Cook defended for his writing and other letters to the editors

Cook defended for his writing

Once again I will come to the defense of David Cook, and once again I may be ignored. I have never met David face to face but I call him my, and especially the people of the Chattanooga area our, Mike Royko, the great columnist who wrote out of Chicago years ago. I find a Nov. 10 letter criticizing David not only foolish but crude and cruel. I will not argue my point except to ask the letter writer to understand the definition of progressive and then look, think and take in the meaning of the word. After that, please rethink what you wrote, especially that David needs to lose his job. Some of his columns I don't agree with, but lose his job? Come on. Loosen up and please try and put a little love in your heart.

BRIAN KISNER, LaFayette, Ga.


Southern Baptists have narrow view

Rev. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has said gay marriage is a "rejection of God's law." It is incredible that this sect can be so certain of its convictions because a look at its record would reveal considerable reason for doubt. Slouthern Baptists may be dead wrong, but they are never in doubt. One of their founding principles was support of human slavery, and 150 years after the fact, they admitted that they had "defended the right to own slaves, and either participated in, supported, or acquiesced in the particularly inhumane nature of American slavery." They are certainly not quick to admit a mistake nor apologize for it. In the 1960s, they compounded this immorality by opposing civil rights for African-Americans. It took them more than 30 years to admit that they were a part of the Jim Crow system that supported segregation and excluded blacks from their churches. You would expect that given this history, Southern Baptists would take a more measured and thoughtful approach to human rights. To avoid being wrong in the future, they might have more love for their neighbor and less confidence in the infallibility of their own judgments.

TERRY STULCE, Ooltewah


Amendment 1 protects unborn

There continues to be misunderstanding about Amendment 1 and those of us who voted for its passage. The basic issue is of life itself. We believe a human life exists immediately after conception, even though it does not yet have the appearance we recognize as human. And we believe every innocent human life is worth protecting. Abortion advocates like to argue that it is a woman's body and thus her prerogative to choose. This argument works for her hair, her fingernails, etc. But the "woman's body" argument fails because it ignores the fact that the choice involves another human life -- the one in her womb. Another frequently ignored issue is that abortion is a medical procedure. Abortion advocates seem content to have fewer restrictions on abortion providers than on nail salons, hair salons and tattoo parlors. How illogical is this? No state has fewer restrictions on abortion than Tennessee. Can we claim to value women's health as long as this remains true? Any society that purports to value life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness must protect innocent life in the womb. And we must ensure medical procedures are safe. DENNIS URBANIAK, Signal Mountain


Mayor wrong on abortion clinic ban

Rossville Mayor Teddy Harris said he wishes to keep abortion clinics out of Rossville because he wants to keep a peaceful city free of protesters and drama, but the First Amendment protects both the freedom of assembly and any drama that comes with it. The recent case McCullen v. Coakley gave protesters the right to protest in public areas in front of abortion clinics, which may not be attractive but does not insinuate violence that would disturb the peace. Harris may not think abortion clinics are "appropriate" for the city, but that is not his choice to make. MYRON MADDEN, Collegedale, Tenn.

Upcoming Events