September 99 letters to editor
11/5/99
I notice Pascagoula, MS has the Trent Lott International Airport. Does Mississippi have no military heroes after whom they can name their airports or other public facilities? Why would anyone choose to name this facility after a famous draft-dodger? I am strongly opposed to naming any public facility for any politician. Do we need a Constitutional Amentment to this effect? I am fed up with corroupt politicians building monuments to themselves at public expense. Furthermore, I think we should rename those facilities that now bear the name of a living politician.
Sincerely,
Carl L. Hess CW4, USA (Ret) Vietnam
Ozark, AL
When I was growing up in the 50s, it was extremely rare for buildings or landmarks to be named for living persons, and when it did happen, it was usually for a person who had already retired and was looking back at a lifetime of accomplishment. Unfortunately, once these obsequities towards the rich and powerful become ensconced in the behavior patterns of the population, it is doubtful that a constitutional amendment would remedy the situation. A democratic republic is possible only when persons are honored for their contribution to the good of the nation, and not simply because they have attained positions of power and influence. The latter practice more closely resembles a monarchy. --Ed.
11/8/99
I am not a Mississippi resident, but came across your editorial letters on this subject in an Internet search, and felt compelled to express my appreciation of your well-thought-out position. It is disturbing to think that many of our legislators, apparently now including Rep. Shows, do not understand the meaning and significance of social protest - and the freedom to engage in it - as a central part of the American ideal.
In addition to the sound arguments you made, it should be recognized that a move to ban flag-burning is fundamentally self-defeating. The nature of protest is that it offends, at least a selected group; that is its appeal. How could it be suggested that a way to reduce the incidence of flag-burning, as a sign of disrespect or outrage, is to say plainly, "if you do this, we will be offended"? Do the supporters of this move see some value to saying, "I just dare you to be rude to me"? Protestors who find this an attractive mode of expression are hardly going to react by saying, "oh, well, if it bothers you that much, I won't do it!"
Any legislator who can say, as in effect Rep. Shows has said, "I served in the military to defend whole-hearted patriots, but not to defend the rights of those who find something worth protesting," need to go back to school and re-read his Early American History. Madison, Jefferson, and Zenger would shake their heads in dismay at this perversion of what patriotism means; there is a reason why we are no longer British colonies, and it is not because we were afraid of offense to constituted authority.
I served in the military too, and it was not to defend anything so flimsy that it can be destroyed with a match.
Sincerely,
Steven Gruenwald
Hoffman Estates, Illinois
It appears that Representative Shows did not serve in the United States Military. John Peter Zenger was a colonial journalist who was arrested (and later acquitted by a jury) for critizing the governor of New York. Click here for more information on Zenger. The U. S. Supreme court in Sullivan vs. New York Times, 376 U.S. 254, 268, cited Zenger's defense. 17 Howell's St. Tr. 675, 721-722 (1735) --Ed.
11/8/99
Recently the Pope has called for stepping up conversion in Asia. The Pope said that religious conversion is a human right. "Just as the first millennium saw the cross firmly planted in the soil of Europe, and the second in that of America and Africa, so may the third Christian millennium witness a great harvest of faith on this vast and vital continent," the Pope said. The Pope said the Church acknowledged what was true and holy in such religions as Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam, but only Christ offered the way to ultimate salvation.
The advent of Christianity in Europe, Americas, Australia, and large parts of Africa and the Pacific led to the systematic and complete elimination of the pre-Christian polytheistic religions and cultures. Truly, the bible was exchanged for the native lands with the help of the gun.
Coming from Pope, the highest official of Catholicdom, this call to conversion is a Declaration of War against Asian culture, Asian religions and Asian society in general, and Hinduism in particular.
Mass-conversion to Christianity seeks to destroy the soul of Asia, transplanting an un-needed philosophy. Asia does not need any lesson in religion or piety from anybody. Why should one religion try to eliminate other through mass-conversions? Clearly, the Pope seeks to achieve religious cleansing of Asia. This malicious and predatory approach is highly immoral and unethical. What makes the Pope think that his is the only true religion? This is self-righteousness and intolerance to the extreme. He may have the right to believe so, but he has no right to organize a concerted attack on other societies to destroy their very nature.
Mass religious conversions have caused political partitions of many nations. The Pope will cause political unstability in Asia through mass-conversions. In fact massive and active conversion is akin to alienating the affections of one partner in a happy marriage. The worst thing about most of the Christian conversions in India is that they are influenced heavily by economic inducements. Under the garb of medical and social service, many Christian missionaries effectively blackmail poor people into Christianity. Whose God can be happy with such fraud?
The hypocrisy of Pope is really amazing. Last year during his Latin American tour, he had blamed the Protestant "wolves" of poaching his flock! The same Pope today claims that religious conversion is a human right. Well, does the Vatican recognise any religion other than Catholicism? Obviously the Pope wants a one-way street of conversion to Christianity.
While waxing eloquent about service and love, the Pope through his chauvinist and hardline theory of "only one true religion" makes it clear that the tolerance and goodness displayed by Hinduism counts for nothing. Hinduism is non-judgemental, and Hindus have graciously accepted the Christians amongst them. The Hindus simply ask the Church to spare them the fate of Europe and Americas. Satisfied with their religion, the Hindus do not like outsiders seeking to change their religious and political demography through orchestrated mass-conversions. But the Pope insists on mass-conversions. He leaves no incentive in being nice and accomodating.
If the Communists had been allowed to operate legally in the USA, they would have - through their zeal and trickery and sophistry - changed the very nature of the United States. The US did the right thing to preserve its inherent nature by banning the Communists outright. But the Hindus are willing to live with Christians. They ask for only one thing: that the Church not seek to eliminate Hinduism through conversions, thus changing India forever. The existing Christians can live freely without trying to convert others. Isnt guarding one's land, liberty and culture the most basic human right?
The Pope talks about "harvesting faith in Asia" as if the Hindus and others are mere crops, waiting to be cut off and stored in the elevator. Some may like being portrayed as a flock of cattle, but the Hindus dislike being shown as lifeless, immobile crops who can not protect themselves.
While attending an inter-faith meeting, the Pope talked about dialogue, understanding, and solidarity betwen religions. The next day he reverted back to his insistence on Christianity as the only true religion, and gave a call to convert Asia. This is hypocrisy and duplicity at its worst.
The Papal determination to eliminate Hinduism and Indian culture by converting masses to Christianity is barely one step short of medieval Talibanism. The medieval Islamists seek to eliminate the infidels through the sword; the Pope seeks to achieve this through mass-conversions. The end result is same in both cases.
The Western press is not playing a positive role in this whole episode. Invariably, the reports from the Associated Press and Reuters suffix the word "hardline" or "zealot" when describing Hindu groups which are resisting the Pope's attempts to take over their religion. Pray tell, shouldnt the party that says "only my way is correct" be described as hardline, zealots and fascists? Instead, Hindus who are ready to co-exist with others - without being gobbled up by others - are maligned.
In fact any group which claims exclusivity and believes that all others are wrong, and which on top actively tries to eliminate the other groups forfeits its claims to any special rights, privileges or tolerance from others.
The dire need of the hour is religious tolerance and co-existence. The religions may continue to believe in themselves, but they should not seek to destroy others. Any organized offensive on a religion will invite doom for everybody.
We all must realize that God is too big to fit into one religion.
Mac Kher
Bloomington IL