Letter to the Editor

Letters to the editor

Friday, July 8, 2005

Stolen sign

Dear editor:

To the person that was observed stealing our "Classic Car Drive" road sign on Monday, June 30, keep it and risk prosecution or put it back where you got it.

Bob Hutchison


On the Ten Commandments rulings

Dear editor:

The "good ship" S.S. Bog set sail last week when the Supreme Court rendered its opinion on the Ten Commandments cases from Kentucky and Texas. In Kentucky, the Ten Commandments had been displayed framed like a picture. The Court said it was illegal to display the Ten Commandments in this way at a government facility. In the Texas case, the Ten Commandments were on a monument that had been displayed for some time. In this case the display was legal. On a radio talk show I listened to, someone used the names of the five justices who rendered the majority opinion; (Souter, Stevens, Briar, O'Connor and Ginsberg) to form the name of a fictional ship to describe how the Supreme Court's opinion is stuck in judicial tyranny.

With Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's resignation on Friday, July 1, a new justice will need to be appointed by President Bush. If you would like to express your opinion for a liberal or a conservative judge call the White House comment line at (202) 456-1414.

Kay Wilson


What's in a name?

Dear editor:

Anyone who has read my recent letters knows that I have desired to raise some positive discussion about Bushwhacker Days and the Confederate Flag. Often people fail to communicate effectively because they view one another from an extreme mindset that limits perspective. Certainly I believe there are absolutes in life, morality and conduct. But I also believe that fear, misunderstanding, and apathy have upheld long-standing partitions isolating race and culture and retarding reason, change, and progress.

Frank Carlton has defended his position about Bushwhackers from several moot points that I won't waste my time addressing. To make such concise separations between the Civil War and slavery is positively "bushwhacky." Whatever interpretations one may have about Abraham Lincoln's views make no difference to the fact that Bushwhacker Days (by that name) and the flag are affiliated with the Civil War and division. What morally conscious person cannot see those ties?

Many of Lincoln's comments can be twisted to sound as if he were in favor of slavery. His main focus was for preservation of the Union. However, he knew that the slavery question was the factor that would either preserve, or rend it. "Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man's nature -- opposition to it, is in his love of justice," he said.

And in addressing the Nebraska law he said again, "... there can be no moral right in the enslaving of one man by another."

I'm afraid embracing one's heritage with tunnel vision has made some folks quite short sighted in their view of our history. I love our country. I believe it's the greatest country in the world and that God has shed His grace upon her to be an example of unity in her diversity. I consider anything symbolic of her division to be an insult as an American and an insult to God's craftsmanship.

Frank Carlton says "there are those offended by my being a Christian and most likely some race, gender or creed takes offense at my Scots-Irish ancestry." I suppose he is attempting to make it sound like my argument, once again, is "imposing my will on others."

And although I can see (somewhat) his point I feel that it is the kind of extreme mindset that I mentioned above -- one that says, "If Bushwhacker isn't safe --what is?" As a Christian one should realize the Bible says that Christ was sent into the world to reconcile all people to God (2 Cor. 5:18) and if one embraces Christianity one knows that Christ has given all believers the "ministry of reconciliation." I am a Christian myself, and in view of what I feel the Confederacy stood for, it seems that Jesus and Bushwhacker, or Jesus and the Confederate flag, are opposite philosophies. Making the leap that we are dishonoring our ancestors if we admit past fallacies is the most absurd and broad stretch I've ever heard of.

Martin Luther King Jr. warned white churches that if they remained silent and refused to make a stand for equality that they would pay a high price for it later. He said the church was not to be the "master or the slave of the state" but rather the "moral conscious." During his time she failed. I believe that "morality" has fallen to the hands of political leaders since then because the church didn't stand and declare that all men are created equal. I fear in many instances regarding racial issues she still sits.

About Frank Carlton's "Scots-Irish" ancestry, would he be offended if we flew flags that symbolized the beating, murder, rape and sale of his ancestors? From his declaration "so what if it offends someone of another culture," I assume he would not.

Shannon Harwell