Letters to the Editor 10/4

October 04, 2000

Letters to the Editor 10/4

Cats, Dual a laughing matter

To the editor:

This is a letter I've been meaning to write for as long as I've been reading Tim Rowland's columns, and it took sitting down on my front porch this afternoon and laughing until the neighbors looked at me funny.

The column I'm speaking of is "Cruising and cats deserve consideration" in the Sept. 21 Morning Herald.

Tim Rowland has to be the funniest columnist I've never met. This column in particular made a hit with me because it deals with two of my favorite subjects...cruising the Dual and cats. Yes, the sign on Cannon Avenue has been gone for a long time, but I'm not sure how long it was before I noticed it, either.

Probably when the "new" left-turn lane was added I saw that the sign was no longer there, and since it seems to be such a tradition here for kids to cruise (not where I come from), I didn't see any difference one way or the other.


A better subject for me to discuss is cats, as I'm much more opinionated about cats than I am about cruising the Dual. If the cattery license is voted in for the welfare and safety of cats and to keep the neighbors sane, then I say go for it.

However, if it's one more thing being used to generate revenue (and what isn't?), I'd give it a second thought.

It is my belief that if one is to be a caregiver for multiple cats, then the means must be there for the proper diet, attention, regular veterinary care and love that these sweet animals deserve.

Tim, you're right as well as being funny. Cats are fine. If people would just shape up and take proper responsibility, we'd all be a little happier, including the cats of Washington County. A citizen may pay for the license for his/her 15 cats, but the kitties still might be sick and running loose.

I'm not so sure the license would make much more difference than the sign on the Dual Highway did when it comes to effectiveness.

This column deals with just a few of the issues in our county in a humorous and good-humored way, and made me think a little more about those issues. I laughed so hard while reading it, and it even had my cats howling. All six of them.

Sandra K. Warfield


Prayer is allowed, not religious endorsement

To the editor:

A Miss Kathleen Lynch on Sept. 26 raised some legitimate points concerning the U.S. Bill of Rights. I do not know what grade Kathleen has achieved, however, her inquiry appears sincere.

A number of states worried that the U.S. Constitution, as drafted, would open the door to a centralized government or tyranny.

The memory of the civil rights violations at the hands of the British during the Revolutionary War were of great concern. On Sept. 25, 1789 the 1st Congress of the U.S. proposed 12 amendements to the Constitution. Of the 12, articles three-12 were ratified, and make up the current Bill of Rights.

As to the First Amendment being invoked to support prayer in school, what type of prayer? Christian? Muslim? Jewish? Native American? Any of these would violate the "No law respecting (to esteem, regard, admire) an establishment of religion" clause. So which prayer, and to whom? And what about individuals who do not believe in prayer? Does the Bill of Rights apply to them?

Prayer and Bible reading were never removed from public schools and never should be. The ruling of the early '60s only prevented the government via the public schools from sponsoring or intervening in these religious matters.

The "Pledge of Allegiance" was written in August of 1892 by Francis Bellamy. It was the pledge recited by soldiers in World War II and did not include the phrase "under God." In 1952, an organization called the Knights of Columbus campaigned along with the American Legion to alter 178 years of history for a "religious version" of the Pledge. It was adopted on June 14, 1954, and became the first religious test for citizenship in the United States of America. A truly sad day!

William E. Pigg


A high price for failure

To the editor:

In a recent editorial, your paper discussed a study that found the Brady Law doesn't work. You argued that the study is not conclusive proof.

Perhaps you are right, but according to the Firearms Coalition, the cost of setting up the computerized background check system and operating it has already cost the taxpayers $300 million or more.

That's a high price for a system that appears not to have prevented any crimes, isn't it?

Doug Delmont

Waynesboro, Pa.

The Herald-Mail Articles