OPINION

Re: "What would Jesus do?" by Robert B. Richter, Friday Letters.

Richter writes that Democrats never ask "what would Jesus do" when it comes to abortion. OK, fair enough.

Then let me be the first Democrat to ask, "WWJD regarding abortion?" I think Jesus wouldn't like it one bit; he may even hate it.

But since he was a tolerant, liberal, forgiving man, he probably would not judge those women who made hard decisions about their own reproductive rights.

I'm not sure how to react to people who say they know God's will. I realize my own brain is too small to understand a God who was here before creation and still travels among parallel universes laced with trillions of suns spaced billions of light years apart.

I can't even pretend to comprehend the magnitude of unfettered time and limitless space, let alone understand God's will within these confines. Yet, some say they grasp these colossal plans and feel comfortable predicting God's intentions to others much like meteorologists forecasting next week's weather.

Perhaps I should admire these people, even be in awe of them. Instead, I find myself feeling sorry for them. When the vastness of the Holy Spirit can be captured by the limited capacity of the human brain, it seems the mystery of God is lost or relegated to a super father figure who simply laid down household rules during the Bronze Age.

Accurately predicting God's plans, which reach back before the beginning of time and govern the whole of the uncharted universe, must be an enviable talent. But I still feel sorry for them.

Re: "After split, Episcopal Diocese to ordain first female priest," Saturday news story.

Susan Slaughter has conveyed a positive message: If you are patient and work hard, you shall be rewarded. I do not see why the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth was so opposed to women, especially in today's society. I'm sure there must be a reason those men do not believe that women deserve the same rights as they have.

Re: "Talking Points," Sunday Points.

As an observer of the Christian church for the last 31 years, I'd like to get one thing straight.

The latest building program of First Baptist Dallas to the tune of $130 million will indeed result in a nice new shiny trinket for downtown Dallas. But when the Rev. Robert Jeffress proclaimed it was for the glory of Almighty God, I guess God must have changed his name to Robert Jeffress or First Baptist Dallas.

How about a moment of silence just before the national anthem at football games in honor of our troops? There's no sufficient way to honor our heroes, but can the Cowboys and the NFL -- and maybe college games as well -- do this simple gesture every Saturday and Sunday?

In the Hebrew religion, we announce the names of the dead and recite a Mourners Kaddish in all prayer services. Why can't we do that along with our national anthem before sporting events?

Don't our troops who died at Fort Hood and elsewhere deserve to be remembered?

Everyone is running away from the obvious. The official line seems to be that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is a "victim." But the troops know this guy is a traitor and mass murderer and that he is a Muslim. This matters.

After all, we are at war with radical Islam, are we not? If they were only a few, would we be engaging them with our whole Army and Navy?

We have two wars going on, both in Muslim countries, but we have military bases all over the world that are not in Muslim countries. It would appear that it would have been logical to have stationed Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan on a base in Korea or Germany, etc.

If, on the other hand, the military already had this man under observation due to potential instability -- why did they not just discharge him? Why take the chance of preparing to send a potentially unstable individual into an already-unstable war zone?

Religion should not be a consideration in a time of war, but we all know that religion is one of the strongest factors that drives mankind.

We should acknowledge this fact and deploy the Muslims who are in the military to places other than into the wars in the Muslim countries -- unless they volunteer to be deployed there.

Would have, could have, should have and if only. None of these will bring back the lives that were lost yesterday, but if it makes the military stop and think about the effects of its deployment decisions -- then maybe the military situation will improve overall.

Re: "John Calvin, we hardly knew ye -- This pastor, educator and humanitarian deserves a new image, says William McKenzie," Tuesday Viewpoints.

McKenzie credits Calvin with launching the Protestant Reformation along with Martin Luther. But Calvin was just 8 years old when Luther bravely nailed his 95 Theses (complaints) on the church door. Certainly Calvin extended what Luther started, but there was no co-launch of the Reformation.

McKenzie also credits Calvin with having the radical and anti-clerical idea that people should read the Bible for themselves in their own language. But again it was Luther who translated and published the New Testament into German in 1522, when Calvin was 13 years of age. Calvin contributed his own translations later, but he did not invent the wheel.

Calvin's master work, "Institutes of the Christian Religion," came out in 1536 and has had great influence, as McKenzie says. But for McKenzie to say the book remains a "must-read theological work" is a stretch. Try 20 pages sometime and see for yourself! In the circle of Calvin-lovers, it is certainly required reading.

I agree with McKenzie that Calvin is a towering force in theological history, but just because this year is the 500th anniversary of his birth is no reason to enlarge his notable accomplishments. The neo-Calvin movement has its own PR machine, and its documents should not be swallowed whole.

When someone is found guilty of something, they have a way of interjecting the word "faith" in their speech. Don Hill said, "My faith will get me through this."

I have one comment for Hill: "Sir, I hope your faith gets you through this. However, if you had been more faithful to your wife, Sheila Farrington would not have been drawn into this."

System worked in Hill trial

Re: "Hill trial heroes," by Marty Daneman, Thursday Letters.

The minority community has always questioned the fairness in the jury selection process, not the judicial system. The black community has never been tolerant of criminal behavior from anyone. We are most often the victims of crime.

There was no community pressure or outcry in the City Hall corruption case. All we wanted was a fair trial. The fact that four black people were seated meant to us that the jury selection process and the jury would be fair. In my opinion they were. The myth that blacks are soft on crime has been dispelled. The system worked.

Re: "A reason to hope," by Linda Alred, Monday Letters.

The Fox News Channel that I watch with Bill O'Reilly cannot be the one Alred watches. Fox News presents Republican and Democratic responses and only reports facts, not rumors. It is certainly entitled to its opinion.

My best suggestion for Alred is to turn off her radio or pick up her television remote and change the channel to MSNBC. She will hear exactly what she longs for. As for Glenn Beck, he is, as the old saying goes, "all blow and no go." He is an entertainer.

Jean Roberts, Addison

Re: "Glenn Beck and the culture of fear," Texas Faith blog.

Thank you for this representation of the rational views of Christians and others. The reponses of the panel of clergy, theologians, etc., gave me a sense of hope that there are still enough people with clear and compassionate thinking to overcome the ravings of mad men who happen to be given a microphone and are using it to spew hatred around the world.

I believe the Fox News Channel and others are being completely irresponsible with their right to free speech. They are deliberately inciting a faction of the population that feels disenfranchised and afraid and who are often not well balanced.

They are appealing to people who are used to being spoon-fed their religion and their politics. They have lost the ability for rational and analytical thinking for themselves.

Glenn Beck and his ilk, and Fox News and other such media, show an astonishing lack of ethics and moral thinking. The fears of the radicals that are being incited are stirring my worries that they will cause some to perpetrate horrific events, harming others and perhaps altering the world.

"We have nothing to fear but fear itself," still rings true.

"Even Bible scholars disagree," by Shelton Stogner, Wednesday Letters.

Stogner writes that even theologians and believers are skeptical about the existence of the historical Jesus. That's utter hogwash. I don't have any reservations about the historical nature of Jesus Christ, and I don't know of any of my fellow believers who do.

The Bible does not suffer superficial review. As the Apostle Paul noted, the scriptures are spiritually discerned and the carnal mind cannot adequately comprehend godly truths. Unfortunately, that's the Achilles heel of many skeptics.

Re: "Priest at heart of scandal quits -- Stockbroker fraud, child support, taxes among troubles," Wednesday news story.

It is always sad when an individual destroys himself by his own actions and unfortunate choices. It is especially sad when that individual is blessed with a brilliant mind and thus should easily know and realize the consequences of his actions. When that person is charged with guiding others, his self-destruction becomes even more poignant.

What is most significant, perhaps, is that some of the Rev. William Warnky's alleged transgressions have been of a moral nature -- non-payment of child support and allegedly committing fraud against one of his own parishioners, who obviously trusted him because of the sacred priest-communicant relationship.

I am totally heartbroken to know that the priest who christened my infant daughter, had her serve as an acolyte in his church, had her teach ESL classes in his church, and, finally, gave her the unique opportunity, when she was 15, to deliver a sermon at his church, has somehow come to this tragic stage in his life.

Warnky's downfall is one of those sad things that we need to know about despite the pain.

Re: "Ex-pastor delivers apology -- Haggard omits details of sex scandal in tour of churches with wife," Monday news story.

Here is a preacher who is following the well-worn, prosperous path in the world of "fallen angels." The script goes something like this, "Oops, I did it. I got caught! Now I am making big bucks with my scripted, tearful repentance told in a megachurch complete with media present."

To be sure, a book of Haggard's "Night in Babylon" will soon follow. A must-read!

