There was a letter to the editor (July 31) stating that "Many disregard parts of the Bible." That is so true. For example, how many people, Christians included, have read Matthew 6:5-6. There are obviously many hypocrites in this area.
Charles Blow's column (Aug. 5) takes issue with requiring a photo ID to vote. Not only do I support the requirement for a photo ID to vote, I would like to see it become a requirement that a voter must also be a taxpayer to vote. Where is Mr. Blow's "outrage" over people being able to vote to increase taxes when they are not even paying income taxes? We will quickly be at the tipping point (if we are not there already) where more people are not paying income taxes than there are people paying taxes.
Does this mean I don't think that health-care reform and social programs are not needed? No, I do believe both are needed, but if you look at the track record for the federal government, they may not be qualified to provide these reforms. Why should they be? Our senators and congressmen don't have to live on Social Security or Medicare; they have their own sweetheart deals on retirement and health care. Until that is changed, don't expect to see any worthwhile changes coming from our elected officials -- Democrats or Republicans.
For the second time this summer, a Perspective article aiming to discredit Christian opposition to gay marriage has appeared. I refer to Sunday's piece (Aug. 5), by David Osheski.
Surely you are aware that Osheski's piece extensively repeated both quotations from Jennifer Wright Kunst of Boston University (already appearing in the earlier article) and argumentation appearing in that earlier Perspective article of June 3? The thrust is largely identical: the Scriptures of Old and New Testament are alleged to provide conflicting statements about sexual relationships and about marriage, and should therefore be set aside in deliberations over the complex subject of gay marriage.
Two questions arise:
1) Why are Times Free Press editors deeming adequate, articles on this sensitive subject which cite authorities from only one side of this debate? Jennifer Wright Kunst's name is used as though no one else has addressed these questions. Why not Robert Gagnon of Pittsburgh Seminary, major author on this subject -- who directly engages Kunst's writings? (Access his materials at: www.robgagnon.net/ ).
2) Why is the Times relying on repetitive, thinly-researched and one-sided journalism on this subject, when on other complex matters, you provide two points of view? (e.g. Sunday's treatment of tax cuts). Aim higher!
DR. KENNETH J. STEWART
Lookout Mountain, Ga.