Letter writer should exercise her right to vote
To the editor:
In the May 20 edition, Victoria Ross raised issues with Neil Parrott’s petition to put the issue of gay marriage on the ballot. She points to the separation of church and state as one of the most essential elements of being an American. So is our right to vote.
The Constitution reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...” What religion is being established in Mr. Parrott’s petition? The term “separation of church and state” is often used in arguing points such as Ross’. If she is against religion-based thinking, which is protected in “separation of church and state,” we could get rid of most of the laws. Did “thou shalt not steal” play any basis for exiting laws that address theft? How about “thou shalt not kill?”
I stand by Ross’ desire to see the separation of church and state, but I strongly disagree with her premise that we can take a stand on social issues without being influenced by our own views, whatever the basis of those views. Nor do I think we should.
Ross has every right to be disappointed in the mailing that she received from Parrott, and she has every right to be for the passage of gay marriage. If the issue does make it to the November ballot, I hope she casts her vote as she sees fit. I hope all Maryland voters do.
Recall the drive for Washington County home rule. One of the reasons it went down to defeat was the exclusion of many important issues from voter petition. When an item goes to the ballot for all voters, the issue’s final state is based on real democracy, not the representative democracy that we enjoy on most other issues.
I hope she stands by our right as Maryland voters to put any issue to a public vote and the “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” statement in the Constitution.
Being lukewarm could cost us our freedom
To the editor:
How many times do we return to the microwave or heat something back up in the oven because our food wasn’t warm enough? That tepid temperature when you are ready for a hot meal can be so irritating. Lukewarm in other areas of our lives can cause far more concern, though.
A lukewarm soldier going into battle might not have studied his enemy well enough or practiced until becoming proficient with his weapons. Lukewarm in war means your enemy has the advantage over you, because your weakness is having a half-hearted, detached or unconcerned attitude. This not only can jeopardize the safety and the mission of the soldier, but his whole unit’s survival as well. Lukewarm in spiritual warfare is no different.
Christians in America can no longer afford to be passive or lukewarm. In John 8:44, Jesus Christ proclaimed how we have a very real and present enemy. In the sixth chapter of Ephesians, the Bible says we are to take up the spiritual weapons of warfare and put on the “full armor of God.” Paul further stated, “Pray that I may declare it fearlessly, as I should.”
Revelation 3:16 is a message to the Laodicean Church and Christ could well be addressing many of our modern churches. He says, “So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.”
If our being lukewarm costs us our freedom to continue to openly worship God in America, then we did not give the next generation that for which our founding fathers fought and died. We cannot afford to be lukewarm in our churches, our prayers or in our voting. Wake up America, not by tempering the Gospel or with bad temperament towards others, but change our temperature from being lukewarm to hot when it comes to our rights and our freedom as Christians in the United States of America.