I, a retired clergyperson, would have been in a more forgiving mood had Haggard simply released a statement to the tune of "I sinned big time. No excuses. No one to blame but me. I am sorry. Forgive me if you can."

End of story, No book, no personal appearances, no guest on some celebrity's TV show, no honorariums. In our culture of inquiring voyeurs, sin and its confession pays huge bucks.

Re: "Camp focuses on questions, not answers -- Event for kids of atheists, agnostics, others is about opening minds, parent says," Monday news story.

Amie Parsons says about her 5-year-old son, "We tell him to ask lots of questions. We're not real big into telling him what to think or what to believe." (This was all promulgated by the question whether there is a God.)

Seems to me that surely if these folks encourage their children to ask questions, they must also know that someone will be around to answer those questions -- probably themselves. This is pretty much what a believer practices.

Now, as for what to believe about God, we are actually only provided two options. It's all so very simple. He either is, or he isn't.

I really don't know what all the fuss is about. Such divergent alternatives; such a simple choice to make. I honestly don't know how much more simple it could be.

Re: Illustration with "The Book of Harry -- Michael Paulson explains how the boy wizard won over religious critics -- and the deeper meaning theologians now see in his tale," Sunday Points.

My family and I have enjoyed the entire Harry Potter series and appreciate all the wonderful messages it has brought to the world. We are also Greek Orthodox Christians.

Whether religious groups have come to accept the Harry Potter message does not excuse the depiction that was printed in your paper on Sunday. This was a disturbing and uneducated approach to the subject.

Iconography is held in the highest regard in our faith and is not to be rendered in this way. I would also venture to say that the Harry Potter franchise is of a higher mind and would, as well, not condone this depiction.

Re: "Guns, and faith, on full display -- Louisville churchgoers bring unloaded weapons to celebrate 2nd Amendment," Sunday news story.

Anyone ever hear the story of turning the other cheek, or did Jesus actually advise people to pull out their Glocks and open fire?

My brother's a cop who carries a concealed handgun because he has gone through both intense training and psychological evaluation. If I wanted an AK-47 with a fire guard, I could have one by this evening -- legally!

The Second Amendment was a way to ensure that settlers in remote locations had protection from redcoats and aggressive natives, and also to re-assure paranoid citizens that our government was not the same as the one across the Atlantic.

I fish, and my family hunts, but not with handguns. I have a brother who straps on a bulletproof vest five days a week on his way to serve and protect. The murder by handgun rate in any other functioning country is almost nonexistent compared to ours. In England, police officers don't even carry guns; I wonder why?

Re: "Guns, and faith, on full display -- Louisville churchgoers bring unloaded weapons to celebrate 2nd Amendment," Sunday news story.

I was searching for answers after reading this news story about a Kentucky pastor inviting his congregation to wear or carry their guns to church. This follows a television news story of a Flower Mound pastor asking his congregation to twitter during the Sunday service.

Should these pastors unite in their beliefs, tell me how would someone in their congregations would hold their cellphone to use Twitter in one hand, their gun in the other -- and still hold a Bible or song book?

Re: "South Dallas' soul -- Broken-down society needs the church and Christ, says Julie Lyons," Monday Viewpoints.

As a 15-year-old who has probably seen too much of the world, I have encountered at least once the antithesis to every point Lyons attempts to make.

With choice words like "every," "virtually" and "no one," I would like to see the statistical data, rather than rely on her faith. With an agnostic brother who still managed to get out of addictions, I'm hesitant to believe that no one can get out of such an addiction without spiritual intervention or the strong support of the church.

The last time a society relied heavily on the church for its personal well-being, women were being charged with witchcraft, and men were being killed for lycanthropy.

Lyons says that virtually every inner-city kid with high academic achievements in the pages of this newspaper cites a relationship with Jesus Christ. While talking in clichés is certainly aesthetically pleasing, it fails to deliver the proof needed to persuade an audience made up of virtually every faith.

I may be speaking alone, but I would love to know where Lyons gets her information, or should I simply rely on her faith?

Re: "South Dallas' soul -- Broken-down society needs the church and Christ, says Julie Lyons," Monday Viewpoints.

Real change comes from the condition of the heart, which governs external behavior. This certainly is not a new idea. Those folks in South Dallas have simply seized on the truth that belief in Jesus Christ and following him changes behavior.

Prison Fellowship Ministries also has a long track record of using the Lord to change men and women from the inside out. As we in America have amply demonstrated in the last 40 or 50 years, all the social programs designed by man and funded with incredible amounts of money ultimately will fail. You don't suppose that is true because all of these efforts disregard the condition of the soul, do you?

Re: Talking Points, Sunday Points.
As rabbis and leaders representing the ideological and institutional spectrum of the Dallas Jewish community, we thoroughly condemn the irresponsible and unfortunate comments made by Rabbi Manis Friedman.
Judaism and the state of Israel place a supreme value on the sanctity of human life and the pursuit of peace, values that continue to shape Israel's response to the incessant attacks on its civilian population. Only when these values are embraced by all parties will peace finally come to this embattled region.
We also deeply regret that The Dallas Morning News chose most imprudently to print one quote that was part of a broader symposium, the rest of whose respondents expressed views infused with Judaism's regard for the sanctity of human life. Let no one construe Rabbi Friedman's views as being representative of anyone but himself.

Re: Talking Points, Sunday Points.

Rabbi Manis Friedman is quoted, perhaps correctly, but without context. In the Torah, the Israelites were dealing on almost every side with idolaters, some who worshiped trees, some who worshiped by defecating on their altars and some who worshiped by fornication. That was the society in which our forefathers found themselves.

Given this kind of behavior, is it any wonder that God instructed the Israelites to kill all such humans plus their source of food? There was and is evil in the world, though of a different kind now. It still needs to be exterminated.

The land that needed cleaning up was ordained to the Jews of the day, and that has never changed. I cannot believe that Friedman favors applying the terms quoted in the present context.

Re: "First Church of the Public Elementary School? Casey Cavalier says places of study should not double as places of worship," Saturday Viewpoints.

Is Cavalier implying that the elementary school is endorsing this denomination? That is about as ridiculous as saying that a high school that hosts a donkey basketball game is endorsing donkey basketball.

The First Amendment actually states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Allowing churches to rent space is allowing the "free exercise" our forefathers desired.

I find it quite acceptable to generate income from publicly financed facilities that would otherwise sit idle on Sundays. This is a wise use of the taxpayer's money.

Re: "Imagine the horror," by Lloyd Jones, Thursday Letters.

Attending junior and high school in the DISD during the early '70s, I have witnessed firsthand how religion is used to intimidate students.

Individual classes were interrupted so a member of a religious sect could distribute Bibles to students, regardless of their beliefs. Sometimes entire days were interrupted for "optional" school assemblies -- the option being to attend or to sit in the lunchroom in silence. To add insult to injury, if I missed school to observe my religious holidays, I had to bring a note from home.

Public school is just that -- public. Religious training belongs in parochial schools, churches, synagogues and mosques. Parents can choose how, where and from whom their kids receive their religious training. Values are taught at home, not from strangers in public school.

Re: "Grace UMC pastor's message: Gay is OK -- Sermon response draws fire from First Baptist leader, but no protesters," Monday Metro.

I couldn't help but laugh at the response of First Baptist Church of Dallas pastor Dr. Robert Jeffress, who wondered if the Rev. Diana Holbert's follow-up message will be, "Why Adultery is OK" or "Why Incest is OK."

Does he not realize that adultery and incest hurt people, while homosexuality does not? It might make people uncomfortable, but it certainly does not hurt anyone.

I'm glad there are people like Holbert who have the sensibility and courage to speak up and preach acceptance for all people, no matter what their sexual orientation happens to be.

Re: "Is a gay lifestyle righteous ... ," by Ron Cawthon, and "... is a divorce righteous?" by Pat Burke, Wednesday Letters.

I remember how amazed I was when our high school debate coach declared that quoting Scripture was off-limits during a debate. She knew students will always misquote Scripture or take it out of context to prove a point.

I would challenge folks to actually get a translation of the Bible (there are good translations that are easier to read than the 1611 King James version) and read it from cover to cover at least twice.

This can be done in two years with a little effort. I will admit it took me much longer. For difficult passages, refer to a commentary written by a scholar who believes the Bible is the inspired word of God. There are many who do not.

When you have finished, I can promise that you will be amazed at what the Bible does and does not say.

Re: "Notre Dame dishes up moral ambiguity -- Claiming liberal president brings diversity of ideas to university setting is laughable, says Star Parker," Tuesday Viewpoints.

As a convert to the Catholic faith, I have been surprised at how many of my Catholic friends support abortion rights and were thus not conflicted in voting for President Barack Obama. Parker speculates that a majority attending Notre Dame's commencement ceremony probably voted for Obama. Her point is there is no diversity of ideas.

