Editor, Times-Union: Notice the first line of Mr. Hite's response in the editorial "Judging Intolerance" on 10/02/2006 (responding to "Hateful Comments" on 09/22/2006): "In response to Ms. Ewell's letter who is intolerant of intolerance and judges people for judging."
He is claiming his intolerance and judgment and faulting someone else for the same. Contradictory?
Ms. Ewell is following the example of Jesus, Mr. Hite is not. Jesus was intolerant of those who were intolerant. The Pharisees (Matthew 23:13-29, Luke 11:44) could have tolerated a lot of people (questionable), but they did not tolerate those who were poor (Mark 12, Luke 21), in need of the grace of God (Luke 19:7), or knew they couldn't live up to God's or others' expectations (John 8:7). He was even intolerant of anyone who ignored their own unworthiness to the point of thinking anyone else's life was less tolerable than their own. Jesus was never tolerant of the religious who put their self-righteousness above others, whether the others were believers or not. He non-violently went after the Pharisees with vengeance, laid out the "spiritual elite" with fervor, and called the self-righteous to the carpet. They were all left speechless.
So what's the problem today? People keep supporting the Pharisees, the "spiritual elite," and the self-righteous so they can keep talking. As people, we tend to hate change. But guess what, that's exactly what is needed when these three kinds of people keep spewing their unChrist-like condemnation. Admittedly, plenty of people demanding tolerance deserve retribution. But that's something God reserved to Himself (only God knows the heart - James 4:12), and if we have true faith then we will trust God to do as He will when and "if" He chooses. When and if we choose to have that level of faith then the love of God and the fruit of His Spirit can be seen in us.
I am the curator of www.unidiversal.com and was also involved in two other Times-Union letters to the editor along the same lines as this one: "Bible No Rejection" 8/16/2006 and "Judgment & Salvation" 2/26/2006 (which lists several other letters related to this subject). "The light of salvation isn't for illuminating other people's sin!" Jesus didn't even call fishers of men to cook the fish when or "if" God chooses to clean them. It's time to stop cooking and cleaning and go fishing without throwing the fish back that we might deem worthless. All fish are valuable in God's eyes.
Robbie Ousley, via e-mail Pierceton
Conspiracy?
Editor, Times-Union: The "Views" of last weekend's paper has prompted me to write this. Not the article itself, but rather a statement made at the end of paragraph six, regarding some people believing that the U.S. Government had something to do with the World Trade Center being destroyed.
I do not know if or if not this is true. I do know that when I saw the pictures of the towers coming down, I wondered how and why they fell totally downward. This type of destruction I've seen only on buildings intentionally destroyed. I believe it's called "imploding." I have never seen any other damage by a "bomb" like the towers sustained. I have asked many people and, supposedly experts, about this and was told that the heat of the aircraft fuel burning, etc. would not have been hot enough to damage the steel structure many stories below it. I was also told to watch a copy of the film showing the towers collapse, in slow motion. Try this, as I'm sure you'll be surprised.
As I said, I do not know the extent of who or what did this. I do know that there are organizations bigger than our government that our government bows to. I also know that our government will do anything to get what it wants. A newer book is out (all over the world) titled "Confessions of a Economic Hit Man." As yet I haven't read it totally, but I'm anxious to read the remainder.
Interesting? That's to say the least.
D.G. Lundgren Warsaw
Ethanol Plant
Editor, Times-Union: Are we planning for the future, or giving that responsibility to developers, politicians and huge agribusiness companies? Permit me to provide a few reasons why I am alarmed.
There are many questions about where ethanol fuel refineries should be built and the environmental impact that these plants have on communities. Our elected officials need to challenge the ethanol producers with the pertinent questions, in reference to air pollution, aquifer reduction, water pollution, noise pollution and traffic problems before any decision is made as to location. We need input from impartial experts, not just investors and ethanol fuel refinery representatives.
Politicians are wild about ethanol. Candidates running for president, who will be facing Iowa voters shortly, can't say enough good things about ethanol. Ethanol is the solution to all our problems, they say. Ethanol will free our nation from foreign oil dependency while providing an economic boom to farmers, they say. No need to force Detroit to build hybrid cars, they say.
Those who would convert every ear of corn to ethanol assure our community that ethanol fuel refineries will never explode or have fires; the emissions will smell like a bakery at dawn; our kids won't get asthma from breathing the emissions; the plant will produce high-paying-family-supporting jobs - nothing guaranteed, of course.
They say, "Trust us." So, what's the problem?, you ask.
Investors have quietly selected, as a future site, an area close to Milford to build a refinery that will produce at least 100 million gallons of ethanol per year. They didn't ask the residents if they liked the idea. Instead, they have tried to keep their plans a secret, contacting only local officials, a local lawyer (who is very astute at zoning requirements), a real estate agent and survey crews. They have conducted private meetings with commissioners, showing them proposals and giving them promises of a "bright" future with a shiny new ethanol fuel refinery.
Now, do you suppose the officials, that have been contacted, ever asked for an independent study on the impact that pumping hundreds of millions of gallons of water from the local aquifer might have on the Milford area? Or, do you suppose they asked for the list of pollutants that such a refinery will spew into the air surrounding Milford, Syracuse, New Paris, Leesburg and other areas within a close proximity of the refinery? Or, do you suppose they asked about emergency response when the inevitable fire/explosion occurs at the refinery? I don't know the answer to these questions any more than anyone else because the politicians, and the ethanol producers, aren't telling us.
Ethanol producers claim that they want to be good neighbors and want to fit into the community. It seems they have gotten off to a really bad start by keeping everything such a "big secret." Why have they not had a public meeting to show pictures of their "shiny plants," and assure us "all is well"?
Bill Appenzeller, via e-mail
Milford
Hayhurst
Editor, Times-Union: I urge voters to support Dr. Thomas Hayhurst for third district U.S. representative. He has broad experience with city, county and state government. He will serve the third district, the state and the nation for quality health care for all ages and funding for education at all levels. He has listened to voters and acted with the best interests of the voters at all times. He has dedicated his life to helping people. Hayhurst is a leader and will be a great congressman.
