News From Terre Haute, Indiana

February 17, 2014

Readers’ Forum: Feb. 18, 2014

The Tribune-Star

TERRE HAUTE — Founders were indeed ‘devout’

There are those who sell lottery tickets, who would have you buy a ticket because there is a chance of winning. They fail to tell you the odds of winning or at least downplay the odds to promote the sale of tickets.

It is this flawed reasoning and manipulation that leads to such statements as: “The Founding Fathers of this country were not devout in any of their faiths,” because of a small number who were perhaps atheists or deists. Then a recent writer goes on to say: “some were ridged fundamentalists.”

The College Edition New Websters Dictionary of the English Language defines fundamentalism : “A belief that the Bible is to be accepted literally as an inerrant and infallible spiritual and historical document.”

It is not a stretch to say that if they were ridged fundamentalists they probably were devout.

The reasoning presented in the recent letter is like saying: “black is white except sometimes it is black.” Getting back to statistics, why take an example of a few and make it the dominant relative truth when the total context of history explains the error of the manipulation and promotion of a deceiving agenda.

For instance, the Mayflower Compact starts out: “In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, … having undertaken, for the glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian faith, … a Voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politick, for our better ordering and preservation, and furtherance of the ends aforesaid.”

Not devout, really? Am I to believe that to risk everything for the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith is not a devout belief?

These brave souls were certainly committed and devoted.

What of the faith of the founding fathers? Two statements on the front and back of “By the Hand of Providence” by Rod Gragg give us a historical view of those who lived their lives during our founding: “How Faith Shaped the American Revolution” and from the author of “Forged in Faith,” comes the remarkable untold history of how the faith of our fathers critically influenced the outcome of the American Revolution and the birth of the United States of America.

If a person would take the time to study the lives of those who were influential in our founding he or she would see they were committed and devoted as in “Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence,” a reprint of an 1848 original.

It is hard for me to understand why the writer of a letter about same-sex marriage would use fill-up space to give our founders a black eye and promote a false assessment of historical truth.

— Stephen W. Stipp, Terre Haute

Firm definition is what we need

In reference to the ongoing debate concerning HJR-3 (marriage ban), the letter from Mary Rose Silva published Feb. 4 centers exactly on what this matter is about. In it she claims that the family tradition has changed, which is certainly evident. But to say “a husband, wife and two children do not describe a family” is nonsensical. The progressive agenda to dilute the family at its best. What are they then, a group of relatives just sharing a house? What exactly are we as a nation changing into.

However the real crux of the matter comes forward in her statement “people are not defined by their reproductive organs,” which presents the question “What?” When my children were born they were defined male and female by their sexual anatomy (or organs, as you state). I would venture to say the same applied at Ms. Silva’s birth.  

Using Ms. Silva’s position I envision a scenario where a child is born and the mother is told she has a new infant that possess the sexual anatomy of a male; however, we will not define it that way, but as maturity occurs it will decide which it prefers. As absurd as this sounds, it does strike a cord of reality in our changing world. One can also see a scenario where legal action would be necessary to define sexual identity.

If judicial action of this type falls into the hands of a progressive judge down the road. Who knows how he or she may find, and inflict their personal judgment?

HJR-3 would establish the law firmly.

— Bill Jaeger, Terre Haute

All handouts equal

Whether it’s TANF on the one hand, or CRP, BFRDP or the numerous other acronyms in place to guarantee prosperity on the other, welfare is welfare. Drug test a farmer or a rancher.

— Terri Smith, West Terre Haute