliefs are not impacted by "gay marriage." But I certainly understand the desire by those that disagree to voice their concerns through non-violent political means as is their right under the Constitution. I believe that we may disagree as to what is meant by "marriage." Two people do not require government sanction to pledge themselves to each other as a "married" couple, and perhaps the ability to join lives with another is a basic human right. But what gay marriage advocates are seeking is not that type of "marriage." Gay marriage advocates are seeking the bundle of legal rights associated with a heterosexual union. Those legal rights are political in nature and not human rights. I would be more sympathetic if the argument centered on the real issue rather than a contrived "religious" issue.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-23-13 3:31 PM

25or624: While we are on this topic, I have another question that I would ask you to consider. Once "marriage" is permitted beyond the boundaries of a heterosexual union, where is the line drawn. If it is permissible for two men or two women to get "married", what is the logical argument against two men and a woman being permitted to get married? Does marriage simply become a tax strategy? I am not actually opposed to gay marriage in theory, but as always, the devil is in the details and I am concerned about the unintended consequences.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-23-13 4:58 PM

I also believe the writer has missed the point of living in this country. Elected officials are suppose to govern for the ALL the people, not just one religious group. If a politician proposes legislation based on his personal religious belief that goes against an indidual's civil rights, then they need to be impeached and removed. This is a country of civil law, not religious law and certainly not just one religion's law. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights promises equality for individual rights. In fact, it is written to protect individual rights from decisions of the majority that would infringe on individual rights of any minority. If the writer doesn't like that, then he should start his own country that has the bible as its Constitution.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-23-13 6:11 PM

Uncle5, I in NO way am implying that lawmakers should pass laws based on religion. What I am implying is that if a person (lawmaker or voter) goes against their professed beliefs (what ever they might be) they are acting in hypocritical manor. It happens to be that in this letter I am addressing those people professing to be Christians, but I guess you just don’t get it.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-23-13 7:50 PM

Backwoods, I can agree with that idea. I DO get it. We elect representatives because of who they profess to be and what they promise to do, and we hope they follow through on their promise. And I applaud your call to them to be moral people. Beyond that, it is tempting to think things will be even better if they bring their religious morals to aid in government - or vice versa - but as I think Madison said, it will corrupt both. You are not advocating that, I know, but I don't want to slowly trade away this great experiment in democracy, for a creeping theocracy. There are plenty of examples of why not: Iran, the Holy Roman Empire, Hirohito's Japan, the Anglican kings, and on and on. I am just here watching that wall Jefferson wanted us to keep an eye on.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-23-13 8:29 PM

If the argument is that gay marriage is about the political and economic benefits of a legal union, then does it not also apply that divorce to end a heterosexual legal union is also for political and economic benefits? Why is it okay for the advantages of divorce to be acceptable but not the advantages of a legal gay union? (Especially when both are supposedly contrary to Christian principles.)

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-24-13 6:46 AM

Fivealive – you are correct, neither is acceptable. Although the scriptures do say one can seek a divorce in the case of adultery.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-27-13 12:10 PM

Or, we could decide for ourselves how 21st century earth is run instead of letting unsophisticated men from a 2000 year old culture tell us what to do. That sounds much more appealing to me.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-27-13 9:10 PM

Believe what you want. But one day when you stand before your maker in judgment, you will NOT be able to use the excuse, "I was never told."

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-28-13 4:04 PM

stonewall: What happens to those that were actually never told about christianity? There are only four options that I can figure:

1. The christian god punishes them. In which case it is indeed an unjust god and unworthy of my worship.

2. The christian god gives them a pass. In which case not telling me would do me a favor and you should keep it to yourself.

3. The christian god does not exist, however a different god is in charge. In which case we would be forced to follow their particular rules for reward/punishment

4. There is no god. In which case your threat of judgment is no different than a hippy threatening to send bad vibes your way.... somewhat impotent.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-28-13 6:32 PM

The first assumption - that the Christian God is fair - is false! Wait a minute - a Christian admitting that the Christian God is unfair! Yes, you can quote me on it as long as you quote the rest of this paragraph. God created human beings with conscience that 1) tells them when they do wrong and 2) tells them that God exists. When we violate our conscience (something that all human beings have done), we know that we have sinned. Christianity says that all have sinned;

1 and, therefore, fall under the judgment of God; 2 In order to be fair, God must judge all sin;

3 Therefore, in order to be fair, God should condemn all people to h*ll;

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-28-13 6:32 PM

4 However, the Christian God is not fair, since He chooses to save those who accept His mercy;

5 Those who want to experience the fairness of God will receive just that - God will judge them fairly. For the rest of us, who prefer mercy to fairness, God will save us, whether we be Hindus, Buddhists or whatever.6 Those who haven't heard the gospel will be judged on the basis of the information they were given and how they responded to it.7 It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out whether or not you are doing what your conscience tells you to do.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-28-13 11:01 PM

Backwoods, you didn't answer the question, or chose to avoid its logic.

Also, I was not given that conscience that tells me a god exists. On the contrary, I have one that says no god exists, that it is fantasy.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-29-13 6:47 AM

So Brookp you are one of those that believe in and practice Psalms 14:1. This letter was not written to those of your belief, but to those who profess to believe in Christ. You just don't get it.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-29-13 9:40 AM

Backwoods, no I practice a good life without the need for religion. I choose to be a good person in my interactions with others, as I would want them to treat me the same way. So, as you can see, Pslams 14:1 is an incorrect statement. You can be good without a god.

Oh, and you still avoided the direct points from Rancor's question, although it was actually directed to stonewall.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-29-13 9:52 AM

BP - if you have read psalm 14:1 and know what it says???? you just proclaimed it. It is your God given right of "free will" to choose weather you want to believe or not.

Now I'll say it once more, in this letter I was not addressing you who do not believe, only those who are professing to believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and died for our sins. How many times do I have to say I was not addressing those of your belief!!!

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-29-13 10:10 AM

Backwoods:First; I believe the word I used was unjust not unfair.

Second; I never claimed your god was just, exactly the opposite, actually.

Third; pretending your particular brand of mythology is real, then your deity is not worthy of my worship and should be treated with the same discourse as Hitler or Stalin unless it atones for thousands of years of torture, hate mongering, murder,and IMMORALITY.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 36 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web