Advertisement

Letters to the editor

January 28, 2004

A great idea


To the editor:

In his letter to the editor on Jan. 18, Ty Unglebower states that he wants to raise the minimum wage, and wants to make this a key part of his campaign for Maryland's 6th Congressional District.

Sounds like a great idea, but why not something more effective like $10 an hour? Surely that would make life so much easier. But if that much would be a significant boost, why not really make a difference with $20 or $30 an hour? Think of all the good this would do for those who really do work hard and deserve to be rewarded accordingly.

Now, if Ty wants to be downright revolutionary, he should propose legislation for a minimum wage of $100 an hour! That would be a bold stroke and would easily result in his election, because most people truly are concerned about low-income workers and want to help them ease their plight and thus would side with Ty.

Advertisement

This would be a wildly popular idea, and, because of the nature of social and economic strata, many more people are currently in the lower-income brackets than in the higher, and you'd no doubt get most of their votes this way. You would trounce your opponent, who inexplicably hasn't thought of such a courageous and vote-producing move. While I am pleased to freely offer this advice, I in turn ask Ty to explain something I didn't understand in his letter to the editor.

Why would raising the minimum wage "be hard at first for employers" as you stated? It seems to me that all they'd have to do is lay off some employees and they could easily make up the shortfall due to increased labor costs. The workload that had been met by the laid-off workers could easily be spread among the remaining employees.

Morale would not be a problem since who would complain about a little extra work when you're getting so much more in your paycheck each week? If, however, for whatever reason an employer cannot get by with fewer employees, he or she would still not have much trouble making ends meet because they could simply raise prices on their goods and services. With no one making less than $100 an hour, paying the resulting across-the-board higher prices would not be a problem, would it?

Tim Hoover
Hagerstown




Sin not endorsed


To the editor:

I am responding to Martin Gallagher's letter (The point of Christianity is inclusion, Dec. 21). While he has some impressive theological training, I am concerned about his apparent misunderstanding of New Testament grace.

Yes, Jesus did minister to the "sinners" and the outcasts of society. However, he never endorsed their sins. He extended forgiveness to them, and then expected their lives to show the results. In his encounter with the woman caught in adultery, he forgave her and then told her to "go, and sin no more."

Gallagher draws the wrong conclusion from there being no mention of homosexuality in the gospels. No mention was made because it is addressed elsewhere and Jesus still feels the same way about the misuses and perversions of his gift of sex to married couples. The apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, made this very clear in Romans chapter one.

Moreover, in his first letter to Corinth, he spoke much against carnality in the church, specifically mentioning sexual sins. Both testaments are unified on this issue. Yes, New Testament Christians have been freed from the slavery of the law. It is important to understand that the law never brought salvation. No one could ever keep it completely.

Paul taught that the law shows us our sinfulness, and the resulting need for the savior. Numerous passages in the New Testament mention the positive change in the life of a Christian after salvation. God begins the process of cleaning up that person's life for his glory. The Bible gives us instructions on how to conduct our lives, which of course includes morality.

God wants us to have a good Christian testimony. Any Christian cooperating with God in this sanctification knows this is an integral part of the new life of belief in Jesus. This is actually the opposite of relying on the law. We are not saved by good works; instead we are saved unto good works. This is a vast difference. We follow his commandments out of love and gratitude.

It puzzles me when some professed followers of Jesus mention "the ways to the well are numerous." Jesus and Peter directly refuted that. Is anyone calling them liars? If not, then why negate their obvious teachings by embracing some of the Biblically unsound views of the skeptics.

Steve Hluchy
Hagerstown




Animals suffer


To the editor:

I have written many articles and letters to the editor warning people of the horrendous event domestic animals go through when they are put to sleep by injection. Yes, I know, you don't want to read or hear about it.

The Herald-Mail Articles
|
|
|