C-Mail
In response to Nelda Thompson’s letter [“C-Mail,” Oct. 8], I strongly disagree with her thinly veiled endorsement of the president in this publication. While Ms. Thompson begins with the statement that “God is neither Democrat nor Republican,”she then justifies one of the candidate’s political views with scripture to make the argument that only one of the two Presidential candidates is truly “God’s candidate.” Regardless of her political views, I believe that her use of this newsletter to promote a political candidate is inappropriate and should not have been published. I hold The Call’s editors equally responsible in this matter as they have the ultimate decision what letters should and should not be printed. I have a deep love for the United Methodist Church but if The Call becomes a forum for political debate and discussion, then I will cancel my subscription. This newsletter should be about the Holston Conference and the United Methodist Church and nothing else.
In addition, I would like to remind the editors that the Holston Conference doesn’t end at the Tennessee state line. When I received this latest issue of The Call, I searched for news coming from the Virginia districts of the conference as I always do, and as usual found nothing. This preoccupation with “all things Tennessee” in the pages of your newsletter only alienates the members from Virginia who are a vital part of the conference. Indeed, God is working in the Abingdon, Big Stone Gap, Tazewell, and Wytheville districts and it would be nice to hear about it once in a while!
Chris Stafford
Dublin UMC
Wytheville District
In response to a fellow Methodist who commented about the New York Times ad, I believe all three candidates say they believe in the sanctity of life. Even so, of these three, one has been responsible for taking more innocent life than any candidate in recent memory. Thousands of boys and girls and women have died in Iraq as a result of his decision. God's man?
The writer insinuates that two of the candidates do not believe in traditional marriage. I cannot find that in either of their position statements.
Should a presidential candidate wear their religion on their sleeve? Probably not. There is much history to suggest that a political leader should bear spiritual fruit, but not toot a religious horn.
The writer seemed to put a lot of stock in the opinions of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. I can't think of any two men more at odds with the "prominent
Methodists" she mentions. Frankly, I must side with the Methodists.
Jim Price
McFarland UMC
Chattanooga District
I respectfully disagree with the "prominent Methodists" whose names appear in the ad in the New York Times ["Ad says: Political parties don't have monopoly on God," Sept. 10]. God is neither Democrat nor Republican. However, I believe that God is pleased with those who choose to follow his commands (and they are there in his word). I believe that a man has God's approval when he believes in the sanctity of life and wants to protect unborn babies (Exodus 20:13); wants to maintain God's plan for marriage between a man and a woman (Mark 10:6-9); is not ashamed to tell the world that he is a Christian (Matthew 10:32); is not ashamed to claim Jesus Christ as the greatest person he has known (Matthew 16:15-17); and encourages faith-based organizations to help the underprivileged (Galatians 6:2). Could these be the attributes that make Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson feel that God has his hand on one of the candidates?
Nelda Thompson
Apison UMC
Cleveland District
----------
Got something to say? Visit our Holston Talk page or write a letter to the editor of The Call.
top
|
Bishop's Column
Cover Story:
Trading Spaces
and
Presidential Race
Inside:
Thanks, Holston
Tacos Tonight?
Apples & Pizza
National & World News
Back to The Call Home Page
|
|
