Principled not the same as unyielding
Being principled does not mean being unable to negotiate (“Simple principles permit freedom,” Nov. 7 Letters to the Editor). The letter writer confused “unyielding” with “principled.”
If two principled people attempt to negotiate, will one have to totally submit to the other’s view? Government can’t accomplish anything under such circumstances.
Negotiation involves give and take, which translates into compromise. That’s something right-wing extremists have eliminated from their platform, mindset and universe.
Never miss a local story.
Only a closed-minded person refuses to compromise. And like a book, a mind must be opened for any good to come from it.
KEVIN D. PLESS
An advertisement in The Eagle last week by Summit Church promoted the sermon topic “Evolution: The Big Lie.” It is possible pastor Terry Fox’s answers to the questions listed in the ad rendered them less offensive than they were, but given the context, it’s possible his answers made the questions more onerous.
The questions were more culturally appropriate – though neither learned nor wise – to, say, the 1930s and before, having both an anti-evolution and racist tone (“Is interracial marriage a sin?” “Is the white race superior to other races?” “Can the teaching of evolution lead to racism?”).
While evolution remains a controversial issue for a relatively small number of conservative Christians, largely in the United States, the reality of evolution has been accepted by almost all learned folks in the entire world for years. The Scopes trial was held in Tennessee in 1925, almost 100 years ago, and the issue of evolution as an accepted scientific theory has been decided by federal courts in at least 10 separate cases since 1968. Since 1950, the Catholic Church has held that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution.
The questions in the ad function as a shibboleth, arising from a particular Christian denomination or sect as a tenet of their belief, not questions basic to Christianity. Proper phraseology is needed to make them local, rather than universal. For example: “Can one believe in evolution and be or become a member of the Summit Church?” Such a question is appropriate and much less offensive.
RICHARD H. MOORE
A president of the United States was assassinated 50 years ago. The first government “investigation” stated it was the act of a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald.
The quality of that investigation was so conspicuously flawed that eventually a second government investigation was conducted, looking at much evidence the first didn’t. But major media failed to report results of that investigation, so most Americans aren’t aware that there was a second official investigation.
Many “news commentators” today, while admitting flaws of the Warren Commission’s report, will state, “We will probably never know what really happened on that day.” That’s bunk.
Details about the men who killed John F. Kennedy, why they did it, others who helped make it possible, and numbers of witnesses who observed various aspects of what happened are documented in a number of sources.
Years earlier, former Tennessee Sen. Estes Kefauver wrote that “organized crime and political corruption go hand in hand.” So if you want to know why there are major crime problems today, just look for the corrupt politicians – and news organizations – who support and cover for the criminals.
A recent letter tried to draw a direct line between the Affordable Care Act and how bulletproof glass “will soon separate us from our doctors” (“Not healthy,” Nov. 12 Letters to the Editor). I’m not sure, but I think that the letter writer was trying to make a connection between Sedgwick County government security and Obamacare. Or was it security measures at the Social Security Administration and the Affordable Care Act? Well, it had something to do with security. But somehow a government marketplace for health insurance became the impetus for doctors to build fortified clinics. And what do Bibles have to do with it?
You understand the confusion here.
The Affordable Care Act does not include any provisions regarding the security of doctors. If we’re going to take things literally, that should be a clue. If your doctor feels threatened by you, she can buy all the bulletproof glass and hire all of the armed guards she wants. But she will not be required to do that through Obamacare.
I respect all who disagree with me and my thinking, and I often applaud those whose thoughts are aligned with mine. But in both cases, I can only concur if they are reasonable. The letter writer’s ridiculous line of thought not only alienates those who he may wish to persuade to join his cause against the ACA, but also does not help those of us who wish to improve the manner in which health care is delivered in America.