Monumental proposal
When I first learned of the national furor over the proposed removal of Civil War monuments commemorating notable Confederate leaders, I considered such proposals as infantile and anti-historical.
It seemed somewhat like the Afghani Taliban's explosive destruction in the early 2000s of Buddhist monuments which the radical Islamists deemed to be offensive to Muslims. These acts which brought about international condemnation were considered to be extremely retrogressive.
I suspected that cooler and more progressive leaders in America would quickly stanch the fervor of the radicals and the issue of monument removals would dissipate.
After a few days it became clear that the issue had legs and potentially violent radicals from both sides were joining the fray. Violence has ensued, and leaders from around the country are responding in various ways. Our country needs an enlightened resolution to this problem, and I would like to offer an humble proposal.
Being that the pro-removal forces are apparently predominantly aligned with the Democrat Party, and who blame the Republican Party for being racists opposed to the removal, the following suggestion should represent a fair and equitable resolution: Let it be decreed that all Confederate monuments erected throughout the United States under the authority of a Republican governing body (be it city, county, state or federal) be expeditiously removed. Only those monuments erected under Democrat political authority will be allowed to remain standing.
I further propose that John Brummett, columnist for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, be appointed as chief facilitator for this project in the state of Arkansas.
DENNIS LEGGETT
Searcy
An insult to survivors
I have never written a letter to the editor before, but here goes: A letter to the editor comparing abortion to a holocaust is an insult to holocaust survivors.
The literal meaning of holocaust is to burn whole: the people, their language, their culture, their literature. They are obliterated.
An abortion is a woman's decision to not have a baby. The reason may be because of poverty, rape, or other conditions. But it is a private decision, not a holocaust.
JIMMIE THOMAS
West Fork
An immoral mentality
In Ann Link's letter, it appears she defends the fundamental tenets of a secular, humanistic, utilitarian philosophy that link the abortion-on-demand mentality with the correctly descriptive phrase "culture of death." Ms. Link praises a friend's decision to abort her pregnancy because the baby boy had a genetic abnormality. By so doing, Ms. Link affirms the "culture of death" approval to such a savage and inhumane redefining for the human qualities of compassion and care.
Ms. Link states, "Our lives are the one thing we totally own." By the word "own," does she mean "control"? When do we totally "own/control" our lives? At what age or circumstance is that "ownership/control" bestowed and by whom? Does this apply to the life of the unborn child, or the disabled, or the aged person in the nursing home? Ms. Link answers these questions herself, in her letter's final sentence which reads, "Whether we are a damaged fetus, or an oldster slipping into end-stage dementia, the decision as to the worth of that life must sometimes be made by another."
But isn't "worth" subjective? Who has the right to determine the worth of anyone? The concentration camps of Nazi Germany bear witness to what happens when people start deciding who has the right to live and who does not. I believe Ms. Link's verbiage endorses the "culture of death" justification for euthanasia and assisted suicide. Both of these options logically follow the flawed, immoral mentality that an abortion-on-demand society begets.
I support the belief that one of the most important criteria marking a just, caring and civilized society is the degree to which that society respects and treats its weakest members. The premise that all human life is precious and sacred is one of the foundational pillars that such a society embraces; remembering that each of us is not our own maker, but the supporters and sustainers of life, life which comes from our creator, God himself.
MARY SPOND
Sherwood
Created in his image
Would an all-wise, all-knowing, compassionate and loving God create a world where many species must hunt, kill, and eat another species in order to survive?
Would an all-wise, all-knowing, compassionate and loving God create a being in its own image that has caused the extinction of, is causing the extinction of, and will cause the extinction of many other species that it has created?
PAUL CHRIST
Harrison
What makes a human
A couple of days ago, I read a letter written by a man whose grandfather taught him that the only color that mattered was green, referring to money, and that if decisions were made with heart, wallets would be empty.
Well, money is a commodity we all need to live on, but there are certain things money can't buy, such as principles, integrity, honesty, kindness and compassion. Some of us would not compromise our principles to make money off hateful people. So to think that we should welcome hate groups because protesters would follow and they all would help the economy and we'd live happily ever after is sickening to most of us.
Yes, we have freedom of speech and everyone and every group can march and protest peacefully, but unfortunately these things sometimes get out of hand the way they did in Charlottesville.
Also, I hope everybody can see that what makes us human are our hearts and feelings, and if we just used our heads when making all decisions, we would not be any different from cold and calculating robots!
ROSE GOVAR
Maumelle
Breathe, slow down
As I look around and see the dramas unfolding daily, I am more than ever convinced that people should stop, take a deep breath, close their eyes for a minute, and simply slow down.
No, the problems of the world won't magically disappear. No, the important matters needing resolution won't suddenly be resolved. No, the numerous crises won't cease being crises.
However, perhaps our brains would better be able to work on solutions if the neurons weren't firing on all cylinders all at the same time. Herding cats is easier than having our brains going at that rate. Sensory overload is no way to attempt to reach consensus, to attempt to work cooperatively, to attempt to simply listen and to acknowledge what is being said or proposed.
Think of listening to Bach while Deep Purple is playing over Stevie Ray Vaughan. Each wonderful in their own right, but not so good overlapping. Just like with dealing with the matters of the world. Work on one at a time and then move on.
As always--slow down and grill.
DAVID KELLEY
Fort Smith
Editorial on 08/31/2017