The university president might have avoided controversy and appeased the traditional Catholic community had he simply stated the obvious: It is an honor and privilege to host any U.S. president. His choice of speakers was not wrong. His justification for the choice was laughable.

Re: "Choosing a Calmer Way -- Obama deftly turns down volume in culture war," Tuesday Editorials.

It is disheartening to see The Dallas Morning News join the hallelujah chorus waxing jubilant over President Barack Obama's honey-tongued remarks at Notre Dame.

But while you're out heralding the dawn of a new age of "open hearts, open minds and fair-minded words," our prince is quietly expanding the abortion license in every conceivable way that actually matters -- increasing abortion subsidies at home and abroad, merchandising embryonic stem cells, revoking the Bush conscience clause.

This editorial would seem to imply that it's OK if we're bamboozled, as long as Obama smoothes the way with "warm, conciliatory" expressions of his high regard.

I can think of another word to describe such a speech: Vacuous.

Re: "A church should have dignity," by Shirley McGlothlin, Wednesday Letters.
Just because cowboy church members don't dress up in three-piece suits and ties doesn't mean we have no pride or dignity when attending church.
I grew up in a mainstream Baptist church, have been a member of non-denominational churches and Methodist churches. The cowboy church is no different in respecting God or having pride and dignity.
We don't put up barriers to keep people from coming to church. We accept them as they are.
So if McGlothlin wants to come to Rope, Catch, and Ride for Christ Cowboy Church in Mabank in her swimsuit, we will accept her with open arms.

Re: "Giving God the reins -- Cowboy churches get back to basics, emphasize salvation," Sunday news story.
At age 71, I don't swim, but now I will consider starting my new church. It will be called: "Swimmers for God, come wearing your swimsuits; let's swim, sing, sway and pray together -- and yes, the collection plate will be waterproof."
What has happened to respecting God by showing some pride and dignity when attending church?

Re: "... or Obama's misstatement," by John B. Dodson, Thursday Letters.
President Barack Obama said, "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation...." and Mr. Dodson twists the words, saying that Obama said we are "not a nation comprised of people of religion."
The First Amendment explicitly states that Congress cannot establish a religion. Our nation, as such, does not stand for any particular religion, Christian or otherwise.
As for our founding fathers, a no less important one and no less Christian one than our second president, John Adams, stated in the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli: "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
Obama and Adams said the same thing. It is silly to claim either "cavalierly dismiss" God.
I am frankly tired of the knee-jerk reactions from some people who immediately feel they have to protest the moment the words "not" and "Christian" are used in the same sentence.

Re: "Hunting for Easter's meaning -- Holy Week has become its own institution, says William McKenzie," Tuesday Viewpoints.
Like Christmas, the true meaning of Easter, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, is lost in the shuffle of the Great American Way -- substituting candy, gifts and hoopla for the genuine and eternal.
While McKenzie pointed out the violent drama marking the torture and crucifixion of the savior Jesus, he sadly failed to mention the amazing glory of what we are truly celebrating -- the glorious resurrection of Jesus on Easter morning.
That's the crux of Christianity -- that Jesus died on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins and rose again on the third day conquering death and giving us eternal life.

Re: Islam not U.S. enemy, Obama says in Turkey -- President uses personal ties to reach out to Muslims amid al-Qaeda fight," Tuesday news story.
This is news? Former President George W. Bush often emphasized we weren't at war with Islam, but with terrorists.
The fact your editors highlighted President Barack Obama's "proclamation" is telling: It's either ignorance or an attempt to mislead.
It would have been contextually correct to have included: "Bush often emphasized this same point throughout his presidency. It is unclear why Obama felt the need to say it again now as if breaking new ground."

Re: "Billboards mock forefathers," by Thomas T. Risher, Sunday Letters.
Our founding fathers would applaud the fact that the U.S. is a country in which each of us is free to express his or her opinion, including religious beliefs or lack thereof.
As a side note, "In God We Trust" is a relatively recent addition to our money. Many people, including President Theodore Roosevelt, thought that this inscription was inappropriate and sacrilegious.

Re: "Leave conservatism out of it," by Vincent P. Cirillo, Wednesday Letters.
I have to disagree with Cirillo. With few exceptions, one can no more separate conservative values from Christian beliefs than one can separate liberal values from the ACLU's agenda of removing Christianity from our country.
Let's face the truth: The argument regarding evolution is not about the "introduction of religion" in the classroom. The real agenda is the elimination of religion from our school children. Religious moral values have been an acceptable and desirable teaching in our schools since this nation's founding.
The forced acceptance of evolution as the only alternative for human existence is, by its very nature, the rejection of everything biblical and the elimination of intellectual inquiry.

Re: "Local atheists turn their eyes to the sky -- Organizer says signs aim to comfort nonbelievers, not convert the religious," Wednesday Metro.
What is the world coming to when you see billboards that say, "Don't Believe in God? You're not alone"?
Terry McDonald is exercising his freedom of speech but with America as one nation under God, how could we let this happen? "In God we trust" is printed on our money. Our country was founded on God, and for this billboard to stand anywhere in this country is a mockery of our founding fathers.

Re: "Leaders support gays' ordination -- Despite local backing, measure expected to fail nationally," Tuesday Metro.
Rev. Ron Scates of Highland Park Presbyterian Church says the American church "has lost its biblical moorings." Such moorings as slavery and women as property? As the sun revolving around the Earth? As codes and rules for a people, a time and a place long gone? Why cannot Christians let go of passages in the Bible written thousands of years ago by those with a limited understanding and faith?
Jesus valued the diversity of God's creation. It's sad that His followers cannot.

Re: "Pope's leadership is expected -- His stance on condom use shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, says Mark Davis," Wednesday Viewpoints.
Davis insists that instead of reviling the Pope for the miserable failure of the anti-condom policies in Africa, we should be supportive because his stance is based on faith.
A lot of people have faith in some pretty wacky ideas, and a lot of those ideas are demonstrably wrong and downright dangerous.
Preventing condom use in AIDS-stricken areas is one of them; I don't care who the source is.

Re: "Separated from God -- Organized religion is to blame for a nation of fewer believers, says Leonard Pitts," Monday Viewpoints.
I'm glad Pitts has the courage to state the obvious. Only the most devoutly religious among us can't seem to understand why more Americans are losing the faith, or rather just simply abandoning it for more private introspection.
The people and groups Pitts mentions have focused on things like biblical creationism and abstinence-only sex education instead of real issues like health care and domestic violence. Fortunately, our nation allows for freedom of, as well as freedom from, religion.

Re: "Obama lifts stem cell limits -- He rejects 'false choice between sound science and moral values'; opponents see a defeat for ethics," Tuesday news story.
According to President Barack Obama, the new U.S. science policy is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.
I guess the political agenda that Obama is referring to is Christianity. All I can say is: Science help us.

It's all about Bush
Because of poor media coverage of the facts, the majority probably think that embryonic stem cell research was banned by the Bush administration. Scientists have been free to do this research all along and have, in fact, been doing it.
The Bush policy was that embryonic stem cell research not be paid for by the U.S. government. This is the policy that President Barack Obama has reversed.
This means that the public will pay for research that has had questionable results and that many, or most, of us find morally repugnant.
This ploy is nothing more than an attempt to repudiate and humiliate our former president. It is nothing to celebrate.

Re: "A church in need of saving -- Munger Place UMC may be on the verge of extinction, says Keith Brown," Tuesday Viewpoints.One of the ideas presented to "save" the church is for Highland Park UMC to purchase it, renovate it and then video stream their service into it. Nothing against Highland Park, but doesn't it see that this would destroy the spirit and ministry of Munger Place?
Perhaps Highland Park could make Munger Place their "mission," and pay for the needed repairs and renovations, but allow the minister and the congregation to continue to worship as they are now. Are there other churches or individuals out there that would be willing to help out monetarily or physically? Let's keep God's spirit alive and well in that precious church.

Re: "A church in need of saving -- Munger Place UMC may be on the verge of extinction, says Keith Brown," Tuesday Viewpoints.
All I can say is have a little faith. If it were not for Highland Park United Methodist Church taking over Munger Place United Methodist Church, our church would have gone under completely.
I wouldn't worry about "affluent white folks isolated in Highland Park" preventing Munger Place from being that special place it is and always been: a place for every color, rich, poor or homeless.

Re: "Yes, our silly gods have cost us greatly -- Does that mean Bill Maher and I agree? Not in the slightest, says Rod Dreher," last Sunday Points.
Dreher's response to Bill Maher's comments regarding his documentary Religulous was excellent.
I would add another "silly god," that of worshipping silly celebrities and sports figures who have zero virtue other than being famous. I'm sure Rod could have added many other "gods" if he had had the space.

