Focus on changing today instead of the past
In reference to “Slavery, proponents are indefensible (Letters, Oct. 4),” I believe enough is enough. Do we rename Washington and Jefferson boulevards? Both of these men owned slaves. Do we tear down the White House? The Washington Monument?
Calhoun Street is just that, a street. When you drive down it, are you reminded of the fact that it is named after a man who owned slaves? Not likely.
\Do we really need to subject the hundreds of people and businesses on this street to have to go through the hassles, not to mention astronomical expenses, such an endeavor would create? The times we are facing require healing and compassion, not further acts to hinder.
Changing the name of a street (or maple syrup or rice, for that matter) changes nothing. Get out and vote! Change the world by changing what's going on today, not something that happened dozens, even hundreds of years ago.
Slavery was, and is, a disgusting and evil institution; practiced by all races and cultures. Maybe it's letter writer Freesia McKee, also, who needs a brush-up on her history lessons.
David S. Healey
Maskless COVID-19 vectors of northeast Indiana, unite! Stand (close) together to better spread your agenda. All you face will be impressed (and maybe infected) by your sense of self-importance.
Supreme Court's tilt to Catholics troubling
Should the makeup of the Supreme Court be representative of the people? Is it best if the Supreme Court is comprised of a diverse group of individuals who come from many different backgrounds? Would it be a good thing if, as a group, the Supreme Court knew, firsthand, and understood how the interpretation of the laws and Constitution will affect all U.S. citizens?
In my lifetime, great strides have been made toward diversity on the Supreme Court in the areas of gender and ethnicity.
Now we are faced with a dilemma of backsliding in the area of religious views and backgrounds. What would you think of having six justices being Buddhist? What about six Muslims, or six of the Hindu faith? Would six Mormons, Baptists or six Jehovah Witnesses be OK? Would six of the Jewish faith, or even the followers of the Satanic Church be to your liking?
If six of any religious background seems to be not enough diversity, then you may want to consider what is about to happen. If Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed, then the opinions of the Supreme Court will be influenced/rendered by six members of the Catholic faith for the first time in history. So much for moving toward diversity. Six of nine Justices steeped in the teachings of the Pope and the Holy See will be involved in deciding the legality of the laws of this land that professes separation of church and state.
Only five out of nine justices are needed for a majority opinion, and they can change history. Maybe that is why more than 1,500 alumni of Barrett's alma mater, Rhodes College, signed a letter saying she fails to represent their views and values.
Letters related to the Nov. 3 election must be received by noon on Oct. 26 to be considered for publication.