|
In
the Name of Love
To
the Editor:
The
last paragraph of Jo Page’s column “Absent Courage” [Reckonings,
Feb. 15] is all one needs to read to understand what she is
trying to rationalize through the previous emotional circling.
Homosexuality has been justified by decree of secular collaborators
(not by any truly cogent argument), and Page chooses to opine
on the pretense that nothing disingenuous has occurred, the
church is wrong, and love is the excuse.
I am not so hard-headed as to not understand the secular interest
in having all their urges their way—why shouldn’t they? After
all, if there is no moral constitution from a creator, then
no one has the right to say people cannot pursue who and what
they are, regardless of what that may be.
But churchly issues are different. Rev. Schmeling’s defiance—and
his congregation’s support—does not warrant defense; he deliberately
mocks God and the church by breaking the law. Page’s last
paragraph euphemism, “sexual minorities” and suggestion that
there is courage in rebellious ratiocinating, mislead those
who seek a spiritual relationship which can not be formed
in the deliberate denial of sin.
The final sentence invokes love, one of the handy substitutes
for argument. Love is poorly defined in our language, and
as a result carries many connotations and uses that probably
don’t line up with the love Jesus tries to teach. The Bible
says love does many good things and I believe it is right;
but I have lived long enough to know that love is often a
frail excuse for a many things.
There are some calling themselves churches these days but
are more like social clubs, where you can be and do pretty
much what you want, and God is a nice creation serving the
pleasure of the congregation; it keeps the pews and treasury
filled. Perhaps Jo Page should consider one of them. As a
person who was born into the Lutheran Church—possibly before
Rev. Page was formed, I think—it will be very sad to have
to leave it at this late day, should Jo Page and others succeed
in their crusade to conform the church to the whims of the
world.
John
M. Smith, Schenectady
Watts
the Point?
To
the Editor:
The
standard rejoinder when someone points out the failure of
your Grand Idea is to blame poor execution (e.g. “the Soviet
Union wasn’t really Communism!”). It is surprising that Shawn
Stone, in his article “False Promises” [Feb. 15], did not
anticipate this objection and actually provide some content
and context about electricity deregulation. As a result, his
article reads more like a puff piece for regulated utilities.
One could just as easily replace the word “deregulation” with
“moonboggle” without reducing the article’s clarity, since
he never explains exactly what deregulation is supposed to
be, or what it actually turned out to be in California and
elsewhere. It’s well known, for instance, that electricity
“deregulation” in California was actually a complex, byzantine
re-regulation. It’s also well known that deregulation doesn’t
necessarily reduce consumer prices, nor is it supposed to
in markets where the price of something is artificially depressed.
When price controls were lifted on gasoline in the ’70s, the
price went up, of course, but people were happier because
they could actually buy gas when it was convenient for them.
Electricity deregulation may in fact be a bad idea, but Shawn
Stone missed an opportunity to actually report on the
issue, and instead gave us a polemic that will be all too
easily dismissed.
Phil
Spoor, Waterford
Glass
Houses
To
the Editor:
Perhaps
Dana Swalla [“Blacklisted,” Newsfront, Feb. 22] might consider
cleaning the Schenectady streets of youth gangs that ruin
businesses with tags . . . and throw bricks through windows,
which happened to our former downstairs neighbor (who was
scared enough to move out of the Bellevue area). Not your
run-of-the-mill, red brick . . . but one of those large octagonal
garden bricks.
But oh yes, a sex club is a far greater threat to Schenectady,
and is ruining the moral infrastructure.
I’m reminded of a quote: “Those who tend the gardens of others,
neglect their own.”
Ms. Swalla is shameful.
Rich
Walker, Schenectady
To
the Editor:
Perhaps
Dana should learn to Swalla it? (pun intended)
In the wise words of Mr. King (not that one), “Can’t
we all just get along?” I mean, really, what is the big deal?
Why can’t people just mind their business and let others live
their lives? Who cares what goes on behind closed doors? Those
people aren’t hurting anyone that doesn’t want to be hurt
(pun intended again).
Sorry, I couldn’t resist!
Wanda
Lubinski, Albany
Metroland
welcomes typed, double-spaced letters addressed to the editor.
Metroland reserves the right to edit letters for length
or clarity; 300 words is the preferred maximum. You must include
your name, address and day and evening telephone numbers.
We will not publish letters that cannot be verified, nor those
that are anonymous, illegible, irresponsible or factually
inaccurate.
Send
to:
Letters, Metroland
419 Madison Ave., Albany, NY 12210
e-mail:
metroland@metroland.net
fax:
463-3726
|
Classifieds