Most have worshipped gods
Most of us have certainly, and at great cost, created "golden calves," and worshipped "other gods" from time to time. Now, if only Bill Maher could read Rod Dreher's column, perhaps Maher might be convinced also. As a Christian, I was deeply challenged and prompted to pray for Maher.

Give pay where it's due
Re: "Kindle's swindle -- The device can read books aloud, says Roy Blount Jr., but it's not paying authors for audio rights," last Sunday Points.
When I buy an audio book, I'm paying for the performance that went into creating that work of art. That payment should go to those producing the work of art.
When I use text-to-speech software, I should pay for the effort of creating the general-purpose software and hardware that converts any text to speech. That payment should go to those who produced the software and hardware. Let's let the free market decide, not the courts.

Re. "Jesus was tolerant of all," by Sam Madden, Tuesday letters.
Madden contends that "Jesus was not intolerant; he totally accepted and loved everyone unconditionally."
That's a dangerous proposition. While Jesus may have a lot of love in his heart for people, that doesn't mean they're all going to heaven. He called the Pharisees a "brood of vipers" and said they were "of their father the devil." He told unbelieving Jews, "Unless you believe that I am the one I claim to be you will indeed die in your sins."
So, I would suggest that people not be led astray by confusing the love of Christ with eternal salvation. The safer way is not to think you can earn your salvation, but to repent of one's sins and believe in the resurrected Christ as one's Lord and Savior for the remission of one's sins.

Re: "Intolerant faith ...," by Bill Robinson, Friday Letters.
Robinson states that the Bible says that Jesus is the only way by which we can be saved. But the context of that is where a lot of Christians miss the point.
Paul's definition of a Christian in Romans 8 spells out that to be a true Christian is to live in the spirit of Christ. In Romans 2, Paul states that eternal life can be gotten by those, even the Gentiles, who persist in doing good.
Robinson states that he is branded as intolerant. Jesus was not intolerant; he totally accepted and loved everyone unconditionally. Romans 15:7 states that we are to accept each other just as Christ has accepted us. I pray for the day when this will happen.

Re: "A new common-ground era for religion? When it comes to matters of faith, agreement isn't as easy as one might think, says William McKenzie," Tuesday Viewpoints.McKenzie asks if it is really possible to find common ground on religion.
I think that it is unlikely that individuals and institutions will find common ground in their religious beliefs. But they should be able to find common ground in their religious actions based upon a fundamental teaching in all major religions: treat others as you wish to be treated.
Variations of this teaching can be found in Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism and many other religions and secular teachings as well.

Re: "A new common-ground era for religion? When it comes to matters of faith, agreement isn't as easy as one might think, says William McKenzie," Tuesday Viewpoints.
The long-standing view of "tolerance" has been to respect other religious beliefs: to allow them to worship without hostility, interference or discrimination. "Tolerance" has become that we must accept all belief systems and truth claims as equal.
The Bible says that Jesus is the only way by which we can be saved. I pray to the God whose son is named Jesus, who died for my sins, rose on the third day and is alive today. When I declare that there is no other way, I am branded as intolerant. I am what I am.

Re: "Episcopal divide in FW still wide open -- November split has left dioceses conflicted over property, reorganization," Friday news story.
As a man who supported the careers of a mother, a wife and now my daughter, it has been difficult to be an Episcopalian in the Fort Worth diocese. Having a bishop who does not believe in equal rights for men and women creates an impossible position.
The Fort Worth membership will be stronger and healthier when its properties are returned and a new 21st century bishop is installed. We should put behind us the days of all prejudiced behavior.

Re: "State board OKs science standards -- New rules for next decade don't include teaching the 'weaknesses' of evolution," Jan. 24 Metro.
The blow the State Board of Education dealt was to science and the children of Texas, not to evolution foes. This ruling strikes at the very heart of the scientific method, which is free and open debate and discussion about all possible explanations for any theory. Without that, all that's left is the mindless, autocratic, dictatorial rote teaching of dogma.
The message the SBOE sent to Texas students is: "We no longer care about or value your questions or opinions -- you are not smart enough to question what we tell you. You will learn what we demand you learn with no questions asked." Sounds reminiscent of Germany, circa 1940.
The SBOE has successfully killed real science and inquiry and freedom of speech in the Texas classroom. Science, and the children of Texas, are the real losers here. Sad.

Re: "Teach both theories, flaws and all," by Bob Kirby, Sunday Letters.
Kirby writes yet another letter about the theory of evolution vs. creationism and intelligent design. This debate resurfaces every few years, with each side attempting to drown out the other.
I have never seen or heard that the theories of evolution and creationism and intelligent design are not mutually exclusive.
To make such an allowance, first of all, must be grounded in a belief in God, a concept that some scientists and others view as foreign.
A theory is not scientific law. It is someone's best guess. If God is all-powerful, he could have, with a thought or a glance, put a mind and soul into one of those evolved primates and made a man.
So, enough arguing. Teach, as Kirby suggests, both theories, and leave theology where it belongs, at home and in church.

Can it be any more obvious that abortion is a moral and personal -- not political or legal -- issue? Many people in this country believe that life and the soul begin at conception. And many more people in this country do not.
The soul belongs squarely in the province of religion and has no place in a political debate. But morality, and the enforcement of it, is a main reason for government.
It would be immoral to kill a thinking person for convenience. It would be immoral to prevent an abortion by a law based on a religion.
I don't believe that a one- or two-cell fetus is a thinking person or that the morning-after pill needs to be outlawed. I also don't believe that partial-birth abortion has any place in society. That should be outlawed, almost entirely.
Roe vs. Wade was right, and all these decisions belong squarely in the hands of the individual, not the government -- and not a religious special interest group.

Re: "Teach both theories, flaws and all," by Bob Kirby, Sunday Letters.
Kirby's suggestion sounds simple and fair. That would be true only if we were dealing with two alternative scientific theories, but in this case we are dealing with alternative scientific and religious theories of evolution.
Only the scientific theories can be taught with competence in the science classroom. Religious alternatives and a debate on the respective merits of the scientific and religious theories must be taught in a venue appropriate for that subject. Why is this so hard to understand?

Re: "A fresh lesson on why Israel is so necessary -- Anti-Semites in Europe are again trying to terrorize Jews, says Rod Dreher. They must not succeed," Sunday Points.Dreher's column was right on target. We feel safe here in America, but we are naive to assume that we are immune to global trends. There has been one nasty extremist Islamic demonstration against Israel in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. It was clear for the demonstrators that hatred of Jews and Israel were one in the same.
Most of all we must be aware and proactive. In that spirit, thank you, Dallas Morning News, for publishing Dreher's insightful, courageous column and giving us all a fresh lesson on why Israel is so necessary.

Re: " Muslims, stress the good," by Carolyn Martin, Wednesday Letters.
While Martin understandably condemns religious faiths that refer to non-believers as infidels, she must take caution not to sound hypocritical by making blanket proclamations of her own personal beliefs being superior to all others.
Martin's letter begins by dutifully requesting all Muslims to "stress the good" as she says Christians do. She continues by simply declaring: "For centuries, Christianity has been the world's greatest religion." Why is it necessary to make a statement that can only be viewed as confrontational to the 4 billion-plus good non-Christian souls on the planet who feel at least that strongly about their own beliefs? After all, aren't tolerance and humility among the good things Martin wishes to stress?

As an amateur political observer, even I was surprised at the venom directed towards Sarah Palin and John McCain. Regardless of my feelings about their abilities, I felt they deserved consideration and respect.
The rhetoric about the Republican campaign's inept vetting comes to mind with the current pomposity and lack of responsibility surrounding current Cabinet choices. Why aren't the Democrats being vilified for a serious lack of vetting?
The excuse that we are in such turmoil and the American people are afraid doesn't justify this lack of accountability.
Once again, the great unknowing public is treated to the Democratic version of "we know what's best for you."

... than this flawed nominee
Treasury Secretary-designate Timothy Geithner didn't pay $34,000 in taxes. That makes him either dishonest or incompetent. There is no third option.
He may make a crackerjack Congressman with those qualifications, but either one of those traits should eliminate him from consideration as secretary of the treasury.

... and we've lost our way
In the past, I have seen presidential nominees for Cabinet positions were found to have previously had tax problems or had employed illegal immigrants.
Although none of these nominees were for the position of secretary of the treasury, the nomination was withdrawn and a new person selected.
Now, we have Timothy Geithner, who has not paid taxes appropriately and has employed an illegal immigrant. We are told these "minor human errors" should not prevent his nomination.
Is this the change we are to expect from the newly elected administration? It seems that Washington is going in the wrong direction. The administration is saying to reward this tax cheat and illegal immigrant employer with a Cabinet position. This is not change I can believe in.

