Theology has no role in DOMA discussion
With respect to Rev. Peter Scaer’s opinions and interpretations of Scripture (Marriage views duel, June 28), the recent Supreme Court decision is a civil rights issue, not a theological one.
The U.S. population is comprised of Christians as well as millions of people with a different faith background, including no faith. Coupled with our long-standing understanding of the separation of church and state, this means it would be inappropriate to address DOMA on the basis of theological convictions that are not held by all Americans.
However, on the basis of equal rights to all individuals, the Supreme Court has made the right decision in granting equal rights to those in homosexual, and not just heterosexual, relationships.
THE REV. PAUL OFFHAUS Fort Wayne
Protecting environment investment in children
Your editorial (State’s hand abets threats to environment, June 30) called attention to the threats to Indiana’s (and our nation’s) environment by ignored regulators’ directives and broken promises.
Recent, widely affirmed proposals and promises for climate protection have frequently been dismissed with assertions that they would either cost us too much or that it’s just too soon for something like that.
Where public money is concerned, we get anxious about our personal taxes, and when we have some personal issues with a proposal for change, it can be tempting to postpone dealing with it until a later time.
But when the future of our children and our children’s children is involved, things should look a little different. We might even discover a willingness to forego some of our current, cherished comforts and conveniences for the sake of those children, and/or some proposed changes in our behaviors that are long overdue, to limit the hurts to our contemporaries already caused by things as they are.
It may be that some climate protections are well worth their costs to us and crucial to the welfare of those who come after us. How willing will we be to invest in the health and safety of those children?
FRANCIS FRELLICK Fort Wayne
Damaged sculpture useful to display welding skills
Concerning the recently wrecked welded, stainless steel construction in the proximity of the Fort Wayne Art Museum: I have no quarrel with the welder or his craftsmanship, only those people responsible for proposing its status as art and by its presentation on public art museum property and explaining it to the media as a worthy representation of the public’s perception of art.
As a credible example of welding expertise, it seems to me to be more properly repositioned near a school of welding techniques.
Someone in the news used the figures of $200,000 to $300,000 to rebuild the steel structure. My suggestion would be to use that amount, if it can be found, to finance the training of many students of welding to perfect their skills. Chances are, they could accomplish the task for a lot less and we would benefit from their newly developed expertise.
When it is repositioned in a more proper venue, the paint should be removed to show the welding process more clearly. Stainless steel takes a higher degree of welding proficiency and should be displayed sans see me orange paint.
GEORGE ALATZA Fort Wayne