Fundamentalists have wrong vision for future
Recently, Cal Thomas wrote an article urging the Bush administration to use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan. This is my reply to that article:
If God is love then why is it that the most fervent believers of every religion, the fundamentalists, are so bent upon the destruction of other religions? For years now the Christian fundamentalists have depicted a terrifying scenario based upon the convoluted and utterly incomprehensible writings found in Revelations in which billions of people would be destroyed because of their failure to accept the one true faith, or more specifically one doctrine of that faith.
The problem is that there are thousands of these doctrines. A veritable tower of Babel of doctrines has emerged from the endless disputes and assertions of believers and anti-believers. Nobody can agree and nobody can allow others to disagree. That in a nutshell is the essence of fundamentalism.
Jewish fanatics want to rule over their Arab brothers. Islamic extremists cannot tolerate other forms of worship and have created a cult of cruelty to "defend the faith." Now the Christian extremists are making their move by urging the Bush administration to use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan.
This is not only morally wrong but militarily stupid as well. It would result in the unleashing of nuclear dragons all over the world. If we start using nukes in Afghanistan to combat terrorism what possible argument could be used to deter India or Pakistan from using them on each other? They both profess to be fighting terrorism. So does Russia in Chechnya.
The real target of these fanatics is not terrorism but the prophesied and long awaited destruction that they call Armageddon. They are not looking for victory but for total destruction. That is what they hoped would happen at Y2K. It is what they believed would happen in the Gulf War and they let it be known in no uncertain terms that Saddam Hussein must be 666. Throughout the Cold War they looked upon Russia as the archfoe.
Every single time they have been proven wrong. In every part of the world they have argued and battled against the voices of peace because they have convinced themselves that peace is evil and war is good. This is not the answer.
In the end peace must prevail and we must work for peace even in the face of hatred and hysteria if we are to save the planet and all life streams upon it. You must not despair for the God of love is behind us all the way and peace will prevail on earth. For God's sake pray for peace and work for peace.
Children shouldn't be forced to breathe smoke
We have laws requiring small children be secured in car seats, in the rear seat of a car, to protect them from injury in the event of an accident or any other mishap that may cause an injury to the child.
Frequently we see children riding in a car, with the windows rolled up, and a parent smoking a cigarette. Studies have shown that second hand smoke can be as injurious to your health as smoking itself.
What protection do these children have?
Should there be laws holding these parents accountable for subjecting these children to the health risks caused by second hand smoke? Smoke in the confines of an automobile is more concentrated and therefore more harmful. What can the infant or child do to escape that smoke? There should be laws protecting the health of these indefensible victims of second hand smoke as we have seat belt laws that protect them from injuries.
Thank you for printing the column by J.R. Labbe, an editor for the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, in last Friday's Vindicator. J.R. Labbe is the former Jill Rae Grubaugh, my niece.
She writes of visiting the grave of her father, Air Force Col. Boyd Lee Grubaugh, my brother, in Arlington National Cemetery. She pays tribute to all who have served our country.