No ruckus over gay bishop
Re: "Gay bishop to kick off festivities -- N.H. Episcopal leader to say prayer at Lincoln Memorial on Sunday," Tuesday news story.
I see where Barack Obama has asked Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson to open his inaugural festivities on Sunday at the Lincoln Memorial. And the entire Democrat Party is ecstatic that he has picked an openly gay, staunch gay marriage supporter to give the prayer to kick off his presidency.
Thousands of Democratic faithful have showed their disgust with Obama's pick of the Rev. Rick Warren to open the swearing-in ceremony. Robinson seems to be amazed that a man of God would follow the teachings of the Bible and his own conscience when it comes to gay marriage. This is one of the many examples of the irony of liberals being tolerant people.
The most amazing part of this debacle is that not a single Democrat has criticized Obama for his selection of Robinson, a pseudo "man of God," to lead them in prayer. When I talk about the "new" Democratic Party and the "radical" views of Obama, this is just another clear example.

Re: "Muslims shouldn't be put out," by Greg Briggs, Monday Letters
If Briggs doesn't realize that the world has changed after 9/11, then he needs to know, in spite of his nonchalance towards airline security, they, too, are human and can make mistakes. It only took 19 highjackers that passed through the same security. They paid for their ticket just like everyone else.
As long as there are millions of radical Muslims dancing in the streets, swearing death to America, and thousands more being recruited as we try and be politically correct, we will be at risk. It will only take a handful of radicals taking advantage of us letting down our guard and feeling safe to allow another 9/11-type scenario to embolden them more.

Re: "Muslims, stress the good," by Carolyn Martin, Wednesday Letters.
My family is composed of Catholics, Protestants and Hindus. Over time, we have developed a strong respect and tolerance for all religions. It is a fact that no religion is devoid of flaws. Hinduism's caste-system and Christianity's bloody crusades over the ages are well known.
Just as in Christianity, every religion speaks of its God being the only God. Why not respect all beliefs as long as peace prevails and no one is harmed? I think people should be allowed to practice their faiths without interference. I am sure that the Almighty agrees with that, for He embodies true justice.

Re: "A list: Things Not To Say If You Are Muslim -- Take note, or we'll have to conclude that you are a terrorist, says Leonard Pitts," Monday Viewpoints.
Since there are citations in the Quran that are good, why don't Muslims stress the good things, reiterate their version of the Golden Rule, acknowledge their generosity to the poor and prove the power of praying five times a day? If they want to conquer the world, they should stress the good in their religion.
For centuries, Christianity has been the world's greatest religion. No one is forced to become Christian or threatened with annihilation if they don't become Christian.
Millions have been converted to Christianity because they recognize the power of loving their fellow man as taught in the Bible. They have discovered through practice that the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount make them happy and successful.
Pitts may be surprised to hear it, but some Christians even find it possible to love the Yankees.

Paranoia is natural
Leonard Pitts ridicules an airline for overreacting to comments from Muslims. But I ask Pitts to think why that is. Are we all just bigoted and unfair? Or could it be the vivid memory of the cheering in the streets in the Muslim world on 9/11?
While in this incident, as in many like it, the airline overacted to innocent comments by Muslims, the fear and paranoia Americans feel is understandable.

Re: "Downtown rally opposes Gaza bombing -- Muslim protesters decry it as terrorism; Jewish groups say it's self-defense," Wednesday Metro.
Where were these protestors when Hamas was, and still is, raining rockets on civilian centers in Israel? And let's not kid ourselves -- if Hamas had the capability, they would be a lot more aggressive.

Death wish means no peace
The Dallas Morning News reported on the rally against Israel, but failed to mention that some participants shouted "Death to Israel." It is to the credit of the crowd that most refused to take up the chant, but the incident here illustrates why Israel is fighting back over there. It's the "Death to Israel" crowd that rules Gaza, and until the more moderate voices among Muslims and Arabs can wrestle control from them, Israel will be forced to defend itself instead of focusing on the peaceful solution it so ardently desires.
Israel long ago committed itself to the two-state solution, but Hamas won't take "yes" for an answer. The death of Israel, not peace, is their real and only agenda.

War then, terrorism now?
Re: "Blood on Hamas' Hands -- Israel right to defend, but cease-fire is needed," Tuesday Editorials.
In 1948, Israel sent rockets into Arab city of Al-Majdal (now Ashkelon), kicked out 10,000 of the 11,000 residents and captured the city. Today's Ashkelon has a population of 109,000 with a majority of them being Jews imported from outside.
When Israel sent rockets into Ashkelon 60 years ago, it was not terrorism. Why is it terrorism now? The inhabitants of today's Ashkelon are not even natives.

Re: "Gays are the name-callers," by Chris Boldt, Tuesday Letters
Jesus was right when he told his followers, "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now" (John 16:12). For today His followers cannot bear the idea of gays having a different sexual orientation.
The Rev. Rick Warren was invited by the president-elect to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. Warren says he does not believe in a gay sexual orientation and says it is contrary to God's word. Whatever Boldt feels, this Christian gay man has a legitimate reason to speak his mind.

Re: "Inaugural Prayer," Sunday Letters.
It should be apparent to all Americans by now that the gay community in our country will not be satisfied until we have a Christian-free U.S. of San Francisco.
This nation should not brook the present attempt to place a chill on the communications of those who accept and promote the New Testament as the preferred code of conduct for our society.
It is the gays doing all the name-calling by attempting to stereotype the supporters of Christian moral guidelines as hateful, divisive, intolerant, extreme and gay-bashing.
I know too many intelligent and loving Christian people.
Those gays who want to live in peace and who support Christianity in most aspects are not being well-served by this egregious behavior.

Re: "Where displays cross line unclear -- Consensus is elusive as more constitutional battles loom next year," Thursday news story.
The "establishment clause" of the First Amendment to the Constitution is 100% clear as to the intent of its framers: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Many of the "enlightened intellectuals," who unfortunately include many of this country's judges at every level, feel the need to show their deep thinking prowess by injecting ambiguity into a sentence which is in no way ambiguous.
I have a solution, as simple as the framers' true intent, and its outcome should include a constitutional amendment, either way, to put this madness to rest.
Pick a sixth-grade honors history class and, in unannounced pop quiz form, ask them to write what the establishment clause means. Whatever the outcome, I'm willing to live with their interpretation. Are you?

Re: "Obama made right call on Warren -- It's never wrong for those with opposing views to pray together, says Mark Davis," Wednesday Viewpoints.
Once again, Mark Davis, talking about the Rev. Rick Warren, shows his usual hypocrisy.
In his commentary, he concludes that the rabid objectors to the Warren invocation should take a cue from their candidate and his guest, who properly believe that it is never inappropriate for those with opposing views to pray together.
And I can tell you right now, that if Barack Obama had picked a Muslim cleric or an openly gay Episcopalian bishop, there would be incredible howls of protest from Mr. Davis.
The fact that he calls Mr. Warren's brand of Christianity mainstream right off the bat shows that how wrong-headed he is. Evangelicalism is not mainstream
. It's a faction of Christianity that is divisive and intolerant of those who do accept Jesus Christ or their interpretation of the Bible.

... partially right in this case
I partially agree with Mark Davis. The Rev. Rick Warren would certainly not have been my first choice, but I think President-elect Barack Obama was right to stick with him, and he did it for the right reason.
However, the great objection of so many people might mean that conservative Christianity is not as mainstream as Mr. Davis thinks it is and that there are many people who know the difference between worshipping God and worshipping the Bible.

Truly, this wasn't a smart choice
Re: "Room in the Big Tent -- Obama wise to reach past base to Pastor Warren," Tuesday Editorials.
Tuesday's editorial argues that "Mr. Obama was smart to offer [the Rev. Rick Warren] a place of honor at the historic event."
The editorial supports its claim by characterizing Mr. Warren as a "moderate." Moderate -- really? In recent interviews, Warren equates homosexuality with sexual deviance and criminal behavior -- pedophilia and incest -- and conflates homosexuality, an orientation, with sexual addition, a pathology. These views grossly mischaracterize gay Americans.
Mr. Warren's extreme beliefs exclude gays from the Saddleback church unless they repent the "sin" of homosexuality and enroll in church workshops to be "cured."
The editorial fails to recognize the significance of President-elect Barack Obama's choice for the inauguration's invocation, a prayer that could usher in a new spiritual tone for a deeply divided America. Mr. Warren's voice, as a leading architect in a politics of division, precludes bridging divides and creating spiritual community for all Americans. Smart choice?
To create the "Big Tent" of American society, all members must meet as equals, each deserving the same civility and respect. Equality in status is a principal of American democracy envisioned to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
The editorial's view of the "Big Tent" tragically misses this necessity.

