Letters To The Editor

THE MEDIA

Notions bespeak a newbie

It’s been said that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but in Opinion editor John Webster’s Aug. 22 editorial, he’s shown he knows far too little.

Webster’s analogy of the Internet and the railroad system is a romantic literary device, but the Internet is not a railroad in substance, service or importance. The majority of the Net is hype, hoopla and commercialization. It’s a global cyberspace garbage dump where useful information can be found buried in the shifting heaps of digital debris.

The World Wide Web isn’t the whole Internet, only a small, albeit, popular segment of it. The Net is also Usenet, MUDs, BBSs, ftp, Telnet, e-mail, and more.

Microsoft Explorer and Netscape Navigator web browsers make it easy to cruise the Net, but intrepid Internet explorers opened the territory where the browser wars are now being fought. Many Internet users aren’t connected through a browser’s umbilical cord.

Microsoft is giving away it’s browser, but so did Netscape. That’s how Netscape captured its present major market share.

Bill Gates made a wrong decision a few years back when he decided the Internet would not evolve into the phenomenon it now is. So now he’s playing catch-up. That’s business. He may yet be right, and the Net’s decline could be as phenomenal as its rise. In the meantime, he’s playing the game and hedging his bets.

Microsoft could control the browser market in the future, just as Netscape has done for the past two years, but browsers aren’t the Internet. Content on the Net is what will determine its future. Russ Moritz Sandpoint

What about pro-life Democrats?

There is an expression some fans use at athletic events when an official seems to be favoring one team over another. They holler “We don’t care how you call ‘em, just call ‘em the same both ways.”

We hear almost every day in the media about the pro-choice Republicans. The closer we come to the election, the more we hear about them. But what about the po-life Democrats? Why don’t the media ever mention them? What about then-Gov. Robert P. Casey of Pennsylvania, a Democrat, not being allowed to address the 1992 Democratic presidential convention because he was pro-life?

So, media, we don’t care how you call ‘em, just call ‘em the same both ways. Jim Fry Pullman

ABORTION

Nosiness is our way - and it’s wrong

Jim Wavada (“Abortion for convenience,” Letters, Aug. 15) won’t presume to make judgment calls on women who have abortions, yet in the sentence before he says the majority of those who do are “single, white women who don’t want to interrupt their careers for the inconvenience of childbirth.”

How does he know what these women were thinking, or what their reasons were?

One of the major problems in this country is that people have yet to realize not everything is their business. Ours is a nosy society, which can easily be seen in daytime talk shows.

A woman has a right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. It does not matter if a woman has an abortion because she is too poor to have a child, is physically unable, has been raped, or simply does not want to have a child. The fact remains, it is the woman’s right to choose.

Wavada ends with “How sad for us all.” I have to agree. It is sad that people cannot learn to mind their own business. Jennifer Lindsley Spokane

Rape is justification for abortion

Marcia Rolland (“Republicans right about abortion,” Letters, Aug. 14) stated that rape is not as bad as murder and “guarantees” that women who have an abortion will regret it.

Obviously, Rolland has never been a survivor of rape. I have.

To compare murder and rape is like comparing apples and oranges. It is sad that especially here in Spokane this sentiment appears to be pervasive, since rapists more often than not get off with a slap on the wrist, if the case is not dropped altogether due to a technicality.

Rape is indeed tragic, and it does not stop once the actual assault is over. Rape is not as bad as murder? Rape only makes you wish you were dead! To carry to term a pregnancy resulting from such a trauma is beyond what most women can endure.

I did indeed think about the “lesser of two evils.” Would you believe that I prayed during that time?

I chose to have an abortion after the assault on me and I have never regretted it for a minute. Even though I neither was nor am proud of my decision, please consider the alternatives available to me: I already had a small child and was recently divorced. If I had had that baby, I know I would not have been able to give it up for adoption and would have ended up on welfare.

The decision I made enabled me to hold down a job, raise a child, further my education and remain a lawabiding, taxpaying citizen. Elke B. Zeerocah Cheney

TEACHING CREATION

Evolution is state religion

I am responding to the article about the American Civil Liberties Union attack on a Cheney teacher who is not comfortable with teaching only the state religion: evolution.

