Organization's ad distorts Bible's message
I was chagrined to see the Freedom from Religion Foundation's full-page ad on the last page of Oct. 21's Democrat-Gazette Section A. The ad, boldly asking "What does the Bible really say about abortion?" is an assortment of Old Testament verses. The ad distorts their meaning.
Anyone can find a Bible verse or two to prove the "truth" of their position, especially with today's ignorance of the Bible. For example, one might think Exodus' "an eye for an eye" means that God encourages us to retaliate when wronged. But it means the punishment one receives for injuring another must be similar or less harsh than the injury inflicted on the victim.
I examined the verses cited in the ad and will mention some here. The epic creation story in Genesis 2 relates how God made the world. There is no mention of a fetus or unborn child, because the verse shows the beautiful image of God breathing life into Adam.
Likewise, the implication that God told the Jews to kill fetuses in 2 Kings ignores surrounding verses. The Samarian king Menahem slaughtered the people. Verse 18 says "he did what was evil in the Lord's sight as long as he lived."
The Isaiah quote (the ad says God will kill unborn fetuses) is from an allegory predicting the fall of the Babylonians.
I could refute the meaning of each verse purporting to support abortion listed the ad, but my letter would exceed word limits imposed by the newspaper. I urge fellow readers to learn the truth of the ad's assertions.
And, Freedom from Religion Foundation, the First Amendment guarantees "freedom of religion," not "freedom from religion." It protects the right of all Americans, including Christians, Jews, Muslims and atheists to worship as they choose. And as the ad states, the First Amendment separates the powers of the church and state. I urge the FFRF to at least use the right preposition and quote the Constitution accurately.
Karen Wenzel
Bella Vista
Residents have many concerns about proposed trail
In response to the Nov. 4 editorial on the Cave Springs trail, I believe what is "murky" is the lack of a complete understanding of the locations of the proposed trail, not only through the Cave Springs area but also through the Cross Creek Subdivision in Rogers.
Many persons at the Nov. 1 meeting of the Board of Planning expressed the fact there was not a widespread distribution of this plan. Certainly the residents in the Cross Creek Subdivision were never informed of the proposed trail that would pass behind 48th Street as well as through the subdivision soccer/ball field and the creek.
As a former city council member in Springfield, Mo., I have heard the use of the term "NIMBY" often in planning situations. However, at this meeting, I heard very cogent reasons for not having the proposed trail in the area suggested. Numerous persons referred to problems with kids being in a backyard separated only feet from the proposed route and the safety of those kids from the public who would be using the proposed route.
Other reasons include: difficulty in reaching persons who have health issues along portions of the proposed trail not easily accessible to emergency care vehicles; taking of land by eminent domain from persons unwilling to provide land necessary for the proposed route; inability to place a 10-foot-wide concrete trail through land owned by the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, part of the proposed route; and an increase in impervious surface of the concrete trail facilitating more runoff of water that could be moved through the karst topography associated with this area and to underground water potentially filtering into the cave system housing cave fish on the endangered list.
There are many reasons the Cross Creek residents have for not wanting the proposed trail that include safety of the kids that utilize the current trail going to and from school, kids and parents going to the playground and swimming pool in the subdivision and an increase in bike traffic on the same area that see mothers and fathers pushing baby buggies with children in them and accompanying smaller kids just learning to ride bikes.
These are not "murky" objections but very real concerns. I wish the newspaper would have had a representative present at this meeting so it would have a much better understanding of what is clearly a series of significant concerns from residents of both Cave Springs and Rogers.
Russell G. Rhodes
Rogers
Editorial on 11/10/2016