The silence is deafening
I find myself feeling sorry for President-elect Barack Obama. His many supporters seem to demand that the individual whom he charges with the invocation at his inauguration be one of strong liberal political and religious beliefs, especially being pro-gay marriage and pro-abortion.
His choice of the Rev. Rick Warren for these duties, where Mr. Obama is trying to make as many people happy as possible, does not support any of these issues. Because of this, Mr. Obama's many liberal friends are totally distraught at the thought of Mr. Warren's participation on this national scale.
In my humble agnostic little heart, I couldn't care less one way or the other. But it seems that Mr. Warren is willing to put aside his personal political and religious beliefs for the sake of the country to bless the administration of a president whose religious and political beliefs in certain controversial issues are contrary to his own.
It's interesting that the silence coming from the religious conservatives is as deafening as the complaints from the liberal supporters of Mr. Obama.

The controversy over Barack Obama's selection of the Rev. Rick Warren for the inauguration ceremony beautifully illustrates why separation of church and state is essential.
Having a religious representative speak excludes everyone who does not share that speaker's faith. No matter who delivers a prayer, there will be offense taken by members of other groups.
Mr. Obama and other Americans can pray for the new administration in private.

Re: "Post-partisan inauguration," by Meg Hillert, Sunday Letters.
Ms. Hillert commented in her letter about the Rev. Rick Warren speaking at President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration: "gay marriage and abortion are minor."
The fact that 820,000 were done (in 2005) in the U.S. alone is not a minor issue, especially to the innocent babies whose lives are snuffed out.

Re: "Obama defends pastor choice -- Warren controversy is a chance to 'come together,' he says, as gays blast pick," Friday news story.
I am sick and tired of the extreme liberals and conservatives, who have criticized President-elect Barack Obama for choosing the Rev. Rick Warren to make the invocation at the inauguration. Conservatives were coming down hard on Mr. Warren for agreeing to pray with Mr. Obama, a pro-choice advocate. These people are small people, not in stature, but in principle.
This is exactly the kind of bickering and senseless infighting that Mr. Obama promised to attack and eradicate if possible. It is the kind of negative thinking which keeps this country from engaging the bigger, more important issues that face us from all sides.
I don't agree with Mr. Obama about the pro-choice issue, but I am 100 percent behind his efforts to change the way we do business here and abroad.

... and right-wing choice stings
President-elect Barack Obama's decision to have right-wing mega-church pastor Rev. Rick Warren give the invocation at next year's inaugural is disheartening.
Mr. Warren has compared gay marriage to incest and pedophilia and has proudly proclaimed that he could never vote for anyone who does not share his personal belief in a higher power. But now Mr. Obama asks us to accept his misguided pick on the basis that it is a form of inclusion? It's easy for a straight Christian like Mr. Obama to say that, but I'm confident he would not feel so self-righteous if Mr. Warren was a known racist instead of a known homophobe and anti-atheist.

... but we could be more inclusive
As a married heterosexual Christian, I support gay marriage. I've yet to meet any married couple seeking divorce or any engaged couple who decided not to get married because gays and lesbians want to be recognized as married couples. However, I've met and known many heterosexual couples whose personal behavior does exactly what traditionalists accuse homosexual unions of doing, which is destroy the institution of marriage and create an unhealthy environment for children.
That being said, I commend President-elect Barack Obama for inviting someone to the table that he may disagree with on some social issues. This kind of inclusiveness regardless of ideology is something we have missed for too long.
I think it's sad that many gay activists feel the need to treat someone the way they have been treated.

Re: "I say, 'Merry Christmas,' " by Sue Richardson, Thursday Community Opinions Letters.
Ms. Richardson writes: "If we (who is "we"?) don't like Christmas, what does that do to swearing in a president on the Bible, Christmas trees at the White House, laws based on the Ten Commandments, crosses furnished by the government for headstones in national cemeteries, and so on?"
Presidents are sworn in on a Bible that includes the Jewish Old Testament to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Our First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion and expression. Christmas trees are at the White House probably because all presidents have been Christian. Scripture tells us that God gave the Ten Commandments to Moses (a Jew) long before Christianity existed. The government furnishes other religious symbols (including Stars of David) for headstones in national cemeteries.
Moreover, what does any of this have to do with "liking Christmas"?
As a Jew who is perfectly happy with the friendly and thoughtful "Happy Holidays," I regret Ms. Richardson chooses to feel so insulted with a phrase that is not only inclusive of her Christian faith, but of all beliefs in our nation and world.

Does it matter whether we say "Happy Holiday," "Season's Greetings," or "Merry Christmas"?
While growing up, I never saw a Christmas card with anything on it, but "Merry Christmas." Then, as I recall, "Season's Greetings" started slipping in. I didn't give it much thought because it seemed innocent enough.
The next thing I noticed were cards wishing me "Happy Holidays," and then some stores stopped printing or wishing us Merry Christmas. Finally, it dawned on me that it has never been innocent -- "Merry Christmas" is ever so slyly being phased out and we are being brainwashed again. Some more political correctness!
If we don't like Christmas, what does that do to swearing in a president on the Bible, Christmas trees at the White House, laws based on the Ten Commandments, crosses furnished by the government for headstones in national cemeteries, and so on?
If, in less than a century, we have come to be ashamed to say "Merry Christmas," how long will it take to decide that Christmas should no longer be celebrated as a national holiday or to have all other reminders removed from our government?
One other point, raise your hand if you are offended by "Happy Hanukah," or, for that matter, any of the other religion's celebrations and what they say or do? I would bet not one hand was raised, regardless of beliefs.
My first act will be to return my cards from lukewarm politicians -- God says he will spew the lukewarm out of his mouth -- I'm just sending back their cards.
If you can't wish me "Merry Christmas," just don't. It is OK and far better than insulting me. The word is "Christ"mas, and He stands for free will.

Re: "Happier Hanukkah -- Nutrition students alter traditional recipes for healthier treats," Tuesday GuideDaily.
This story missed the point of why Jews indulge in oil-soaked goodies at this time of year, even at the expense of rather fragile digestive systems in some of us.
Certainly, Jews eat potato pancakes, sufganiot (jelly donuts) and other fried foods to commemorate the "miracle of the oil," the fact that centuries ago, a little bit of oil in a beat-up lamp burned brightly for eight days following terrible destruction to the Temple.
We also do it to remember the Macabees, who stood up to an authoritarian state for the right to practice their religion without interference.
As healthy as they appear and as good as I'm sure they taste, grilled latkes somehow don't have the same meaning as that conveyed by shredded potatoes and onions fried in a lot of oil.

Re: "Muslims quiet when it counts," by James Harrel, Saturday Letters.
As the Holy Land Foundation convictions reveal, the Muslim community worldwide has a long way to go in disentangling itself from its terrorists and their radical supporters.
But the popular canard, repeated again in the letter by Mr. Harrel, that Muslim leaders won't condemn Muslim terror is refuted by the actions of the Mumbai Muslim Council.
Not only have they called for Muslims to wear black ribbons in solidarity with the victims of the Nov. 26 attack, but the council even refuses to give the dead gunmen a Muslim burial. Speaking as a clergyman, that's a condemnation as strong as any I heard.
As is inevitably the case, blanket declarations about a people or religion are both unfair and misleading.

Re: "Kathleen Baskin-Ball -- Beloved pastor offered lessons in life and death," Thursday Editorials.
In her life of ministry and her courageous death, the Rev. Kathleen Baskin-Ball has shown all of us an example of how to live our lives and embrace our deaths. As a Catholic, I greatly admired Pope John Paul II's courage in the face of the pain he faced in his last days.
Ms. Baskin-Ball displayed that same bravery in the obvious joy she shared during her last days, actively ministering to her flock and then dying with the grace of a saint.
Now that she is with Christ I ask her blessing on all of us and on our troubled world.

Re: "A Clarifying Moment -- Holy Land verdicts bring a welcome close to trial," last Sunday Editorials.
You correctly recognize that the Islamic Society of North America was not on trial in the Holy Land Foundation case and has not been charged with any wrongdoing. Yet the government deeply damaged the organization's reputation when it stigmatized ISNA as an unindicted co-conspirator without an opportunity to clear its good name.
Adding insult to injury, one of the prosecutors in the Holy Land case admitted the government possessed no evidence of wrongdoing by ISNA and blacklisted the organization as a "legal tactic." And contrary to your assertion, the HLF trial court did not approve of the government's action.
One thing is clear: When the government blacklists a mainstream American Muslim organization like ISNA based on association and innuendo, it harms its relationship with the very community the government most needs for effective counter terrorism.

