Letters To The Editor

BELIEFS

Faith enlightens in its own way

I wonder if the debate between the creationists and others is fueled by competing epistemologies.

The scientific method assumes knowledge is gained using the tools of observation, the senses. That the senses do not detect God for some reason means only that they cannot talk about God in a knowledgeable way. Relying on senses only has closed all other doors to knowledge, and the resulting ethic is ego-busting materialism.

But the creationists are trying to satisfy the senses with language that mimics the scientific method. Creationists need to stick to their guns, because the others backfire.

Jesus says in John 14:21, “He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me; and he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him, and will disclose Myself to him.”

This is the way to knowledge that is offered by God. First, we must humble ourselves and say, “Tell me what I must do.” Then, starting with ethics, we do what God has said to do. As a result, love is shared between ourselves and God. And as a consequence of that, God discloses himself to us. This is knowledge that we receive. Reason receives revelation.

What would our world be like if our knowledge of God came from our obedience to him? Try it in your house. You can change the world if you are willing to start with yourself. Paul E. Buckley Opportunity

Just know God loves us

Joan Harman’s letter on science without facts - creationism - was interesting but confusing. But then, I’m scientifically ignorant. That doesn’t stop me from having opinions.

I will assume the word “creationist” is a reference to Christians and Jews since she mentions the Bible. I think she’s right when she says, “Creationism as interpreted is conjecture.”

All Christians really know is the beginning of Genesis: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…” In the beginning of what? In Exodus 20:11, God says he made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them in six days. What was his clock? Our time is one of our dimensions. Is it God’s? How do we understand someone out of our time and space?

Harman could as easily say, “Evolution as interpreted is conjecture.” Evolutionists solemnly study rocks and the speed of light, carbon date and report it all as fact. What if their yardstick is wrong? What if the speed of light is variable? How about those quirky quarks? Physicists say they don’t “do right.” And how about that fascinating computer chip, DNA?

The more we learn the less we know. The universe is very delicately balanced. The impress of design is overwhelming.

It isn’t really necessary to know all about God. It’s just necessary to know he loves us, for some inexplicable reason, and he made the Earth for us. What a wonderful little spaceship it is. Winifred Edwards Greenacres

God’s word not hidden at all

Regarding Chris Farnam’s statement that “stupidity is clearly one of the reasons that priests kept the Bible out of the hands of the commoners for so many centuries” (“Thought processes are beyond belief,” Letters, July 9), I disagree.

Obviously, you aren’t aware of early church history. I’ll assume you know the Bible as a collection of New Testament Scripture came to us through the Catholic Church in 397 A.D.

Granted, commoners weren’t educated but they had a remarkable capacity to quote Scripture. Since they couldn’t read, they learned by listening and repeating stories word for word. This continued during the so-called Dark Ages. They also learned through plays, sermons, paintings, statuary, frescoes, hymns, poetry, stained glass windows and simple devotional books.

Having a Bible copied was expensive, so Bibles were chained inside churches for all to see. They were in Latin, the universal language of the church. Only scholars could read it.

Contrary to popular belief, the Bible was translated into the vernacular in Spain during the 12th century; into French, Italian and Polish during the 13th century. Moveable type was not invented until 1440 and the first Bible in Latin was printed in Germany in 1456.

I credit the priests and the religious of fostering the spreading of the good news. How can you think otherwise when you realize a vast majority of the people were Catholic? Does that indicate they hid the word of God? Carlo Ferraro Spokane

For meaning of ‘Christian’, see Bible

In response to “Shaping the word” (IN Life, July 13), it seems writer Richard Scheinin and many other are confused about the meaning of the word “Christian.” All people need to do to find answers to these questions is read God’s book, the Bible.

We first find the word “Christian” in Acts 11:26, where the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. These people were proud of that name because through no other is there salvation (Acts 4:12).

The Lord added these people to his church and they were baptized. If you are in Christ’s church, you are very special. Kevin B. Dahl Coeur d’Alene

‘Faith is essential’

Re: “Creationism science without facts” (Letters, July 13):

First, Joan Harman, even as you attempted to discredit the validity of God as creator of the universe, the very spirit of God himself caused you to write that “God can’t be proven, it’s a matter of faith.”

