2009.07.05
Sunday letters to the editor
Roanoke's Rescue Mission, America's religious roots, health care for vets and more in Sunday's letters to the editor.
.....Advertisement.....
.....Advertisement.....
CHECK THIS OUT!
BREAKING NEWS
Upcoming Events
RSS feed 
It is awfully hard to defend and have faith in a newspaper that prints letters like the one from L.A. REGAL. You help roil the waters and then bemoan the vitriol? Look in the mirror! You should have returned the letter to him and said you would be happy to print his comments without the gratuitous insults and yet you chose to print it instead. I grant you that we cannot get better if we don't really want to, but you could go a long way towards raising the level of the argument instead of lowering the level of discourse in such matters.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 5, 2009 @ 12:22 pm
I wonder how many more people tired of media coverage of Michael Jackson will write letters to the paper about Michael Jackson.
Comment by Kristen — July 5, 2009 @ 12:26 pm
Sandi, that letter was pretty tame in comparison to others that I've seen.
In my opinion it's good to see the really bad ones printed. That makes it much easier to weed out the people (or groups) that are not worth listening to or wasting breath on.
Comment by Ed S. — July 5, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
"It is awfully hard to defend and have faith in a newspaper that prints letters like the one from "
So we can judge the Roanoke Times on the letters they print?
Comment by Henry — July 5, 2009 @ 1:38 pm
I doubt so Henry...
I think the RT prints a pretty wide variety of letters from the readers. Just because they aren't all cow-towing to the ultra conservative right doen't make them bad.
Comment by Will — July 5, 2009 @ 2:22 pm
Which part of the letter were the " gratutitous insults"? I'd have to agree that it seemed pretty tame compared to much that is published today, both in the paper and on this blog, and from both ends of the political spectrum.
Comment by C Ramsey — July 5, 2009 @ 2:39 pm
"May I suggest that one actually read and study real documented history"
May I suggest that the writer should practise what s/he preaches?
Comment by Ed H — July 5, 2009 @ 3:00 pm
All this wrangling over the topic of Christian faith...
At the end of the day, faith in whatever form or fashiion, generally is what gets one through the day. I learned a long time ago that faith is not an outward thing but indeed an inward thing between your own heart and mind. To the degree that one chooses to take none, a little, some, a large part or the entire context of the Bible as the absolute doesn't make the founding fathers the so called Christian missionaries that so many seem to what to fashion them as.
Frankly, I don't really care about the religion attributes or the lack thereof of the founding fathers. What I do care about is that no one should be forced to believe in one religion over another or to believe in any religion period if it's not what they feel in their own heart.
To me, religion today has become an industry. I recently had an occasion to visit a rather large building that is going to house a particular denomination. This wasn't a church...it was a convention center. Somehow, I think all the good things that were once associated with religion have fallen by the wayside much like "the little brown church in the wildwood".
I don't like religion as an industry and that's exactly what its become...consequently, I think it should be taxed just like any other industry.
Comment by Will — July 5, 2009 @ 3:08 pm
"To me, religion today has become an industry."
This is why increasing numbers of people identify themselves as "spiritual not religious". Sad to say, Christianity has been hijacked by the "mega church" mentality. The entire term "mega church" is repugnant.
Comment by Kristen — July 5, 2009 @ 3:31 pm
I am not advocating that The Roanoke Times not print letters about all manner of issues and people's perspectives on them. I am suggesting that to print a commentary or letter from one citizen and then print the ugly, gratuitous insulting responses to that commentary is counter productive, gives other citizens pause about speaking their mind and in the end only serves to show us in the worst light possible. The vitriol and disdain that we have for each other in this back and forth forum where you can at least choose to remain anonymous, is one thing, the public lashing and insult to someone with the courage to offer their opinion and put their name to it, is not. I enjoy a hypocrite showing their true colors as much as anyone else and a "Christian" insulting others is always a good laugh, but if that tell has to come at the expense of another citizen, it still gives me pause.
Political and local leaders are fair game to a great extent, but the attacks on fellow citizens (which is a fight I fight constantly) serves no good purpose and keeps the rancor unnecessarily high IMHO.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 5, 2009 @ 5:41 pm
About the letter "Vets deserve health care." Maybe, maybe not. The writer says "They deserve free medical care no matter what."
Every generation of young men and women owe the country the duty of being ready to defend it if called upon to do so. The payment for performing this duty, by service in the military, is knowing that the next generation will defend them if threatened. There is no bonus such as free medical care for doing one's duty.
Of course, if wounded in battle, the very best of health care should always be provided.
Comment by waynep — July 5, 2009 @ 5:53 pm
Wayne, when I joined the Air Force I was promised free health care for life for myself and my spouse if I stayed 20 years...which I did.
Are you saying I should not receive what I was promised?
Comment by Patrick — July 5, 2009 @ 6:28 pm
Kristen says:
"Sad to say, Christianity has been hijacked by the "mega church" mentality."