Re: "Holy Land trial victory, at what cost? Before we celebrate verdict, let's consider Americans' other losses, says Mohamed Elibiary," Monday Viewpoints.
I find it revealing that when anything that puts Muslims in a bad light, the voices of the defenders are loud and clear, as in Mr. Elibiary's column. Yet when Muslims do horrible things, such as killing innocent people in Mumbai, Jordan, Israel, Indonesia, New York, etc., these same voices are absolutely silent.

Re: "An honest discussion," by Jeff L. Patterson, Monday Letters.
Mr. Patterson says, "If there are weaknesses in Charles Darwin's theory, then why the reluctance to allow discussion of those weaknesses in the classroom?" The answer is that there are no weaknesses in Mr. Darwin's theory.
The occurrence of biological evolution has been supported by mountains of scientific evidence. No evidence contradicts the theory. All the world's scientists, except for a tiny fraction who oppose it on religious grounds, accept it.
Mr. Darwin himself was aware of "difficulties of the theory" and devoted two of his 15 chapters in On the Origin of Species to them, and 150 years later, modern biology has satisfactorily answered these questions.

Re: "All sin, but all are forgiven," by Curt Peterson, Tuesday Letters, and "Homosexuals have no choice," by Jerry D. Teitelbaum, Nov. 19 Letters.
Thank you, Mr. Peterson, for writing the truest statement I read all week -- maybe all year -- in response to Mr. Teitelbaum's letter. We all have our sin of choice (or no choice), yet we are not barred from attending a church because we are sinners. Jesus said, "I am the way." He offers the way to God to all sinners, not just some sinners.
Why do we split hairs about this instead of doing what Jesus asked us to do?

Re: "A Right to Civility -- Protests that cross that line only hurt cause," Thursday Editorials.
Thank you for publishing an editorial that portrays someone other than Christians in a negative light.
So often Christians are branded as intolerant and un-Christlike, while actions such as this by other groups are ignored or downplayed.

Re: "Diocese leaves Episcopal Church -- Five of 55 congregations plan to stay with faith after rift over female priests, gays," Nov. 16 news story.
I object that women are put on the same level as gay priests in their acceptance in the Episcopal Church.
To become a spokesperson for Christ in the Episcopal Church, women have to join a sect that accepts gay lifestyle and gay priests. I am disappointed that women want to be priests so bad that they would be joined together in the same yoke with sinners. They should consider another denomination where women can be ministers without having to sell their souls.
Women played a major part in Christ's ministry, which didn't set well with the establishment in that day and time either.
Homosexuality, on the other hand, is forbidden in the Bible and absolutely a sin and abomination in God's eyes. Why don't they meet halfway? Accept women as priests on a separate ticket and then take another vote.
At the least, give them some position of authority in the church, allowing them the opportunity to teach the word.
There is a way the Episcopal Church will be a little more popular and have more members. They need to be a little fairer, less extreme and a little more to the center.
They should reconsider making women priests or giving them more of leadership positions within the church.

Re: "Diocese leaves Episcopal Church -- Five of 55 congregations plan to stay with faith after rift over female priests, gays," Nov. 16 Metro.
Chad Bates, chairman of a group that favors the break, said: "We are so looking forward to getting this past us, so we can do the mission of the church and build the kingdom of God."
Sounds like the breakaway Episcopalians are doing quite the opposite of building the kingdom of God. It is absurd to believe that homosexuals are not fit to minister in God's church and to think that women can't be called by God into ministry.
The mission of the church is to bring God's message of love and inclusion to all people in the world. Christian sects that slice and dice Christianity do nothing to do the mission of the church or build the kingdom of God. The message and the mission have to be one of love, or it is not the church. It would be a sort of social club.

Re: "Homosexuals have no choice," by Jerry D. Teitelbaum, Wednesday Letters.
The controversy about whether being gay is chosen or not is a bit beside the point. The Bible teaches and orthodox Christianity agrees that everyone sins and falls short of the glory of God. I don't know, however, what sins you specialize in. For some it is lust, for others power, or pride, hatred, greed, gossip, self-righteousness or some combination.
But the good news is that Jesus came to save sinners (the above named and folks like you and me). Thus, although gospel preachers denounce all sins (whether heterosexual or homosexual) to bring people to repentance, they also preach the forgiveness of sins for all. Thus, the sins we enjoy most are irrelevant, if we accept God's judgment on them and cling to God's love in Christ the redeemer.
There is no contradiction between denouncing a sin and offering grace to gays or anybody else.

Re: "Speakers: Don't mess with evolution -- Others at hearing support rule that requires teaching weaknesses with strengths," Thursday news story.
I am an evangelical Christian who is not opposed to the theory of evolution being taught in our public schools, but I also believe that our students deserve the opportunity to wrestle with this complex subject in an intellectually honest way. If there are weaknesses in Charles Darwin's theory, then why the reluctance to allow discussion of those weaknesses in the classroom? If Mr. Darwin's theory is correct, it should be able to stand up against scrutiny.
More surprising still was Rabbi Nancy Kasten's assertion that this kind of debate in the classroom could lead to "speculative and subversive interpretations," including creationism. What's worse than a public school system that suppresses honest, intellectual discourse? How about a religious leader who believes in and teaches the truth of Genesis on the weekend, but denies it in the public square during the week?

Re: "A Right to Civility -- Protests that cross that line only hurt cause," Thursday Editorials.
You have got to be kidding me. Heck, yes, that was an angry mob chanting, "Shame on you" to the group of people who came to the angry mobs' neighborhood to pray over them. How would you feel if a group came to your house and prayed over you after you had just endured a horrible and unjust removal of one of the basic rights in the pursuit of your life and liberty?

Re: "Biblical justification abounds," by Ramon Arambarri, Thursday Letters.
Mr. Arambarri's reference to antiquated notions in the Bible is typical of detractors. He should realize that it is the human race that is antiquated in its thinking, no matter how accepting or modern we believe we are. He needs to read the real good news of Jesus in the New Testament and he will see that it is a book of love.

Re: "1,200 protest California gay marriage ban -- Demonstration outside Dallas City Hall part of national effort," Sunday Metro.
Thank you for the fair and accurate reporting on Saturday's protest against the passage of Proposition 8 in California. I was there as an advocate for protecting the rights of gays and lesbians to marry.
This is a function of ensuring the separation of church and state. I have no interest in telling any religious institution that they must perform weddings for gay and lesbian Americans, yet the tax-funded government should not deny equal rights to its citizens.

Re: "Observing all of the Bible," by Phyllis Guest, Thursday Letters.
There are two kinds of laws: those of God and those of man. The laws in the Bible are the laws of God, while the divorce law is a law of man.
However, though it seems to contradict biblical laws, the divorce law was written to keep from having to enforce the murder law so often. ("Thou shalt not kill.")

Re: "Sex, as God intended," by Sandy Miller, Monday Letters.
The Bible is an ancient book full of outdated spiritual laws. In the Bible, you can find scriptures that condone slavery. You can find scriptures that condone the treatment of wives (note the plural usage) as chattel. But there will always be hate groups ready to glom onto one of these antiquated notions when it fits their agenda.
In the 19th century, politicians pointed to the Bible to justify laws that prevented slaves from getting married. In the 20th century, they pointed to the Bible to justify laws against interracial marriage. Now in the 21st century, they are pointing to the Bible once again to keep loving human beings from getting married.
This makes the Bible look like an instrument of hate, not love.

Women as generals, priests
Re: "Diocese leaves Episcopal Church -- Five of 55 congregations plan to stay with faith after rift over female priests, gays," Sunday Metro, and "General gets her fourth star -- First woman to reach that rank is from military family," Saturday news story.
It is ironic that these two stories are neatly juxtaposed: Story No. 1 is about the Diocese of Fort Worth leaving the Episcopal Church over the issue (among others) of women being priests and bishops. Story No. 2 is about a woman being promoted to the rank of four-star general in the U.S. Army.
Will members of the Episcopal churches in Fort Worth refuse to recognize this woman's rank or perhaps move to a country where women are not allowed to hold high military ranks?
Are there no more important issues to concern Christians than women clergy and sexual preferences? It seems to give new meaning to the Bible verse: "Jesus wept."

