Advertisement

Letters to the Editor - Aug. 2

August 02, 2012

Secular crowd twists words of the founders


To the editor:

The credibility of an article is accepted or rejected by the presentation of thought and facts (or lack of) along with objectivity and honesty. The guest column of Al Salter on June 27 ("Jefferson’s Own Words on Religion") is very suspect.

In my last letter a list was given as to what Thomas Jefferson as a Christian in government did. Salter did not refute that per se. What he did do was typical of the big guns of hate toward Christianity and a republic built on biblical principles and the Ten Commandments.

As said in the past, the secular humanists, atheists and all other groups that hate American heritage and Christians do one of three things: 1. Take quotes out of context. 2. Twist the meaning of the subject. 3. Or just make-up fairy tales by applying the first two.

The very first reference Salter uses, and I mean uses, to rebut Roger Stone and me is a partial quote that serves to enhance his flawed rhetoric.

The following also includes what was left out of Salter’s biased twist in the letter Jefferson wrote to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803. “My views…are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from the anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be, sincerely attached to His doctrine in preference to all others ...”

Jefferson was responding to his contemporary critics in his day and now is not here to defend himself from those that apparently desecrate him today.

Also, Jefferson wrote to Moses Robinson on March 23, 1801, from Washington, D.C., “ …the Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of its benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the driest expansion of the human mind.”


Phillip Snider
Martinsburg, W.Va.



Health care reform must be affordable


To the editor:

This is in response to Martha Burk’s letter to the editor on the court’s ruling on the Affordable Health Care Act. 

There’s an old saying, “Be careful what you wish for because you may just get it.” I’ve got two questions for you. What’s it going to cost and who is going to pay for it? The cost was first estimated at $900 billion, but has since been adjusted. They are now saying it could end up as high as $3 trillion.

As for who is going to pay for it? The taxpayers, of course.  Rasing taxes on the most wealthy won’t even begin to pay for this program, so look out middle class! Insurance companies are already raising their rates to compensate for the added cost.

Yes we need health care reform, but not the Affordable Care Act. Both parties in Washington need to work together to come up with some health care reform that won’t bankrupt the country.

 
Michael Karn
Hagerstown



Evolution that can be seen can be believed


To the editor:

I see that Russell Williams in his letter (July 16) claims that the mutation of staph bacteria into the MRSA version somehow validates evolution.

Like so many, he confuses micro-evolution with macro-evolution. I don’t think he can find any “creationist” who claims that mutations do not occur. It’s a fact anyone can see. What is contested, is macro-evolution which claims that species “evolve” to become new species — which we cannot see.

Williams claims that seeing penicillin introduced and then the mutation of bacterial resistance proves evolution. It proves only that there are excellent defense mechanism within all cells that attempt to preserve the species.

In the case of his MRSA example, he starts with a stapf bacteria and ends with a staph bacteria — what’s new? This is exactly what any “creationist” would expect to see and would gladly accept any new antibiotic that can overcome the new version of the germ.

In regard to his comments about loss of function by mutation he needs to look at the literature. Try the article, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations,” and “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution” found in The Quarterly Review of Biology Vol. 85, No. 4, Dec 2010, University of Chicago Press.

In a more popular format there is “The Edge of Evolution” by Dr. Michael Behe. He can see examples like the sickle cell mutation of blood cells in populations exposed to malaria that gives some protection, but at the cost of loss of function in the hemoglobin cells.

In all these cases what we see is the wonderfully complex design of the defensive and quality control systems built into all cells.

 
Richard Giovanoni
Hagerstown

Advertisement
The Herald-Mail Articles
|
|
|