I have no idea what you mean by that. I have observed no such thing.
Comment by The Professor — July 5, 2009 @ 7:29 pm
no..thats not what I mean at all. There is a difference between citizens who are fulfilling their military obligation, yes thats what it called, obligation and those who chose the military as a career. Government provided health insurance to career military is an employment retention incentive.
I don't believe it was ever the intention of the military to provide life long free (to them) health insurance for serving 2 to 4 years, regardless of the difficulty, or ease, of the duty served.
That's what the writer implied.
Comment by waynep — July 5, 2009 @ 7:52 pm
@ Sandi (1): For me, the snide and condescending tone wasn't what put me off. The fact that the letter was nothing more than a ranting missive of outright fabrications was. Regal suggested reading the Constitution to gain insight of our nation's religious nature. The problem is, nowhere in the Constitution does it mention God or the Creator. Nor does it mention the establishment and protection of religion. That is the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
Talk about a gaff. And the day after the 4th of July, celebrating our nation's independence. Whoops!
@ Henry (4): I don't think it fair to judge the paper on the letters they print. They can only print what they receive. The RT should be judged on their reporting.
@ Ed H (7): I couldn't agree more. Which is why I thought I'd post a quick little quiz for those who think they know a little something about this nation's religious roots.
QUESTIONS
1: Out of the original 3 founding documents (Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, and Constitution), how many times is the word "God" used? (Bonus points if you can name the specific document)
2: In the Jefferson Bible, which Declaration of Independence writer Thomas Jefferson wrote and had published, was Jesus born of a Virgin and/or resurrected from the dead after his crucifixion?
3: How often did George Washington take communion while faithfully attending church with his wife, Martha, every Sunday?
4: True or False: Benjamin Franklin regarded himself as a Deist.
5: Founding Father, Thomas Paine, who wrote Common Sense, a pamphlet that helped spark the American Revolution, wrote a book where he called the bible "fabulous mythology" and doubted its divine nature. What was the name of this book?
6: True or False: James Madison originally wanted Jesus Christ's name invoked in the preamble of the Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty.
7: John Adams was a follower of what form of Christianity?
8: True or False: The phrase "under God" has always been in the Pledge of Allegiance.
9: When was "In God We Trust" made the official motto of America? (bonus points if you know why it became the motto)
10: Which founding father wrote, "Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities." (bonus points if you can name the document the quoted text is from)
ANSWERS
1: Once. It is used in the Declaration of Independence.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
2: No. The Jefferson Bible omitted all miracles. Jesus was a kind and wonderful man, but did not perform miracles nor was he the son of God or divine in nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
3: Never. Washington was renowned and respected for his prompt and dedicated attendance to church, but it has been noted by all four pastors of the churches he attended that he never partook of communion. However, his wife, Martha, did partake of communion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_and_religion#His_attendance_at_religious_services
4: True. In his autobiography, Franklin wrote:
"My parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the Dissenting way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns several points as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of the Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of the sermons which had been preached at Boyle’s Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them. For the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to be much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."
http://www.usgennet.org/usa/topic/preservation/bios/franklin/chpt4.htm
5: The Age of Reason: Being an Investigation of True and Fabulous Theology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Reason#Paine.27s_analysis_of_the_Bible
6: False.
"In the fight to pass the Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty, he shamed Christian conservatives--who tried to insert the words 'Jesus Christ' in an amended preamble--with these words: 'The better proof of reverence for that holy name would be not to profane it by making it a topic of legislative discussion....'"
http://www.heritage.org/research/politicalphilosophy/em729.cfm
7: Unitarianism, the belief that there is only one God (not a Holy Trinity) and that although Jesus most likely did exist, he was not divine nor descended from God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams#Religious_views
8: False. It was added to the Pledge in 1954 after a speech by a Scottish immigrant minister, George MacPherson Docherty. His inspiration for adding "under God" was taken from the British anthem, "God Save The King (Queen)".
http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20020628undergod0628p3.asp
9: 1956. It was adopted as a sharp contrast to the "Godless" communists during the Cold War.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust#Adoption_as_national_motto
10: Thomas Jefferson. From the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Statute_for_Religious_Freedom
Comment by George — July 5, 2009 @ 8:38 pm
Wow George, remind me you know your stuff! Thanks. While your point is definitely the more valid on the subject in question and also easily a better argument against L.A. REGAL, I stand by what I said. The level of discourse is not raised unless many of us are forced to it. A sourced refutation is good, a public insult is not. We prove here, even in relative anonymity that insults are easier than reason but in the published record, we are better served if the moderator does not reward such behavior IMHO. Either way, I stand in awe of George!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 5, 2009 @ 9:24 pm
"It is awfully hard to defend and have faith in a newspaper that prints letters like the one from L.A. REGAL. "
I just thought this sounded an awful lot like "The editorial page reflects on the entire paper". The RTEB has always said they were separate from the rest of the paper.
Comment by Henry — July 6, 2009 @ 9:32 am