Re: "Our direction as a culture," by Paul Kramer, Sunday Letters.
Mr. Kramer applauds First Baptist Church for taking a courageous stand against what he calls a chosen lifestyle.
Putting aside for a moment the fact that almost all respected people in the scientific community have stated that gays were born that way, people continue to infer that this is a chosen lifestyle.
Why would anyone choose to be discriminated against, lose his or her job for no reason other than whom he or she loves and all the other indignities gays are subjected to?
If it is a chosen lifestyle, then it stands to reason that heterosexuals must also chose.
After all, one can't be chosen and the other just random.
Jerry D. Teitelbaum, Duncanville

Re: "Diocese leaves Episcopal Church -- Five of 55 congregations plan to stay with faith after rift over female priests, gays," Sunday Metro, and "'Gay Is Not O.K.' sermon draws fire First Baptist pastor defends message that inspires street protest," Nov. 10 Metro.I'm so delighted to know that there are no homeless, poor, ill or downtrodden citizens left in North Texas.
Surely there are not, since the First Baptist Church of Dallas and the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth are now spending all their time and efforts bashing gays. This must mean that the more basic Christian mandates of helping the oppressed have been fulfilled -- right?
Jesus would be thrilled.

... and what they should say
On my way home from church this morning, I passed the Baptist church downtown. The sign out front indicated their sermon for that day: "What to say to someone who is gay."
As a Christian, I think you say: "Welcome and thank you for coming. We love you just the way God made you."

Re: "Minister preaches lust," by Meg Hillert, Friday Letters.
Apparently Ms. Hillert has never read the Song of Solomon chapter in the Bible. I suggest you read that before declaring that the Rev. Ed Young has preached "lust" and "heresy."

Tommy Nelson, pastor of Denton Bible Church, has a series on the Song of Solomon that you may want to obtain and listen to. God created sex between a man and a woman only, and only when they are married, and if your and your spouse are truly plugged into God's word, then and only then will anyone understand this subject.

Re: "'Gay Is Not O.K.' sermon draws fire -- First Baptist pastor defends message that inspires street protest," Monday Metro.
In an earlier sermon, the Rev. Robert Jeffress stated that Mormons are clearly a cult, destined for hell; therefore, Mitt Romney should not become president. Now Dr. Jeffress relegates homosexuals to the same destination.
He used his belief in the inerrancy of scripture to "explode the myth" that Jesus never condemned homosexuality, arguing that, although such condemning words never came from Jesus' mouth, he did say that he came to fulfill the law of the Old Testament.
So, Dr. Jeffress, do we now subject rebellious children to stoning? Do we stone prostitutes and adulterers? Do we bar illegitimate children from churches? While these and other atrocities are recommended in Deuteronomy, I don't believe Jesus supported such deeds when he said he had come to fulfill the law.
I am disappointed by your arrogant intolerance as you profess to preach the truth. I now fear the damage you will do to our community and beyond. What hatred you are spreading. What personal pain you are inflicting on gays who may feel conflicted. Who will be your next target? I fear that you are a dangerous man.

I don't buy the shunning
I know that Jesus loves all people, even the sinners. As a leader of a group of Christian people who are expected to reach out and spread the love of the Lord, the pastor of First Baptist has instead shunned people from his community of faith.
We live in an age of acceptance and advancement, but this sermon has darkened the doorsteps of Dallas in terms of acceptance just as Proposition 8 has put a slight damper on California.
We must accept our brothers and sisters. God intended for certain people to be homosexual to help us love all people. As one of the protestors said: "God doesn't make mistakes. I was born this way, and God loves me."

... but Bible says it's sinful
It is really appalling that preaching on homosexuality is being cast as a "hate crime" by the media. Homosexuality, like adultery, greed or stealing is clearly identified as sin in the Bible.
In Christianity, we love and pray for the sinner, but that doesn't mean we condone the sin. This is similar to a preacher preaching on stealing and having a bunch of thieves protesting out front with signs declaring that they're thieves, that's just the way they're wired and that we should accept them.
The sin of thievery is obviously different from the sin of homosexuality, certainly with respect to society. But in the end, to God, sin is sin, and while Jesus certainly welcomes and forgives all of us sinners, he also clearly wants us to repent and "go and sin no more."

Our direction as a culture
I applaud the First Baptist Church for taking a courageous stand on the homosexual issue. There is a growing tide of backlash, I believe, in our culture concerning this issue.
The protests over a church using its free speech rights only serves to point out the intolerance, bigotry, hatred and heterophobia that has become a hallmark of the homosexual agenda. The church is not out in the streets or the public, but within its own building, talking to its own congregants.
But the bigger issue here is not about a chosen lifestyle. It's about what we as a nation are going to use as the basis for making decisions about these kinds of issues.
Will we continue to look to the Judeo-Christian foundation of our culture for direction, or abandon that altogether and look to a morally relative, secularized paradigm? Under the latter, marriage could look like anything anyone wanted it to. It is truly a slippery slope.
Paul Kramer, Carrollton

Beyond a sermon
Re: "Pastor's opinion OK too," by Lynne Martin, Tuesday Letters.
I agree with Ms. Martin that "the pastor should be able to say his piece as well, especially in his own church."
However, what he said was out on the sign in front of the First Baptist Church for all to see and read. Under the sentence, "Gay Is Not O.K." was a reference to Matthew 19:1-11. In that text, Jesus answers this question: "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
In Jesus' answer, I saw nothing that had to do with being gay. In fact, Jesus deals with something that is a true threat to the sanctity of marriage and family -- divorce. He says, "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Re: "Just do it: Area pastor wants couples to have a week of sex," Wednesday Metro.
I can't believe this is happening in a supposedly Christian congregation. I thought we were supposed to preach Christ to a lost and dying world. I get my strength from my relationship with my Lord. The Bible says that the Lord will comfort us in all our tribulation. We are to have a loving and wholesome relationship with our spouses in every area and most of all a deep spiritual relationship. We do not need any more preachers carving out their following that are drinking their leaders' Kool Aid.

Keep sex talk to yourself
I was disappointed to see the article published regarding the Rev. Ed Young and his promotion of a week of sex for his married church members. If this is his advice I think it should be shared quietly with the congregation or a marriage encounter group.
I'm sick to death of our sex obsessed society and all the damage done as a consequence like unwanted pregnancies, disease and children trying to process mixed messages.

Re: "Just do it: Area pastor wants couples to have a week of sex," Wednesday Metro.
As an evangelical Christian that happens to attend a Baptist church, I never cease to be amazed at how we put our foot in our mouths and spout off such absurdity as the Rev. Ed Young is suggesting to his congregation. Yes, sex is a spiritual and emotional bond between a husband and a wife, but Dr. Young has cheapened the act to a marketing ploy. He said he doesn't need any more members, but his picture belies his statement.
I read about the outrage from area preachers because an evangelical church allowed a woman to preach. Will the same pastors come forth against a male preacher preaching from the pulpit on a bed?

What about the unwed?
Why should married couples have all the fun?

Re: "Just do it: Area pastor wants couples to have a week of sex," Wednesday Metro.
The Rev. Ed Young's call for his congregation to have sex for seven days straight, beginning on Sunday, takes all the spirituality out of church. I am no prude, but this sounds more like a message of lust than a sermon fit for the ears of his congregation, much less the kids in the audience.
If I ever hear a pastor speak such heresy, I will walk down the aisle and never look back. Be careful what you believe, because today, many churches are off message.

Re: "Pastor's opinion OK too," by Lynne Martin, Tuesday Letters.
Ms. Martin misunderstands the situation.
Protesters are not trying to silence First Baptist. There is no gay agenda, contrary to popular belief.
Every gay rights protest I have either been a part of or supported has been to raise awareness of the self-respect, value and dignity I achieved as a gay man and to share this proudly and in the open with my brothers and sisters.
While I agree that First Baptist has the right to gather and speak publicly, its interpretation is a life of fear, hatred and ignorance. They can count on one thing, though: They will always open the doors of their meeting hall to find the larger world outside.
There is a human family out here, and not all of it is based on the restrictive ideas of the First Baptist group.

... but gay sin does
Re: "'Gay Is Not O.K.' sermon draws fire -- First Baptist pastor defends message that inspires street protest," Monday Metro.
From the looks of the protest signs, it seems that gays don't have an understanding of why homosexuality is forbidden.
It's wrong for the same reason all of our sins are: God says it is. Gays are saying to God: "I refuse to be who you created me to be!"
They are no less lovable than our own sinful selves. Saying it's wrong isn't hating the person. We're to hate the sin only.
None of us can point a finger at anyone else and accuse. If we do, we can see three fingers on the same hand pointing back at us.

Re: "Pastor's opinion OK too," by Lynne Martin, Tuesday Letters.
I agree with Ms. Martin that a pastor should be able to preach what is in the Bible, and gays can't change the Bible.
But the Bible makes many assertions. The first passage cited on First Baptist's marquee for Nov. 9 was Matthew 19:3-6, which calls upon man and woman to be joined together as one flesh by God. The scripture continues, however, to name those who divorce and/or marry the divorced as adulterers. The scripture makes no mention of a hierarchy of sins. I await the pastor's denunciation of divorce.