To the editor:
Re: Jan. 26 letters to the editor from Doug Parrish ("Age, not Wisdom") and Norman Reed ("Civil Rights"): Thank you gentlemen, for your rational, concise arguments against bigotry and ignorance. You renew my faith in sensible people.
Roberta R. Goodwin
Time is short
To the editor:
I've seen many letters to the editor on Christian issues lately and it seems good to me that people are thinking about their belief system. There are Christians condemning the sins of others and others condemning the critical nature of Christians.
All of you Christians out there - reread the letters to the seven churches in the book of Revelation.
Have you strayed from your first love? Have you grown complacent in your relationship with God?
We feel so secure in our homes and jobs; a lot of us don't feel the crushing need to turn to God every day.
How often do you pray or do the will of God? I worry more about us Christians that have grown lukewarm in our walk with God than I do about the people that don't know him at all.
We all need to turn back to our first love; the time is short.
To the Editor
In response to Eric Olson's reply to my Jan. 9 letter re: CalPERS Pension System:
I feel he must have misunderstood my statements. First of all, if a worker is an employee of a city, county or state, be they an educator, fire, law enforcement officer or maintenance worker, they are paid solely by taxes levied on residents of the city, county and state. I understand all these workers pay taxes, which help support pay and benefit packages. I understand CalPERS makes investments with its monies to sustain and grow their pension fund, but ultimately all money contributed to CalPERS comes from taxes. Cities, counties, or states never do jobs for profit, as does the private sector.
I stated that I'm not in favor of anyone losing their pension, but the private sector has made huge changes in funding retirements and CalPERS may have to do the same. Mr. Olson, I wonder how you feel about the auto workers at the big three? Should they be forced to take wage and benefit reductions?
I wonder if you sat in front of your TV and agreed that the auto workers should have their wages and benefits reduced to the levels Toyota or Honda pay - significantly less than they are currently earning?
Remember, Mr. Olson, I stated, "Everyone should realize that if wages and benefits keep going down in the private sector, eventually the people can't pay those taxes to support the public pension system."
We're all tied together in this funding mess, and it's all based on taxes to support every employee in any city, county or state job.
Dennis Del Corno
To the editor:
Proposition 8, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman, has created a lot of controversy in some quarters. Those who are angry with the people's decision on Prop 8 believe that marriage should have a broader definition. They say, "We are in love, and not allowing us to marry violates our civil rights."
If you broaden the definition of marriage, and say it can be redefined by groups to suit their perceived needs, then we may get polygamy, child marriage, group marriage and, logically, person/animal/object marriage.
Currently we have all sorts of legal problems with serial polygamy (multiple spouses, but just one at a time). If you allow any group to create its own definition of marriage, then all sorts of legal issues will come into play.
Marriage was originally created to offer special protection to a man and woman so they could raise children. Spouses who become parents share the awesome responsibility of creating a stable and caring environment for their children over many years. You are tinkering with the foundation of our society when you redefine marriage.
Gay couples can create documents to spell out health care and property rights, mimicking the legal privileges of marriage. However, I don't sense that is the issue. I sense a desire to have society publicly validate gay marriage as normal and equivalent to heterosexual marriage.
People may agree or disagree with that proposition, however we should all be cautious when opening the Pandora's box of redefining marriage.