Letters: "Muslims could learn from Wal-Mart's example" and more

letter writers By letter writers The Kalamazoo Gazette
on September 09, 2010 at 8:00 AM
ground zero mosque supportersMatt Sky, right, and Julia Lundy, center, explain their support for the proposed site for an Islamic cultural center to a man who was walking in New York.
Muslims could learn from Wal-Mart’s example

The people who are against the Muslim mosque being built close to the place where the towers went down, have they checked the list of the people who were killed?

I know there were some Muslims who worked in the towers and were killed that day, too, so why can’t they build a place to worship where they want it?

Is this still America? Who is making all the laws?

Maybe Wal-Mart should try to build on the lot in New York where the Muslims want to build. Nothing stops Wal-Mart when they want to build. Would that make folks happy?

Jackie Beeman/Portage

Women’s role is clearly defined by the Bible

I read with sadness the Gazette article, “CRC Synod rejects request related to ‘women’s ordination’.”

I was a member of the Christian Reformed Church for more than 70 years and just recently left that denomination because the church I was attending voted for women elders. (In preceding years they had voted against them twice).

Although the synod preferred to call it the women’s issue, according to the Bible it was the “headship” issue. In Genesis 3 :16-19, after the fall, God set forth the responsibilities and roles of both men and women. They were carried out in the Old Testament and reinforced in the New Testament. Jesus called 12 men disciples and the leaders of the New Testament Christian church were all men.

The issue was never about women serving. In my former church there were more women in nonheadship leadership positions than men. The headship principle applies to both the church and family.

This issue was started by those for “women” more than 50 years ago. It became the most divisive issue ever in the CRC. So much so that, along the way, thousands of church members and some churches left the denomination, which I believe, in the long run caused the majority to become the minority, and the former minority won the battle.

The synod ruled for women headship but came up with a compromise to allow individual churches that chose so, to remain against it. The request was to join a class that was not divided but like-minded. Which evidently seemed like a reasonable and wise request to those who issued the majority report.

I was particularly confused by the reasons given for rejecting, mind you, the majority report recommendation. After years of the world observing the division this issue caused in splitting the CRC denomination they are now worried about what the world thinks? To separate will make the churches feel better?

People who will travel many extra miles to support their doctrinal beliefs are not doing so just to make themselves feel better. I would rather believe that they are showing how much they value what they believe. What good is in depth passionate discussion when the end result is always majority driven? I don’t see a paradox in this request at all. (Isn’t this the same unity called for by the synod after the vote for “women ordination”?)

As far as biblical unity, Amos 3:3 asks: “How can two walk together unless they agree?” Where can you do God’s ministry most effectively, working with those you agree with or disagree with?

It reminds me of a recent local issue, with “Martha’s Table,” (different issue but same principle). After much criticism of the churches who pulled out to the effect that they did not care about the poor and homeless, we find they are not only feeding the poor but joining a Christian organization, the Kalamazoo Gospel Mission, who is spiritually like-minded, with the opportunity to also minister to people’s spiritual needs.

How do tried-and-true biblical doctrines that have served the church denominations and God so well over many years get changed? God and his word do not change. Our culture is in constant change. Case in point is the Methodist problem with “reconciling.” It is man’s effort to reconcile God to our humanistic sinful culture instead of reconciling that culture to God and his word.

I applaud Rev. Michael Pinto for his excellent explanation of “reconciliation.” The Bible exhorts us to be reconciled to God. Romans 12:2 says: “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is the good and acceptable will of God.”

Hugh Meints/Lawton

Ultimate Family Reunion was euphoric event

I was dignified and fulfilled by the opportunity to participate in the Mothers of Hope recent Ultimate Family Reunion at Spring Valley Park.

To witness and be a part of community fellowship and benevolence on such a grand scale was euphoric and inspiring.

I personally commend the Mothers of Hope, volunteers, contributors, sponsors and the city of Kalamazoo and its citizens for a job well done. I look forward to returning next year.

Beryl Wilson Jr./Ellenwood, Ga.

Give youthful offenders a second chance at living

Did you know that if a juvenile is found guilty as an adult in Michigan, the current mandatory sentence is life in prison without parole?

The passage of House Bill 4594 would give courts discretion to place youth on probation, to sentence them to rehabilitative services or to impose a sentence as an adult. It would also abolish the sentence of life without parole for juveniles. HB 4594 would not release any prisoners; rather it would ensure the opportunity for inmates to present their case to the parole board and possibly earn a second chance at life.

The United States currently has more than 2,500 people serving life without parole for crimes committed as a minor. Michigan has the second highest percentage among all of the states with 346 juveniles serving life without parole.

International standards prohibit the sentence of life without parole. In fact, all countries except for the United States and Somalia have ratified the Convention of the Rights of the Child which prohibits a sentence of life without parole.

Youth are fundamentally different from adults in many ways. Research on brain development suggests that brains continue to develop into the early 20s and, as a result, teens are incapable of thinking like adults. Youth do not have adult levels of judgment, impulse control or the ability to assess risks.

Placing children in adult prisons can cause both physical and psychological harm to the child. Most prisons are filled with predators, rapists and murderers. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, the sexual assault of a teen in an adult facility is five times more likely and teens are also two times more likely to be beaten by staff. In addition, the teen suicide rate in adult prisons is eight times that of teens in juvenile detention.

Michigan is currently struggling with a $1.5 billion deficit and the prison uses approximately 20 percent of the budget. It costs roughly $30,000 per year to house an inmate in state prison.

The juvenile justice system has had some major changes within the last five years. For example, in 2005 the Supreme Court ruled that juveniles could not be executed. Also, on May 17, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to sentence juveniles to life without parole if they did not commit a murder.

I urge you to support HB 4594 by contacting your local representatives. Please discuss this issue with your friends and family and ask them to also support this bill.

Life without parole sentences are inherently cruel as they deny a child any possibility of reform. Punish the behaviors, not the child and allow them to earn a second chance at living.

Cathy O’Brien/Alpena

If deadly weapon was a knife, would there have been a column?

This is in response to Julie Mack’s Aug. 7 column, “Guns don’t kill, people with guns do.” I won’t go into the anti-gun rhetoric, we’ve heard it all before.

But I do have a question: If the individual charged in the case she highlighted did not own a gun and had used a knife instead, would Mack have written an article about the killing? Would she have titled it: “Knives don’t kill, people with knives do”? I really doubt if she would have because there are no political anti-knife forces out there.

It seems to me the gun owner who is a model citizen is singled out for criticism much more than felons. Does this kind of make you wonder what’s really going on?

Patricia Williams/Portage