LETTERS: The Californian, Nov. 30, 2008

By Readers of The Californian | Sunday, November 30, 2008 12:13 AM PST ∞

So I guess we don't need to vote

Mr. J.Howard Crews' Community Forum, "Who consecrates marriage?," appears to relate the normal union of a man and a woman in marriage as a religious institution. Marriage has existed down through the centuries as the union between a man and a woman ---- in the presence of a religious institution or in a society devoid of a religion. He went on at great length trying to equate the rights two adults have in the privacy of their home to the public rights denied blacks. The majority of black voters did not equate the two, as shown by their overwhelming support of Proposition 22 and Proposition 8.

Again, it appears Mr. Crews believes we should do away with our right to vote ---- just "let the wise jurists of the Supreme Court decide." His approach will relieve us of counting "chads," recounts and contested elections, just as long as four out of seven or five out of nine jurists vote "wisely." I would venture to guess that if he did not approve of their vote, they would no longer be "wise"!

Edward Filardo

Temecula

Why is it OK to discriminate against homosexuals?

Proposition 8 did pass with a close-call decision. It is a shame to see that legal rights are indeed not as universal as this country says they are. Prop. 8 never had anything do with children. It was not promoting gay marriage education. The California Department of Education has even stated that gay marriage or any marriage was not part of the curriculum. It's due to citizens' insecurities and ignorant minds that such a proposition was passed.

Children are taught tolerance for others. Just as they would tolerate people from different cultures, they are to do it to same-sex couples. Parents are brainwashing children into little hypocritical conformists.

It's a pity to see that such a great country could elect a fine representative as Barack Obama, yet we do not have the courage to say no to a law that clearly is defined as discriminatory. Religion is not a backbone to this country anymore. Religion was used as a stronghold on all the voters who voted!

I came from three religious backgrounds ---- all of them taught us to love and respect others. Why are homosexuals any different?

Deana Leso

Temecula Valley High School

Temecula

Column was out of place on Thanksgiving

Regarding the Thanksgiving Day editorial page: Thank you for printing Abraham Lincoln's 1863 proclamation providing for a national day of Thanksgiving "Lincoln's day of 'Thanksgiving and Praise'," Nov. 27). That was a nice little piece of history to enhance our day.

Not so much "thank you" for the column next to Lincoln's proclamation ("Give thanks, praise for ...," Nov. 27). "Reasons ... for giving thanks. Let us bow our heads ... to give thanks and praise ... (for) very soon, the Bush II imperial presidency will expire, (for) Our Constitution: The loyal Bushies stomped it, shredded it, burned it, gagged it ... yet the blueprint for our democracy remains intact. For little girls: ... you'll know the thrill Generation O will have bearing witness to the new heirs to Camelot."

Is this The Californian's attempt at smearing the beautiful time set aside to be thankful to our creator? At first, I thought Lokeman's thoughts were printed as a satire of the hatefulness that is so repugnant it is supposed to be humorous, similar to the New Yorker's depiction of the Obama as a jihadist, which backfired.

Ms. Lokeman's columns are often printed on the editorial page. On Thanksgiving, she was out of place. The day was to be a day of "thanks," not a Trojan horse of "hate." Shame on you, Californian.

Charles Monica

Temecula

Credibility is in the eye of the beholder

So many thoughts flipped through my mind when I read Kenneth Ray's letter (Nov. 16); his comment about people clinging to archaic views being "left behind."

There is no attempt on Mr. Ray's part to explain evolution in the world of technology and how one might employ a biological concept in a materialistic way to technological subjects; they are two different worlds, but he is "cloaking empty thought in pseudo-intellectual words." This sounds like the "change" with no substance we hear today; empty talk.

The problem with his "credible biologist" is that it is in the eye of the pursuer. If you pursue only those who agree with your thinking, then, of course they will appear "credible" to you. They seem to be able to ignore subjects like "origins," information in DNA, non-existent transitionals and the empirically scientific concept of observation and "testing" Mr. Ray's "supporters" appear "like pursuers" of an educational goal that perhaps didn't "ring true" with the majority.

This can also apply to "peer- review" in science. Like skeptical "global warming," anti-evolution is "expelled" from the scientific community that doesn't want to hear the refutations involved, and lauded by the orthodoxy of the opposition; they are blind and do not see, but far worse, they choose that direction. I wonder how modern technology involves a biologically "natural" explanation.

Irvin Forbing

Escondido