Letters to the Editor 04/02/2008

To the Editor:

My father-in-law is Bill Merrill, president of the Sisters City Council.

I have read of the "flag controversy," and I am hopeful an amicable resolution soon can be reached.

My letter is to address the criticisms of Bill. I have known him for 25 years, since he was active service military stationed at Ft. Irwin, California. I was the "liberal" Democrat daughter-in-law, surrounded by staunchly Republican Merrills. Over those 25 years I have grown not only to love but to admire and respect Bill. He and I do not always agree, which can drive my husband and mother-in-law crazy when we argue. But we always respect each other's opinions, and the right to express them.

Bill has served his country and community in many ways. From growing up in the military, to joining ROTC at Oregon State, to leaving his family to serve as a Green Beret in Vietnam as well as a year in Korea, to his retirement and working with the Central Oregon Retired Officers Association, Bill's military service cannot be disputed.

However, he does not rest upon those years of service and just play in his retirement but continues to give back in ways that benefit others. He regularly drove vets to Portland to the VA hospital, volunteered helping folks with their taxes, served on your land use planning commission and now serves on your city council, proving he is a man who takes public service seriously.

You do not have to agree with him. But you cannot deny that he exemplifies every attribute for which our flag stands.

Gretchen Gunn Merrill

•••

To the Editor:

The implicit value of the flag as a symbol is indisputable. Here in our community, however, we fall all over ourselves in our response to it. I believe that is because we are too focused on the symbol and not sufficiently on what it represents.

What the flag represents are values we too often and too much assume. We do not take the time to say what those values are, or, if we do, we do not often enough make the effort to be sure we understand those values mutually. We do not (it seems from the anguished statements we've seen in these pages) allow for differences supported by those values.

I mean the freedom to react to things in ways in which others disagree.

It seems there is no argument that anyone is opposed to the flag as the flag. The argument is about putting the flag up in one particular place. Does anyone realize how unfortunate the two sides get to appear in this arena of contention? The council has its obligations about the use of land in the city, about the costs of doing things with that land. To condemn the council over this issue is at least ill-conceived.

No one on the council, no city official has risen to condemn the flag or in any way to trivialize the role of the military which the flag, in this case, is meant to represent. To say anyone in authority is unpatriotic or un-American is to create emotional turmoil for no reason other than to evoke a need for retribution where, surely, nothing of the sort is needed.

I believe it is understandable that there are those among us for whom the flag is perhaps more than many take it to be as a symbol but is rather a powerful influence on experience and memory. For those who have fought in wars, for those who have lost loved ones in war, that is perhaps the case. That is something we should understand - so that when it comes time to work through these differences, we can find there is absolutely no need to deal from anger and defensiveness.

If out of necessity the flag cannot be placed where some want it, is that a reason for so much bitterness? Surely, there is nothing to argue against wanting the flag flown in a public place.

Some have proclaimed the flag is flown every day in front of their homes. That doesn't mean another flag cannot be flown elsewhere, of course. But as well, that cannot mean - can it? - that those who don't fly the flag before their own homes are less fervidly in support of the values it represents. To honor the values the flag represents requires that we honor and deal decently with those with whom we disagree.

Is it really unlikely that for an issue such as the one we are now finding so divisive, a meeting of the minds cannot take place? For the sake of our community, we must be as good as our shared heritage indicates we surely can be.

Richard Lyons