This religion, while masquerading as science, is based upon two articles of faith: spontaneous generation of life can happen, and one form of life can generate other nonbreeding forms of life.

Pasteur proved that the spontaneous generation of life is not possible, and there has been no experimental data that refutes his work. Likewise, no experimental data even suggest that one form of life can turn into another, only that life can change within species to adjust to environmental challenges. The adherents of the religion of evolution base their faith on a catalog of artifacts laid out by the faithful to “prove” that their faith is true.

The basic beliefs of the Judeo-Christian religion are compatible with science. The basic beliefs of the religion of evolution violates both scientific and mathematical truths.

It is easy to see why the adherents of evolution are so militant. Their faith implies that there must be a more highly evolved segment of humanity, to which they belong. Naturally, such superior people should rule over the less highly evolved. The Judeo-Christian faith believes that all men are created equal in the sight of God. Robert L. Dunning Spokane

ACLU practices subversion

If I was asked what factor has had the most negative impact on our society today, I would have to say the American Civil Liberties Union.

This organization has run rampant over our legal and social systems. Its continued interpretation of our Constitution has taken away rights that have governed our society since that document was ratified. It has been the foundation that has held this country together and made it strong.

One by one, the rights of parents have been jeopardized in the raising of their children. If not legally, certainly by expanding ideas that children should be able to govern themselves. Our school systems have had their hands tied time and time again by this organization, all in the name of our Constitution.

Our police forces have been handcuffed by interference from this organization over technicalities and rulings favoring criminals. These rulings, in practically all cases, make our police powers less effective. Not to mention the prayer in school issue and other decisions affecting our lives.

The ACLU can say it protects and preserves your rights and mine, but I feel my rights, and society’s, were much better off before this organization ever appeared on the horizon. James A. Nelson Spokane

ACLU position ‘absurd’

I found the statements by the American Civil Liberties Union, as reported in the Aug. 20, Spokesman-Review (“ACLU wants teacher moved or monitored,” Region) completely absurd.

I admit that I haven’t been in an eighth-grade class for 10 years, but I find it hard to believe that middle schoolers could be “indoctrinated” by a few test questions regarding creationism. It is far more likely that the questions would amount to little more than easy answers on a test.

Equally absurd was the ACLU’s statement that creationism would “diminish their ability to learn Earth science and … shattered the foundation for the students’ further science education.” Opposing theories and viewpoints have never destroyed a person’s ability to think or learn.

Rather, opposing viewpoints more frequently help people make rational decisions for themselves. Many articles have been written in The Spokesman-Review about the one-sidedness of the Republican Convention. Apparently, the ACLU would like our children’s education to be equally one-sided.

The ACLU felt teacher Aaron Mason’s clothing was inappropriate. When did wearing a shirt with Jesus on it constitute “crossing the constitutional line dividing church and state?” I suppose it might be argued that freedom of attire was not granted by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

If the ACLU is going to ask the Cheney School District to watch Mason more closely because of his shirt, maybe we had better find which teachers might be wearing crucifixes or other outward signs of religion. After all, that might “diminish their students ability to learn … and shatter the foundation for the students’ further … education.” Nathan Day Pullman

Teaching all viewpoints is proper

In the matter of Cheney Middle School teacher Aaron Mason and the American Civil Liberties Union, Mason receives this parent’s full approval for bringing up creationism in his Earth science class.

One thing was not clear from the article. Just how did the ACLU become aware of the content of Mason’s class in the first place?

I guess it’s OK with the ACLU if my children are taught that the universe simply exploded into existence and that man descended from apes. But it’s not OK to add another viewpoint? What about my civil liberties? What about my right to have my children learn creationism at school?

I thought scientific study was based on examining all the theories and then drawing a conclusion. Is the study of Earth science so fragile and narrow that it can’t handle another view?

I don’t complain about the teaching of humanism, evolution, etc., which are contrary to my beliefs. Instead, I spend time teaching my children to compare what is taught with what we, as a family, believe. If you don’t agree with creationism, explain your reasons to your children. Don’t limit free discussion.

