Letters to the Editor 12/09/2015

To the Editor:

Your historical review on the Islamic State was illuminating. For those who did not see it, I suggest turning to page 22 of last week's Nugget. What we see today in the Middle East is a repeat of what has taken place in the past - there are many similarities as were pointed out in the article.

You can go back even further to 1802-05 and the First Barbary War and read what Thomas Jefferson said about negotiating with the Barbary States. Jefferson basically said there was no negotiating with them because they quoted the Koran as giving them authority to "plunder and enslave" the infidels. Sound familiar?

It took overwhelming force to stop radical Islam in the past, and if we study history it is pretty clear that we must do the same again. This time however, we must combine the use of force with the moderate states in the area committing to remove jihadist teachings from all mosques and schools across the Middle East. We cannot have another generation growing up bent on death and destruction.

It will take removal of the jihadists as a viable role model, along with education and opportunity, for the next generation of Muslims to choose the path of peace. The U.S. has kept thousands of troops in Japan, Germany, and Korea, all of which are now safe and stable. We should expect to have to do the same in the Middle East.

The question is how much longer will we wait while this threat grows, gathers resources, and fresh recruits, before we put a stop to it? ISIS has seen a big increase in recruits because we allowed them to be successful. Conquering territory is a much better sales pitch for wannabe jihadists than the death and destruction they suffered last decade. The question is how many more Americans must die here in America before we act?

Carey Tosello

••••

To the Editor:

I would like to respond to Wendie Vermillion's letter of December 2.

The phrase "Separation of Church and State" is not found in the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights which are amendments to the Constitution. Rather, Article 1 of the Bill of Rights (1791) is a very clear definition of protection of religion:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The origin of the "Separation of Church and State" phrase came from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a church years after our Constitution was ratified. It was regarding the protection of religion that the church had from the government, but it has since been taken out of context for the exact opposite purpose. There is no such thing as "Separation of Church and State." The phrase has been used so many times that everyone now believes that it is true.

My second point is that I don't know who started this concept of everyone being included in everything.

I don't see Jewish or Muslim religions being required to be inclusive, just the Christian religion.

By definition, no religion is inclusive for everyone.

Each religion has its own beliefs and structure.

In this particular case, Christmas is actually a celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ.

It is a Christian holiday.

Since everyone is not a Christian, there will be people who do not join in the festivities.

A Christian holiday celebration would necessarily include Christian prayers, music and decorations.

I, as a Christian, am not offended by Jewish, Muslim or Hindu prayers or holidays.

I do not participate in other religious festivities, but I certainly think that they should have their own holidays and celebrations.

Now Christians are being told that they cannot say any prayers in public places. If someone just wants to celebrate Santa Claus or something else, they can, or they can avoid the entire celebration.

I loudly applaud the City Council's recognition of the "reason for the season." Although it is no longer popular to be a Christian, the religion still does exist and should be afforded the protection given in Article 1 of the Bill of Rights, as should all other religions. Tolerance is not just a one-way street, but is rather a thought process that allows for the expression of other people's differing opinions.

Sharon Thorkildson

•••

To the Editor:

I think it is wrong for a non-Christian to complain about a prayer for peace and goodness.

Many public gatherings have begun with prayer, both silent and vocal. There are enough really tragic things in this world to direct our displeasure towards. Instead of banning Christians from praying in the park, could a non-Christian simply acknowledge that prayer is a Christian's invitation for good to flourish in the world? Could a non-Christian not be kind enough to allow a Christian to pray with the people around them? Please invite good into the world in whatever way you choose to invite it, both publicly and privately.

Jodi Ford

••••

To the Editor:

My husband and I have lived in Sisters Country a mere 11 years, yet in that time I have seen big changes take place. One that has not changed - and should - was eloquently written about December 2 by Wendie Vermillion: the tree lighting ceremony.

In our diverse community, religion should not be part of a public activity. The pagan custom of evergreen use in winter long predates Christianity. Today it is a secular symbol of hope. Just as saying Happy Holidays recognizes people of all faiths or lack thereof, lighting our community tree should encompass all members of the community. It is not a war on Christmas, it is a recognition of our respect for one another.

Now, one change that should not happen: the parade. For several years after we moved here we enjoyed attending the holiday parade in Sisters. Where the Bend parade seemed to be mostly vehicles, the Sisters parade felt like a real country celebration with horses pulling wagons. What happened to that country atmosphere? Police and fire vehicles are exciting, but this year even some llamas (or were they alpacas?) were riding in a truck.

Sisters' old-time Western theme is being diluted and becoming just another city parade. It's too bad.

Carolyn Hammond

••••

To the Editor:

In last week's letters to the editor a writer felt the need to complain about the brief Christian prayer offered at the annual tree-lighting at Fir Street Park.

This lovely community event was appropriately presented as a "Christmas-tree lighting" as it is indisputably associated with our national holiday of Christmas. People are free to use Christmas as a secular "Winter Holiday" as they wish, but Christians for untold centuries have celebrated it as a joyful occasion to commemorate the birth of Christ. Thus it should be neither surprising nor offensive to anyone that a short Christian prayer was spoken. Given the growing modern culture of intolerance and hostility toward any public expression of Christianity outside of a church, perhaps the only surprise was having a citizen with the courage to pray aloud at the event.

No one was excluded from the event. No one was forced to attend. No one else was expected to pray, nor profess a faith in any deity, nor identify as Christian or non-Christian. The prayer (like the lovely carols that followed) was offered in the true spirit of Christmas. It was meaningful to the many Christians present; it was entirely harmless to all others. The writer alluded to the prayer's apparent affront to "diversity and inclusivity." Have we now arrived at a point where diversity and inclusivity demand the public silencing of even a brief and benevolent expression of Christian faith - simply because that faith is not uniformly held by every person present?

With our world besieged by horrendously offensive events and gravely serious matters, I have difficulty understanding personalities so sensitive that they choose to feel excluded, offended, or otherwise aggrieved by something as innocuous as hearing a prayer at a Christmas-tree lighting. Perhaps real-world problems are so overwhelming to contemplate that it's sometimes just easier to pick something trivial to fret about.

Bruce Williams

•••

To the Editor:

The fine folks of Sisters Country should be most grateful that The Nugget brought Dan Glode on as a columnist.

As a retired attorney and former Lincoln Country District Attorney, Dan has written a number of insightful, well-reasoned, timely columns dealing with the pressing issues of the day. He brings with him a deep understanding of both national and international affairs.

It is enlightening to be able to read his columns on a regular basis. I sincerely hope that the residents of Sisters Country pay attention to Dan's columns and learn from them.

Patrick M. Smith