• Admiral’s viewpoint • Church/State • Rice letter • For Bush Admiral’s viewpoint I was disappointed to read the May 23 Guest Viewpoint by Rear Admiral Barry McCullough, U.S. Navy, and proud of council person Yukimura’s thorough response in Mr.
• Admiral’s viewpoint
• Church/State
• Rice letter
• For Bush
Admiral’s viewpoint
I was disappointed to read the May 23 Guest Viewpoint by Rear Admiral Barry McCullough, U.S. Navy, and proud of council person Yukimura’s thorough response in Mr. Finnegan’s article on the same subject.
The rear admiral’s letter was calculated, and tried to give an explanation of the Navy’s stance on this great issue that could affect the west side of Kaua`i in perpetuity.
To say that “Most have welcomed it…” (the proposal to give PRMF control over thousands of additional acres of ag land) is a fantasy. “…rightly seeing it as necessary to conduct military research in an isolated area…”
The fantasy continues.
Kaua‘i’s isolation was once the reason why Kaua‘i was never conquered.
Now, isolation is the military’s excuse to sacrifice Kaua`i because it sees our island as a safer place to conduct dangerous, often damaging “military research” than other less-isolated places. (GMO companies use the same reasoning). Why does its isolation make Kaua‘i a better place than others? Because of the consequences if anything goes wrong and because as the base expands, we become a more vital target.
The Rear admiral should be happy that our patriotism and patience have allowed PMRF to remain at all.
Kaua‘i has already given more than her fair share.
Bill Young
Kapa‘a
Church/State
We have heard much lately about the separation of church and state with reference to the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The relevant part of that amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Most obvious is that the phrase “separation of church and state” is not found in the First Amendment, nor anywhere else in the Constitution. It was never the intention of the framers of the Constitution to restrict, inhibit, deny, or eliminate the influence of religion in American culture.
Instead of the words “church” and “state” we find the words “congress” and “religion.” It was the intention of the framers of the Constitution, to guarantee the right and freedom of religion to exercise its influence in American culture without hindrance. Therefore the First Amendment does not prohibit religion from exercising its influence in American life.
The First Amendment does prohibit Congress, the law-making body, from making any laws that either establish religion or give precedence to one religion over another. In other words, it prohibits Congress from interfering in the free exercise of religion.
Thomas Jefferson, second vice-president and third president of the United States, said, “No nation has ever yet existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be.”
Dr. Raymond Holmes
Dr. Gordon ” Doc” Smith
Kapa’a
Rice letter
In a letter to this newspaper yesterday, Martin Rice made a good case for taxing churches if they insist on pushing government around. I have to disagree, however, with my friend Martin.
This country is not set up that way. This government was based, formed and created on a concept that church and state need to be separate because the founding fathers were just a few seconds away from living inside countries in which the government told you what you were to believe and if you did not, you got into a world of hurt.
So, wisdom in this matter prevailed and our nation has existed now for over two centuries because people flocked here and stayed here. They stayed because freedom is a heady wine. So, let us not screw with the brew, folks. It works. It ain’t broke, so let’s don’t fix it, okay? Lets keep those religious folks right where they are. Screaming their heads off. Preaching.
That is what they are for. And, lets keep our lawmakers over on the other side saying stuff like they say every election. Stuff that sounds like committment but is not. You know, like they did on the same-sex marriage issue. Decide not to decide.
Brent Kincaid
Lihu‘e
For Bush
I just never ceased to be puzzled by the liberal point of view about our President and the war on terror. In regards to your letter “against Bush” by Ms. French, I couldn’t help but appreciate her well put point of view, but on the other hand feel that the facts point 180 degrees from her position. Yes, our Intelligence and President said that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. So did Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, the French, Germans, and UN to name a few. How can we say he didn’t have them when he actually used them in the destruction and attempted genocide of tens of thousands of men, women and children in his own country? He had them all right. Where are they now? Time will tell. We have to be patient. A WMD was found in Iraq last week and there are probably many more where that came from. We will find them.
Sachiko Goto
Tokyo, Japan
Gordon Oswald
Kapa‘a