This statement is the very core of Christian faith, even as it relates to creationism. Christ himself says in Matthew, 18:3, “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” Faith is essential for reasons that I don’t have room to explain here, but in essence it has to do with the battle going on in the spiritual realm. I think the first chapter of the book of Job will help you understand more on the battle.

Second, you stated in error that dinosaurs and other such creatures are not mentioned in the Bible. Dinosaurs are recorded in the Bible (Job 41:1-34), as are woolly mammoths (Job 40:15-19).

Finally, as to the assumption that evolutionary theory is based on the evidence of fossil records and living creatures, here we’re putting our faith in man’s ability to actually correctly interpret the age of a piece of bone. In a few years, the conclusion as to the age of that bone, stated as “fact,” will change.

Me? I’d rather put my faith in the one who created man than to stake my very soul on man himself. The real irony is the “fact” that evolutionists were created! Larry R. Crigger Cataldo, Idaho

PEOPLE IN SOCIETY

Large people endure big injustice

The article about “The Nutty Professor” and its treatment of large people struck a nerve with me (“Nutty not nice,” IN Life movie review, July 16).

I haven’t seen the movie but I have been fighting being overweight most of my life. I was born large, nine pounds eight ounces, in 1954, the fifth of six kids. Five out of six of us had problems with weight so there is some basis, to me, for genetic component.

In our thin-obsessed society our treatment of large Americans is appalling. As a child I was subject to taunts and jeers. It became the only constant as I grew up. Only recently have I overcome the bitterness this made me feel. Even now, people feel an inalienable right to dismiss a large person’s testimony or worth with a flippant fat joke.

The way I chose to deal with it, initially, was by fighting back. I became Don Rickles. Everyone has weaknesses, you know. I developed an adversarial relationship with life and became the very people I loathed. Now that I know that tearing down others does nothing to help me, I have finally given up the anger.

Before you engage in the ego-bashing practice of tearing down other people based on their size, come to terms with your own anger, limitations and problems, then bite your tongue. Take malice out and put love in. Gregory P. Hande Spokane

Fast food workers get no respect

Staff writer Jonathan Martin, in his article, “Jobs program with a future,” relates how, with assistance, a 16-year-old mother of two struggled through high school and work on three hours of sleep each night and is now enrolled at Washington State University on a full scholarship.

Elizabeth Daniels deserves praise and honor for doing such a feat. Seafirst is to be acknowledged as the originator of an excellent program.

So why does Martin dump on fast-food workers? Daniels had “determination that would have been wasted flipping burgers.” She is quoted as saying, “I want to be a lawyer.”

Why should society in general, and The Spokesman-Review in particular, give more prestige to a lawyer than a fast-food counter person? The answer is, of course, the amount of money each receives for services rendered. Sad. Both jobs are work, and as such, each has its share of dignity.

The sooner our newspapers refrain from publishing derogatory remarks about fast-food workers, the closer society will come to acknowledging the true dignity of this type of work, and work in general. Richard Kane Spokane

Rodman is not a bad influence

I am responding to R. Hauenstein’s ignorance of Dennis Rodman (“We’ll pass on the McSleazeball,” Letters, July 14).

Rodman is very colorful. At times he seems eccentric and has a few habits you or I may not join in. But that doesn’t change the fact that Rodman is honest, unafraid to be himself, has displayed integrity and appears secure as an adult male. Not everyone strives to be an everyday lemming, following society’s prescription for normal or mainstream. Thank goodness God made us all different for a reason. He also gave us the power of choice and our own opinions. We as Americans are free to say or do what we think is appropriate without censorship.

I noticed that Hauenstein could only refer to Rodman’s “flamboyant, bad-boy antics.” Maybe he doesn’t know of philanthropic deeds Rodman has done. Maybe he hasn’t heard the stories of homeless, hungry people Rodman has fed, clothed and given a warm bed to. There are many more he has helped, too numerous to mention. But because the media don’t hype those noteworthy events nearly enough, I’m sure Hauenstein wouldn’t know about them.

That’s the type of role model I want for my daughter. I believe it teaches love and compassion, not prejudice and hatred for someone who is different.

Maybe if more stories were told, more often, we would feel more for our brothers and sisters, less fortunate or not.

