Dana Crisholm’s column (“March Primary is Crucial”) in your February edition demonstrates shaky logic and un-Christian principles.

In a failed attempt to demonstrate America’s “support” for anti-choice legislation, she cites a survey stating that 53% of the populace agrees with the statement “Abortion destroys a human life and is manslaughter.” How she jumps from this fact (yes, abortion does inhibit a potential human life - duh!), to the conclusion that America does not want women to have the choice to ever obtain an abortion, is a fantastic leap and faulty reasoning.

Worse yet, she attempts to discredit Sen. Barbara Boxer on the basis that the senator is against war and does not endorse the military-industrial complex in California. So Crisholm, as a Christian, is stating that Boxer is a bad choice because she does not encourage violence? You need to WAKE UP! Crisholm is the anti-thesis of a Christian, or a moral human being for that matter. I could go on, but your pathetic self is not worth the effort.

*&%$ you!

         Darlene Nyner

         Oceanside

Editor’s Note: Dana Serrano Chisholm responds to this letter in her column on the Pro-Life section.

I must respectfully disagree with Charles Colson’s conclusion that homosexual marriage is the most important issue American Christians have ever faced. He is categorically wrong. There is at least one issue that far supercedes it and that is the shedding of innocent blood by the abortion doctors and the acquiescence to it by mothers and their families.

Where is the outrage over President Bush’s pre-election comments that he had no desire to change Roe vs. Wade because it is the law of the land? Why isn’t he proposing a constitutional amendment in this case also? While homosexual marriage is an abomination which alone could bring the judgment of a Holy God and while a constitutional amendment is necessary, it does not compare to the tens of millions who have been slaughtered in the place that should be the most safe, their mothers’ wombs.

Abortion is the bottom of the slippery slope, not homosexual marriage or euthanasia. But since abortion and divorce are apparently almost as prevalent in evangelical churches as in the secular society, it is easy to use homosexual marriage as a distraction to divert our attention from at least one issue that is far more serious.

         Stan Schmunk

         Vista

Should same-sex partnerships become a legal marriage? The family, the basic foundation to civilization is under siege. Divorce has already severely damaged the family unit; however, this is an attempt to change the very definition of marriage. Marriage is an institution divinely instigated by God.

It is more than a legal contract. It is a covenant between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman as husband and wife. The Institution of Marriage, a sacred union between a man and woman has been honored in all cultures and by every religious faith in the world.

Thirty-eight states, including California, have voted to assure that this definition remain secure. Our government (that’s us! of the people, by the people and for the people) was established to protect the general welfare of society. Our laws need to have good moral standards to be effective in keeping us safe.

Homosexuality has been around since biblical days. “Nations decline and eventually die when sexual immorality becomes rampant and the traditional family is discarded...” states Carl W. Wilson in his 1979 book, Our Dance Has Turned to Death.

History shows the Roman Empire collapsed due to the decay of their society in giving way to sexual immorality. Condoning homosexual commitments would only spread the deadly consequences of AIDS to epidemic proportions in our country. We cannot continue to be passive on this issue or the rest is history .

Part of the homosexual agenda is to “...redefine the institution of marriage completely...to transform the notion of ‘family’ altogether.” As stated by Michelangelo Signorile in the Out! Magazine, Dec./Jan. 1994. A very small percentage of the entire American populous is seeking their domestic partnerships be elevated to marital status. The media is being used in an effort to desensitize and impose this lifestyle on the culture.

They also are actively pursuing to confuse our school children by indoctrinating them to accept this alternative lifestyle. This is done with taxpayer dollars and is dangerous because children are vulnerable and sexuality is not rigidly fixed, but fluid and open to change. A person can decide whether to embrace or resist their feelings and behavior. Their accusations of the majority of Americans harboring bigotry and being intolerant are certainly not justified. Americans do tolerate things we don’t like, but should not be forced to honor what the majority considers to be wrong.

In President Bush’s words, “Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of husband and wife to love and serve one another promotes the welfare of children and that stability of society.”

I encourage you to share your ideas. Call the governor and your representatives right now. Let your school board, the principal, and your child’s teacher know how you feel about the school policies and curriculum.

Opt your child out of anything that does not meet your approval. Form a citizen action group at your church. Exercise your liberties today, or you may lose them tomorrow.

God is love and Jesus died for each of us to know Him. As a nation we need to trust and obey His laws to continue to receive His blessings. Let’s ask God to help us with keeping His moral code as our guide to live good healthy lives.

