Letters to the Editor — Church-State, Death Penalty, Homelessness, Abortion, Cornyn, Vice President

Church or state?

Subject: “What Jesus Said,” by Mike Brock, letters dated June 23.

In his letter, Brock rebuked Governor Greg Abbott, Attorney General Ken Paxton and U.S. Representative Lance Gooden for failing to follow Jesus’ words to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty and shelter the homeless.

Given the church-state controversy surrounding the display of the Ten Commandments in classrooms, I wonder if Brock hit the nail on the head or inadvertently bruised his thumb.

Is it the responsibility of the Church or the State to follow the words of Jesus and thereby fulfil the obligation, responsibility and duty to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty and shelter the homeless?

Ted Gold, Plano

How about science in Sunday school?

The Ten Commandments are now required by law to be posted in every public school in Louisiana. In addition, the governor of Oklahoma has proposed that the Bible be part of the curriculum in the state’s educational system.

Given the increasing blurring of the lines between church and state, I think it is fair that for the foreseeable future, or until the federal courts put a stop to all this nonsense, math and science should be taught in every Sunday school.

Bob Ory, Chicago

Abolish the death penalty

Common arguments against the death penalty:

1. Human rights: The most fundamental of all human rights is the right to life.

2. Constitutional and legal: Executions are clearly cruel and are becoming increasingly uncommon.

3. Logical: Executions as a method of teaching the inappropriate evil of murder are obviously illogical.

4. Conservative, Libertarian: No government should be given the overly broad and unnecessary authority to execute citizens.

5. View from the future: Executions are considered slavery, Jim Crow, the denial of universal suffrage and sodomy laws are today.

6. Religious: The premature termination of a life represents a violation of God’s prerogative to give and sustain life.

7. Economic: The financial costs of the legal process in the context of a fully completed enforcement are exorbitant.

8. Lack of positive arguments: There is no credible deterrent mechanism and no lasting benefits for the mental health of the victims’ families.

Donald Frank Dillard, Duncanville

Promoting the common good

Subject: “Cities’ homeless ordinances upheld,” Saturday news report.

Here we go: In conservative America, it is a crime to live in poverty. If you are so destitute that you cannot afford an apartment and the city does not provide you with alternative housing, the city can arrest you and fine you hundreds of dollars.

How is this to be understood? How can this be compassionate when more and more people are being forced out of their homes? “Not in my backyard” means that you don’t want homeless shelters in your neighborhood and cities don’t want to provide housing budgets. How does this fit with the Constitution’s obligation to promote the “general welfare” of citizens?

Steve McCluer, Far North Dallas

Fairness for all

“Rethink the Abortion Question,” by Marilee Hayden, Saturday Letters.

Hayden makes an excellent case for review; thank you. It’s sad that we have to remind our representatives to be fair to all of us, not just some of us.

First of all, who do we want to protect through our laws? Everyone alive today seems like a good choice. Those who have died before us no longer have the right to vote; those who are yet to be born will have their chance after birth. Our responsibility towards these future citizens is limited to not ruining the environment so much that they have no chance of a decent life.

When should laws be applied? When the law is broken. Who should suffer the punishment for breaking the law? The offender, if found guilty by a jury of their peers. The current law banning abortion cannot be fairly enforced, but it is the law. It punishes the health care provider and arbitrarily removes their oath to “do no further harm.” This makes all doctors and nurses potential criminals. Is this what we want from our society?

Who should make the law? Our elected representatives, but with due care and attention to those who best understand the consequences, such as our doctors and nurses.

Ray Johnston, Heath

Cornyn’s Paradox

Subject: “Security for judges – Cornyn proposes center to monitor threats to the judiciary at state and local levels,” Saturday article from Metro&Business.

While U.S. Senator John Cornyn is sponsoring a bill to address the “increasing number of reported threats and attacks on judicial officials,” he is supporting the likely Republican nominee who has insulted judges in his own cases and continues to do so.

It seems as if the senator is suffering from cognitive dissonance.

Hans F. Voorn, Frisco

We welcome your opinion in a letter to the editor. Read the guidelines and Send your letter hereIf you have any problems with the form, you can send it by email to the following address: [email protected]