Hauenstein, I firmly believe in the old adage: Don’t judge a book by its cover. Anita Edgerton Spokane

THE ENVIRONMENT

Contradictions most revealing

John Griffith’s Street Level column of July 14 (“Real idolatry is profit worship at a dollar-green altar”) is rife with flaws and distortions.

First, he offers an incomplete definition of pantheism. He should add that there’s no God the creator, only the universe’s components and their occupying gods.

His premise that conservatives view all environmentalists as pantheists is hyperbole at best. Only those radical environmentalists who wish to lock away or “protect” resources or wildlife as if these things are worshiped gods, like the white cattle of India, are viewed that way.

He complains about environmentalists being demonized as pantheists and compliments capitalism. He demonizes “pantheist” capitalists and the “worshiped” free market as he touts his studies as a business major, while showing his true socialist colors.

In Griffith’s world, the marketplace must always be a nice place where those pesky forces such as productivity, supply and demand and individual differences are subordinated to everyone’s right to acquire wealth, while our resources are locked away for us to admire from afar, even as dense stands of trees burn and rot.

One of Griffith’s most revealing statements was, “The only business of business is to make money. That’s why we need government.” What does that mean?

Perhaps a more truthful second sentence would be “that’s only how government can exist.” Government must confiscate its means through taxation. Business creates it through invested wealth production. All tax dollars originate in the productive private sector.

The idea that (radical) environmentalism is the new home of “voodoo economics” socialism has a lot of truth to it. Jeff Schaller Pullman

MARIJUANA

Reconsider foolhardy ban

What do House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Vice President Al Gore, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala and President Bill Clinton have in common, other than occupying prominent positions in the U.S. government? They have all admitted to having experimented with marijuana at some point in their lives.

It’s time we put to rest the myth that smoking marijuana is an activity engaged in only by those on the margins of American society. In reality, marijuana smoking is extremely common, and marijuana is the recreational drug of choice for tens of millions of mainstream, middle class Americans.

According to recent data from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, an estimated 71 million Americans have smoked marijuana. Many successful business, professional and political leaders admit they have used marijuana. Therefore, we must begin to reflect that reality in our legislation and stop acting as if otherwise law-abiding marijuana smokers are part of the crime problem. They’re not, and it’s absurd to continue to spend law enforcement resources arresting them.

Marijuana smokers are no different from their nonsmoking peers, except for their marijuana use. Like most Americans, they are responsible citizens who work hard, raise families, contribute to their communities and want a safe, crime-free neighborhood in which to live.

To spend federal time and money seeking, arresting, and jailing these individuals is a misapplication of the criminal sanction which undermines respect for the law and inappropriately extends government into areas of private life. Tom Hawkins Coulee Dam

Hemp bonanza selfishly suppressed

Hemp is the future. Food, fuel, fiber, paper, textiles, medicines, plastics and building materials are what hemp is about, just for starters. Other countries are moving ahead with what for thousands of years was the most valuable crop.

And us? The villainy of Hearst and duPont and their henchmen remains strong, capitalized on by profiteers of even greater power.

Vast profits of empires such as big oil, timber and paper, pharmaceuticals and petrochemicals would spread to farmers, entrepreneurs, small businesses, rural communities - would spread to the people. Hemp means jobs. And hemp means widespread decentralization - the greatest fear of the entrenched power structure. Those powerful people have such political influence that re-legalization of hemp will never come from the top down. Never.

A bright note: The Navajo in March planted on their sovereign lands the first industrial hemp crop this country has seen in over 50 years.

Learn about sustainability, about thousands of quality products from one environmentally friendly source. Hemp will be a boon for the people, so the people will have to fight to get it back.

Hemp will serve us again only through the efforts of people like the Navajo. People like you and me. Rand Clifford Spokane

IN THE PAPER

Basketball event undercovered

I watched in awe recently as team after team of athletes walked into Riverfront Park from the Trade Center.

AAU National Basketball had arrived in Spokane. There were hundreds of basketball players from all over the country here to compete in a tournament that had not been held in Spokane before. Andrea Lloyd spoke and signed autographs for the players and audience.

Then later, I looked in the Sports section for coverage of such an event and found nothing but the schedule of games to be played.

Spokesman-Review, you dropped the ball on a positive event of these many young people. Linda Maas Spokane