Friday, January 09, 2009
Feeding the hungry is the nation's best defense
Letters to the Editor
Recent letters to the editor
- Letters: A home-school mom pays taxes, too
- Pick of the day: Home-schoolers reject public schools
- Pick of the day: Passing the buck won't stop abuse
- Letters archive
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
Feeding the hungry is the nation's best defense
What a thrill to see in Sunday's Roanoke Times: "Marines milk good will from gifts to Iraqi widows" (Jan. 4 news story) and to note that despite early "resistance from U.S. military officers and civilian officials involved ... objections evaporated when Maj. Gen. John Kelly ... signaled his support."
Giving heifers to those in war-torn countries has been the avenue of peace-making by Heifer International for more than 60 years. But long before the efforts of the Marines or Heifer International, the admonition has come from the Scriptures: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him a drink. You will make him burn with shame, and the Lord will reward you."
Isn't this really the perfect defense program?
Darwin's theory hasn't been proven
In his letter, "Excluding intelligent design is a matter of science, not censorship" (Jan. 6), Jason Martin stated: "belief in evolution does not require faith. It requires knowledge: a basic understanding of the scientific method and some familiarity with the scientific evidence that supports evolutionary theory."
Webster's New World Dictionary defines science as "systematized knowledge derived from observation, study." Some evolution within species has been observed, but there is no proof of one species evolving into another.
Martin himself uses the phrase "supports evolutionary theory." Webster's New World Dictionary defines theory as "a speculative plan." Darwin presented a theory of evolution in 1859 and it has never been observed or proven.
Many science teachers in high schools and colleges will not renounce the theory of evolution because their colleagues would renounce them and they could lose their jobs.
Yes, belief in God and creation is a matter of faith, but it is not a blind faith. When we look around in the world we live, it is easy to see that all this had to have had an intelligent designer-creator.
Lea prayed as the Bible instructs
Kudos to Vice Mayor Sherman Lea for invoking God and "the high and holy name of [God's] son" ("Council prayer stokes e-mailer's ire," Dec. 31 news story). He did exactly what the Bible teaches Christians to do. In Colossians it states: "And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him." Lea prayed just as Jesus instructed. Kudos also to the Rev. Harold Sumner for praying in Jesus' name ("Once again, in Jesus' name," Jan. 6 news story).
They did an awesome thing because they both showed that they are not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ or of Jesus Christ.
Brother Lea, don't step down just because your prayer prompted a protest e-mail from a nonbeliever; you are following in Jesus Christ's footsteps. You and Sumner are showing strength in Christ. Keep it up.
We, as Christians, are the body of Christ, and we need to stand as one and not back down from those who are offended. Jesus and his disciples didn't. We need more Christians like you who aren't afraid to stand up for what they believe in.
America needs to think about Jesus
Re: "Once again, in Jesus' name," Jan. 6 news story:
I'm not sure why everyone is so upset about the ministers' making reference to Jesus in prayers during city council meetings. In the Bible, Philippians 2:11 clearly states that every tongue will confess Jesus is Lord. Why not embrace it now?
I applaud these two gentlemen for not bowing to political correctness. It's time to get America thinking about Jesus again.
Look to Jesus' word on public prayer
Re: "Once again, in Jesus' name," Jan. 6 news story:
If you're looking for an expert opinion on the Roanoke City Council prayer disagreement, try this one from the Book of Matthew:
"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward."
Payday lending is unfairly demonized
Contrary to inaccurate portrayals of the industry, a ban on short-term payday lenders would hurt borrowers, especially those who are already struggling for access to credit in this tough economic climate, ("Payday lenders still prey on Virginians," Jan. 6 editorial).
A Dartmouth College study found that a 2007 ban on payday lending in Oregon hurt borrowers who were forced to turn to inferior substitutes like bounced checks. A recent New York Times Magazine article also noted that payday loans are a valuable financial tool offering easy-to-understand conditions, with "no surprises, no hidden fees" (unlike many banks, which are offering these same kinds of loans but without being demonized by media and political elites).
Borrowers are best served when they have more -- not fewer -- choices to pick from.
Center for Consumer Freedom
Make Israel give up occupied land
If Israel would stop stealing Palestinian land in the West Bank by dismantling its settlements and returning to the U.N.-agreed borders of 1968, Hamas would not have any reason to attack Israel with self-made unguided missiles.
Israel has refused to give up all occupied land since 1968 and has not let Palestinian refugees return to their land. Therefore, Hamas came into power as a desperate measure to prevent an ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians from their land.
How would we feel if we were occupied and controlled by a foreign power for more than 30 years and still find that our land would be taken away to build some foreign settlements?
The solution to this problem is for the U.S. to force Israel to dismantle all settlements in the West Bank and return to its 1968 borders. In return, the United Nations, including the U.S., would guarantee the security of Israel in the same way it has done in the Balkans. So far, Israel and the U.S. are refusing to let this happen.
The result is that the Muslim world hates us and creates terrorism. In addition, we have to fight Israel's wars, with many casualties.
U.S. is building its own house of cards
Re: "Congress assails SEC over Madoff," Jan. 6 news story:
A shyster like Bernard Madoff takes in money from one group of people and pays it out to others, rewarding them with big returns on their investments, counting on more money from still other investors to make good on his promises. Ultimately, his house of cards collapses, and he is arrested for running a Ponzi scheme.
The federal government takes in money from working men and women and pays it out to those who have retired, counting on future income from future workers to make good on promises to current workers, and we call it Social Security. But guess what? There are fewer and fewer workers to pay bigger and bigger stipends to more and more retirees. Anybody see a house of cards here?
Will someone please explain the difference?
