People are sick and tired of the gridlock in Washington D.C. and the uncompromising position of politicians. Yet they are ready to send the same people back to Washington and expect things to change. Is that insane or what?
-- William D. Carter
Ending white guilt
Walter Williams did an excellent job in his May 29 article by providing an enlightening definition of white privilege and the motivation behind it. He used an example of an 8-year girl who was asked to explain and said, white privilege is something that white people have, meaning they have an advantage in a lot of things, they can get jobs more easily. This is the doctrine that was expressed at the 15th annual White Privilege Conference. The example he used raises several questions. Could the reason be that the applicant did not get the job because he was a high school dropout or had poor communication skills? Was he inappropriately dressed or have a defiant demeanor?
To the advocates of white privilege, these factors were not essential. They contend the real reason the applicant did not get the job was because there is a vast white conspiracy to prevent qualified blacks from obtaining jobs. This is the core of the white privilege doctrine.
Another aspect of white privilege is that whites have to acknowledge they foster deeply embedded racist thoughts, notions and actions. They have to choose every day to do anti-racist work and to think in an anti-racist way. White privilege activists claim race is driving almost everything thats happening in the country.
What I find to be truly amazing is the proponents of white privilege and their followers disregard the fact that we have a black president as irrelevant. They claim this has not changed anything. They contend that President Obama works for the masters of the system of white privilege. Only the truly delusional could believe that he is a tool of a white society. Or do the advocates have an underlying motive? I believe these race-merchants do not want to acknowledge the gains made by blacks who got where they are by obtaining an education and working hard. They do not want to acknowledge that there are people of color who are governors and senators. Or that one of them could be the Republican presidential candidate in 2016. Acknowledging these facts would undermine their message of white guilt. Why do they not identify these successful individuals as role models? Is it because they believe they are too white?
I believe the proponents of white privilege are using there doctrine of blame as an excuse to disregard the real problems in the world as specified by both Williams and Thomas Sowell in numerous articles. A 50 percent high school graduation rate. A 30 percent college dropout rate. A 50 percent illegitimate birth rate. Almost 70 percent of black families headed by a single female parent. Many single mothers have children by different men. A 70 percent black-on-black crime rate. A 90 percent black-on-black murder rate. The proponents of white privilege do not address these facts. They only provide excuses for nonachievement.
I think the proponents of white privilege are trying to conceal their lack of courage and leadership to resolve obvious problems. They will not admit that many of the social engineering initiatives they championed have caused many of todays problems. I think the only individuals who will be left behind are those who do not take advantage of the numerous opportunities that are available.
At the end of his article, Williams claims this is just another attempt by some elitist to play the white guilt game. And he hopes that whites will stop feeling guilty for something that is not their fault and stop acting like fools. People do not push such demeaning causes without a reason.
-- Jim Costello
After reading Dr. Miguel Farias letter on May 29 and then reading an editorial in The New York Times on May 28 titled As Congress Sleeps, More People Die, I wonder whether he only watches Fox News and only reads the Wall Street Journal. Faria doesnt know that 280 of us are shot each day, plus 11,000 deaths from guns yearly and an additional 19,000 suicides annually.
We own at least 300 million firearms. Now who is going to confiscate them? Not our president. Britain does not have a higher crime rate than us. They dont even allow handguns. Their rifles are in lock boxes in their living rooms and bolted to their walls and their police come by to check to make sure they are locked.
Most European nations have nuclear weapons. I know, I lived in the UK for 23 years and travelled to every country. The Brits are quite happy not carrying concealed weapons. Only 29 homicides nationwide two years ago. Their police are mostly unarmed. They do have SWAT teams though.
I still think that I did everyone a favor by throwing two donated cases of his book Cuba in Revolution -- Escape From a Lost Paradise in a Dumpster.
-- Frank W. Gadbois
Thanks for reading
Thanks to all of you for doing your patriotic duty and reading this paper. Apparently, this is how our president gets all his news. He has said this several times when confronted with the numerous scandals so prevalent in his administration.
Never mind that we spend billions of dollars on various agencies to keep him informed. We could save all that money by just giving him a few newspapers to read. Maybe his wife could make sure that he attended the briefings instead of wasting her time trying to take chocolate milk out of the school lunch programs. Just a thought.
-- Van Adams
Taking the yoke
I find that I must disagree with my good friend John Dunaway and others in their remarks about the Mount de Sales controversy. If my memory serves me well, the catechism defines a sacrament as an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. I find it impossible to believe that an individuals actions or beliefs can corrupt a sacrament or violate the sanctity of a sacrament. Indeed, though I am certainly not a theologian, I suspect that the efficacy of the sacrament is not affected by the nature of the person -- a member of the clergy, perhaps -- who is involved in a sacramental act. As regrettable as it may be, we have pedophile priests, adulterous ministers, larcenous evangelists among the ranks of those who administer the Christian sacraments. How we deal with them is sometimes a legal matter, but the sacrament as a channel of grace is not affected.
The real issue here, I think, is whether we accept people who are different or reject them. Sadly, the history of the Christian church has far too often been a history of rejection rather than acceptance, shunning rather than embracing.
My wife and I attend an Episcopal church where the priest begins the service of Holy Eucharist with an invitation to all to receive communion. Not all who are Episcopalians or all who profess to be Christians or even all who are not married to someone of the same sex. Just all. All, he says, are welcome at Gods table. Sort of reminds me of that passage in Matthew: Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
We sometimes make the yoke far too difficult.
-- L. Kenneth Hammond
God, as you know, I chuckled out loud the other morning getting ready for work. Many of the items I reached for were only a fraction of an inch out of my grasp. Thank you that we never have to reach for you for help. Your word says over and over that we simply need to call your name. You even come to our rescue when we forget to do that. We pray in your mighty sons name. Amen.
-- Chris Westbrook
Readers -- ministers, rabbis, priests and laypersons alike are invited to contribute prayers to this weekly feature. Mail them to Prayer, The Telegraph, P.O. Box 4167, Macon, GA 31213; or fax to (478) 744-4385; or e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org.