         Mary Calgaro

         Escondido

Many people seem to set the “elderly” or “older” people apart and expect them to remain in that special corner, so to speak. What do they mean by the so-called euphemism, “older”? When I took English grammar a long time ago, I was told that there are at least three words that indicate that a thing or person is not young. These words are old, older and oldest. If people don’t want to call me, age 74, old then why do they call me “older”? Isn’t “older” older than old? It doesn’t make a lot of sense does it?

I believe the same attitude is prevalent in our Churches. We try to enlist young people, and we should, for the choir and other organizations but we don’t think a person with “snow on his head” will make a good member. I knew a man who was age 98 in January 2003, now deceased, who could sing a high A flat! He played the piano and wrote music up until his death. He was also “older” than anybody I knew.

I believe that Churches should consider old people on the same basis as they do other age groups, when looking for leaders, committee members, teachers and other services. I believe that people should be chosen for service on the basis of what they can potentially give, not on the basis of age, race, gender, national origin nor any of the other bases for choosing people that we have, hopefully in the past, used to evaluate people. We will be surprised at what people can and will do if given a chance.

I try to remind people in our Church of the value of old people. Once a month I used to welcome people to the service and our Church. I almost always started by saying something like, “My name is still Bill Adams and I am still the old, white-headed man in the choir.” I believe the leaders need that light-hearted reminder that an old man with white hair can still perform a valuable service in our choir. Now, when will the leaders in other departments get the idea?

Lets honor our aged people, partly because they are still here after 70, 80 or more years. But let us still value these old people and, for goodness sake, not set them aside in an “old” heap until the undertaker comes along. Let’s keep them busy so they can have the dignity of productiveness.

         William O. Adams,

         (via Internet)

Looking back on September 11 can be a somber and even fearful experience. It’s horrendous to think about the trails of smoke billowing out of the twin towers and the images of them, one at a time, crashing to the ground. The world witnessed an attack on that September morning, having never expected to wake up to a terrible sight. As the days and weeks drew on, the world also saw our President stand up and fight back. The terrorists soon knew that the United States was no longer a sleeping giant. Through two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, terrorism became the new political buzzword as well as the new dread among Americans. All of this was pushed upon America from the outside. The terrorists were from other countries and were funded by other countries.

Pulling back from that perspective and training the microscope on ourselves, we see challenges just as severe as those that occurred on September 11. These challenges have the potential to cause a different kind of disaster to the U.S. To discover one of the most dangerous of these challenges, one must look no further than the city of San Francisco. As gay couples by the hundreds stand in line to be “married,” the city of San Francisco and its Mayor Gavin Newsom, have truly put themselves on the map. Within a few weeks of this, other states like Oregon have begun to follow suit, marrying 50 same-sex couples in Portland.

While our Congress sits around trying to decide what they’ll do next, the radical gay-rights movement gets closer to accomplishing its agenda; the complete destruction of religious and traditional values in our society. The question that begs to be asked is, do they know that what they are doing will cause serious instability to the United States? Obviously, some in the gay community do not. Many have been duped by their leadership to think that it is discrimination not to allow gays to marry legally. Many others just follow what sounds good to them without taking into consideration the consequences of their actions. Some even equate race with sexual orientation.

The real blame lands squarely in the laps of the leaders of the radical gay-rights movement. They are the ones trying to redefine the values of our nation. So yes, our country is facing threats from within and without, from gay-rights activists to brutal terrorists. Both attacks are just as serious, but we must remember that the strength of the United States is in its traditions, and most importantly, its Christian foundation. They must be fought for and won for the sake of our great country. That old saying quickly comes to mind; “All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.” Obviously we need a lot more men and women who are willing to do something.

         Hamilton R. Richardson

         Lakeside

Our Constitution was founded on the Judeo-Christian Bible and its precepts. God ordained marriage between a man and a woman and also provided for divorce (Hebrews 13:4 and Matthew 19:7 among other Scriptures). Marriage is not a civil rights issue.

Either we abide by the U.S. Constitution or we allow atheist, activist judges to rule according to their own political philosophy. If so, then this nation by throwing out God’s precepts will become an anarchy; whereby, no one will benefit but a few.

         Beverly Wyer

         El Cajon

Thank you for publishing my comments last month! I enjoyed your paper so very much and I enjoyed California.

You are doing a great service for your community and it is sorely needed! Lives are crying out to be touched and your vehicle of the Word is today’s healing balm!

God bless you all!

         Joyce McNamara

         Prescott, Arizona