Is the ACLU so afraid of us that they immediately “go to guns” and try to ban any viewpoint that doesn’t mirror their own? Isn’t that censorship, which I believe the ACLU is against?

Bravo, Aaron Mason! Connie L. Ruble Fairfield, Wash.

Teacher right to broaden scope

The Aug. 20 article regarding the American Civil Liberties Union’s wish to have a teacher moved or monitored due to his presentation of creationism disturbs me greatly. How many of today’s scientists have debunked evolution? Quite a few. It seems to me that there is no proof of our origin.

A true teacher would present all the leading theories to the students. The fact is, most public schools teach only evolution. Is this scientific? Maybe it’s your religion. After all, what is religion but a belief pursued with zeal and devotion?

Isn’t this a nation “under God?” Somewhere it is written, “In God we trust.” This nation was the outgrowth of the freedom to express our religious beliefs. Yet, the further we get from our roots, the more decadent we become.

Allow the students to see all sides. Then they can come to their own conclusions.

I applaud the teacher, Aaron Mason, for presenting more than one viewpoint. He is a much better teacher than most. Nancy L. Wilson Spokane

BELIEFS

Must the Christian mind be closed?

Boy, do I have some major political bones to pick with Scott Burkhardt (“Advice heresy, for a sick society,” Letters, Aug. 20).

People constantly use the argument that our country was based on Christianity to defend their views. Our First Amendment states that we can follow any religious creed, which includes atheism.

The phrase “Christianity and freedom” almost contradicts itself, as freedom of religion includes freedom from religion.

It is because of my numerous connections to the homosexual community that I can safely say you haven’t a clue regarding gay marriages. It never ceases to amaze me when religious conservatives write to the editor and, in God’s “guiding, loving and forgiving” name, attack homosexuals.

To clear up some confusion: Gays are not sexual deviants, they are not corrupting our youth and they are most certainly not a danger to society. They are simply people who choose emotional, spiritual and physical companionship with people of their own gender.

Seeing that the world is already overpopulated, I would think that your pious opposition to abortion would be countered with homosexual acceptance and support, as they are physically unable to procreate.

Although I am an atheist, I know that the New Testament speaks of unconditional love and eternal forgiveness. Burkhardt, in the name of your “loving and forgiving” God, open your mind. Zaza Varela Spokane

Articles of faith came lately

Scott Burkhardt (“Advice heresy, for a sick society” Letters, Aug. 20) uses the “one nation under God,” in our Pledge of Allegiance and the motto “In God we trust” in our coinage as proof of our Christian heritage. He will be surprised to learn that the “under God” was not added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, during the McCarthy era.

Incidentally, “In God we trust,” was not added to U.S. coins until the 1860s. Burkhardt should be thankful that the founding fathers of our great nation guaranteed to the adherents of all religions the right to practice their beliefs without fear of condemnation or abuse. Fred J. Meyer Coulee Dam

3rd LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT

Smith best choice for Legislature

Rep. Lonnie Sparks’ paying for placement of his yard signs is an example of the kind of shenanigans that give all people running for public office a bad name. When devious practices like this are uncovered, they are an indication of the character of the person involved.

I don’t want someone representing me in the Legislature based on their ability to buy an election, nor do I want someone who shows such contempt for other candidates.

Former House speaker Tip O’Neill’s book, “All Politics is Local,” points out the importance of knowing who you are voting for on a local level. It takes effort by the voter to learn about candidates running for local and state office, but doing so is as important as learning about those running for national office.

I urge everyone to take the time to learn about candidates. Invite them to your neighborhood and to your gatherings. Attend public forums.

You will find that Val Smith is by far the best candidate in the 3rd District, Position 2. She fought for 24 years to help children who are at risk for abuse and neglect. She wrote programs that are being used statewide to help these children and families.

Smith doesn’t believe in throwing money at programs, but knows how to use available resources to best advantage. Not only is she highly intelligent, her motives and integrity are above reproach. Maureen Peterson Spokane