To: (Multiple email addresses may be specified by separating them with a comma)
BY The Editors
The Truth Wins Out
Regarding “Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Is About Power, not Love” (NCRegister.com), it is very true that it takes more than just “love” to make a marriage. There are those people who “love” their pet dog or cat and treat them with all the “love” that they have; but few people would suggest that a person and their pet could be married; although, there was such a case attempted in England some years ago.
At the same time, people have no conception of the meaning of words nowadays. Words are twisted, altered and contorted to mean whatever one wants them to mean, which is another result of relativism. The Truth (and there is Truth) will always force its way to the surface, and eventually it will again.
Frank W. Russell
Pawlenty’s Not Pro-Life
Your July 3 article on Tim Pawlenty (“Presidential Hopefuls”) by Charlotte Hays tries to paint a picture of a rock-solid pro-life politician; it fails to do so.
To critical thinkers, Tim Pawlenty is “pro-choice.” As the article says, Pawlenty would allow abortion in cases of rape and incest; that translates to: I’m willing to discriminate against rape and incest babies. This is a serious breach of logic and a clear contradiction that destroys his pro-life position; it is the intrinsically flawed strategy that has crippled the pro-life movement for almost four decades.
When we argue with flawed logic, we join the abortion advocates, who have always been guilty of anti-intellectualism. We know their arguments are without foundation in science, medicine or philosophy. After 38 long years and counting, shouldn’t it be obvious that our present-day strategy is in need of repair? We began the pro-life movement on a false premise; we ignored the principle of non-contradiction. We can’t be both pro-life and pro-choice.
Most pro-life groups believe in the strategy of gradualism; others believe the only way to end abortion is to fight for every single life without exception. The gradualists are the ones who say we’re winning; they say fewer babies are dying. But they can’t tell us when the dying will end.
By not being fully committed to fighting for every single unborn life without exception, we have made ourselves vulnerable. Our opponents can say, with some credibility, that pro-lifers are really quasi-choice, or if you prefer, quasi-pro-life.
Charles N. Marrelli
The editor replies: As the editor’s note states, in part, atop the article, “the Register is looking at the men and women who have declared their candidacy for president of the United States in 2012. As primary season is less than a year away, we want to give readers a little more insight into those who hope to lead America for the next four years: where they stand, what positions they’ve taken in the past, and what has led them there.” We are planning profiles of many of the presidential candidate, and the idea is to equip you with all the information you need to make an informed choice.
It’s true that the original Pledge of Allegiance that socialist Francis Bellamy proposed in 1892 was different. (“‘God’ Is Alive [in the Pledge of Allegiance],” July 3). Students were told to give the flag the one-armed socialist salute made infamous by Germany’s National Socialists, the Nazis, and say:
“I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.”
In 1892, a second “to” was added; in 1923 (over Bellamy’s objections) “my flag” became “the flag of the United States”; in 1924 “of America” was added; and in 1954 “under God” was added.
“Under God” is older than the pledge. Abraham Lincoln used that phrase in his Gettysburg Address of 1863 in order to remind us that, according to our founding document, the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, our ultimate loyalty is to “Nature’s God ... their Creator ... the Supreme Judge of the world ... Divine Providence,” not the government or the courts.
Which we do well to remember every Fourth of July.
From Janet Smith, regarding “Are All Falsehoods Lies?” (In Depth, July 17): “Augustine periodically found himself in need of making retractions, because over time, he changed his views on some matter. I need to make a retraction because I made a mistake. I attributed a position to Augustine that was not his. I claimed that he approved of telling a lie. He did not. He found lies for that purpose the least of lies, but nonetheless a lie, and a sin. I am sorry to have misrepresented his position and especially sorry if my having done so leads anyone into sin.”