In emotional embrace
For three days in a row last week, this paper had very moving photos on the front page, each featuring two women in highly emotional embraces.
Wednesday and Thursday, the women shown were suffering deeply from the loss of loved ones who had been massacred in Turkey by men driven by fanatical beliefs, who somehow felt that their cause would be furthered by wanton destruction of innocent life.
The other photo was of two women in this country, also in a highly emotional embrace, celebrating the right given to them and others like them to have someone destroy the lives of thousands of unborn children.
The horror of these situations is similar, yet not the same. Some of these women have the ability to choose life for their family members, while the others had it wrenched from them. Many of these women can choose now, before a child is conceived, whether or not to even allow the life to even begin.
To celebrate the option of death rather than life, when that is a choice, is to me more horrible than death caused by madmen.
The real crisis we face
If we outlaw guns, will we then have solved many of America's problems? I think not. I believe we do not have a gun crisis in America; we have a moral crisis.
We have produced a society that glorifies violence more than decent behavior. There seems to be an irrational mentality which believes that the problems of the day can be solved with a gun, a club, a knife, or whatever happens to be handy when self-control is lost.
This disrespect for the life or well-being of another person is approaching barbarism.
The heart of this problem is not guns but the sinful, depraved human heart. Without some code that is greater than "do what you feel like doing," people will do whatever pleases them at the moment.
It seems we now have a secular society that often ridicules Christian values and knows little about religious principles.
God help us!
If we'd done it then ...
Back in 1970, if we had put a lot of money into education, I think things would be good today.
If we had purchased only the best books and paid for top-tier teachers, if we had bought the best art supplies and musical instruments, if we had paid for great lunches and library books, and safe crosswalks and security guards, our life today would be happier, cleaner and safer, with fine art and entertainment. The Internet would be filled with alternative energy and environmental solutions, we would be visiting the moon on field trips and it wouldn't be so crowded--anywhere.
If only we had spent more money on education back in 1970.
North Little Rock
A moral compromise
Cross Church Pastor Ronnie Floyd did not endorse Donald Trump for president--he didn't need to, because actions speak louder than words.
Floyd compared his position on the newly formed evangelical advisory board for Trump to that of Old Testament figure Daniel, and other Bible characters with political influence: Elijah, Nathan, and John the Baptist. Floyd sees this as an opportunity to speak truth to Trump. But could he be so naïve as to believe Trump seeks spiritual mentoring? Trump is wooing evangelical voters, and his spiritual advisers are complicit in this seduction.
To those who would have concerns about Floyd's decision, he asked, "What in the world would you want me to do?"
First of all, re-evaluate those biblical examples. Daniel didn't sign up to advise Nebuchadnezzar--he was kidnapped. Elijah didn't join an advisory board--he defiantly prophesied the ruin of King Ahab. Nathan spoke truth to a godly leader in need of correction. John the Baptist spoke against Herod, not in favor of him.
Secondly, be holy. This doesn't have to mean zero engagement in politics, but it does mean zero compromise. David said: "I hate what faithless people do; I will have no part in it."
Christians who cast their vote for an immoral man will reap the harvest of that compromise not only for themselves, but for the nation they seek to protect. And pastors who knowingly lead their flock into this moral compromise lead them astray.
DONNA LEE SCHILLINGER
Some rants and raves
My first rant is to compliment Brenda Looper and all her colleagues in the newspaper business. You all perform such a valuable service to our society. My paper comes to my driveway every day, in good weather and bad, and on holidays when most people aren't working. I would say, however, that you can judge a paper by the comics section, and we could do better in that regard. On a trip to St. Louis, I noticed their paper had two full pages of color comics every day.
My second rant is about the language almost all of us speak, read, and write. I was privileged to spend a good portion of my career teaching kindergarten. I was flattered when I was selected by a local university to host a student teacher. She was an excellent prospect for the classroom except for one flaw. Her grammar was horrible. Maybe because of my insistence that the children in my class deserved to have a good model to follow in that regard, she was able to change.
You can imagine my horror to see a guest writer with a Ph.D., division chair, and professor of English at the university level write the following sentence: "Sad, but whom to blame?" The subject of the sentence should clearly have been "who." The linking verb, "is," and the infinitive at the end should have been a clue.
So, to the paper, keep up the good work. To the professor, have a graduate assistant proofread your work. To our esteemed governor, save the Buffalo!
Editorial on 07/05/2016