Peace sign Symbol creates controversy, not unity
I do not understand why the Jeannette Rankin Peace Center wishes to re-establish Missoula's equivalent of the Rebel Flag, the peace sign.Never has there been one symbol that has divided this community so dramatically. Groups have formed openly and covertly to put it up and take it down. People love it, hate it or just don't understand it.
Its promoters trespassed and defaced private property to create it and maintain it, although not once was anyone proud enough to take credit.
In 1973, a group full of hate wearing peace symbols spat and cursed at me. I was in uniform, a two-year drafty on my way home. Imagine how I felt the day that symbol appeared on the hillside.
Some see the peace sign as the icon of an anti-establishment, counter-culture, more interested in personal freedoms than peace - the flag of the young and enlightened of the '60s and '70s, perhaps.
As long as you are preaching to the choir, the support you feel will be overwhelming. What this symbol means to those in your group is not representative enough to become a bold symbol of our community.
Remember the sign, archive it, create a plaque to it, but don't put it back on the hill. Your money and time would be better spent on a more appropriate project, one that promotes peace, not controversy.
Tim Marinan, Missoula
Gerald R. FordTime to reflect on a great man, president
As a federal employee, I had the day off Jan. 2 in remembrance of former President Gerald R. Ford. I could have taken advantage of the extra day off and done something fun; but with two kids in school and one home sick in bed, I sat quietly and watched the services.I was a senior in high school when Ford became President. With him being in the White House for such a short period, what did most high school seniors from that time remember about him? Was he a Democrat or a Republican? How long did he serve as our president? What were some of his accomplishments during that short period? I probably couldn't have answered those questions prior to the recent news coverage. But as I sat there this morning watching the service, I thought about what I did remember.
I remember a sincere, honest and kind man. A man of integrity; a leader who was concerned for the future of our country during a difficult time. A man who was willing to listen, to learn and to then speak his opinion. A family man, who reminded me of my father. A man I could respect and look up to. A man who should be president of our country.
My prayers go out to Mrs. Ford and her family. I'm grateful I had the time to sit quietly and to reflect on the person I remember. As we move into the elections for our next president, I hope that person will have the same values and characteristic that I remember in former President Gerald R. Ford.
Claire Huking, Missoula
FaithIt's hard to be both rational and religious
Sam Harris' commentary (Missoulian, Dec. 31) aimed to improve perceptions some religious people have toward atheists by debunking common myths. That was good comfort to people of my ilk. I hope it was comprehended with all the openness intended.Although I have no personal god, the term “atheist” doesn't quite apply because clearly, gods do exist. Gods exist in human imagination. Visions my fellow humans have of their gods greatly affect their behaviors that affect me directly and indirectly. Consequently, gods exist for me and I take account of that, partly by learning of their godly varieties and practices. As a rationalist, I believe that gods, all gods around the world and through the ages, are creations of human imaginations and perceptions that are intended to serve human purposes. Some of those purposes have been well served. But there are many kinds of glitches.
Our Republican Constitution, especially the First Amendment, is a great friend of religion. That guarantee to freedom of expression is a major reason why our nation is the most religious of all developed countries. Here, small disagreements among sincere people are reflected in the splintering of Protestantism into myriads of denominations. Ironically, many religions and religious citizens are not friends of our Constitution. Those who want to force their narrow religious ideas into our Constitution seem not to realize that successful forcing would destroy the greatest protection they have for freedom to believe in their personal faith.
Although all religions teach of love and acceptance, such are often limited to members of one's own narrow sect. For recent examples, I am dismayed by mean-spirited letters that refute Glen Moyer's conclusion (Missoulian Religion page, Dec. 16) that there is no hell. Those mean refutations are made by supposedly peace-loving, Jesus-following Christians. It is very difficult, maybe impossible, to be simultaneously rational and religious.
Don Michels, Missoula
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)