Printed letters, December 26, 2013

I am not a viewer, but if A&E is offended by Duck Dynasty’s biblical beliefs, why did it run a marathon of reruns this week?

The Bible tells us, “Let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’ and your ‘No’ be ‘No.’” This is just a small example of hypocrisy in our world today, and not just in the media.

I am seeing more and more tolerance for everything under the sun, except when it has anything to do with the Bible. The history I learned in public schools taught me that our Founding Fathers used the Bible as their moral compass. The same Bible also tells us over and over not to judge.

Actually, we are admonished more to not judge than we are told about homosexuality. Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson was saying what he believes. No matter what the Bible says about sexuality of any kind, it’s not our place to judge, but to love one another.

In the New International Version of the Bible, Matthew 7:2 says, “For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”

And 1 John 3:11 has this to say: “For this is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another.”

MERRIDETH SIECKERT

Palisade

Sens. Udall, Bennet voted 
to weaken our sovereignty

The topic of national sovereignty doesn’t register with most folks, and it should. In the case of our United States, the term refers to the ability of our people to control our own government. This ability is under constant attack, and unfortunately most Americans are not aware of these threats.

A recent chance meeting with three college sophomores and two high school seniors revealed that not one had ever heard of the term, “national sovereignty,” and, as a result, they had no understanding of its meaning.

When one gains this understanding fully and then learns there are those in our government who never miss an opportunity to give (cede) away some of our freedoms and vital laws, and therefore give control of these laws to others, notably the United Nations, it is highly troubling.

Three times in recent months, treaties have been proposed to the U.S. Senate for ratification. In each case the vote was very close. Fortunately, wiser heads prevailed, and in each case the proposals were defeated.

As with the Affordable Care Act, each proposal had a very enticing name. Without reading the proposal carefully, one would conclude, “That sounds OK with me.”

One would also naturally ask, “Who in our government would vote to do such a thing as weaken our national sovereignty?” Having learned in a high school U.S. history class about this and other basic tenets of our liberties and republic, I am astounded to watch our Senate even try to give them away. In all three cases, both Colorado senators, Mark Udall and Michael Bennet, voted to do exactly that.

If one would ask either man why (and they should be asked), in all likelihood the answer would be “Coloradans told me to do so.” And, of course, that would be a bald-faced lie. It’s time they were asked, and it’s time for both to go. Let’s start with Udall next November.

FRANK ROGER LITTLE

Grand Junction

 

Colorado Canyons National 
Park best name for monument

I have been happy to read of the progress toward the possible legislative designation of Colorado National Monument as a national park. I send my appreciation to all who have been working so hard and so long on this worthy initiative, including Congressman Scott Tipton and Sen. Mark Udall. John Otto would be so proud that the incomparable land he sought to see recognized as a national park more than 100 years ago may be a dream about to become a reality.

I know many great ideas are circulating in the community about what to call the new national park. I would like to offer my recommendation, which is based on the 35 years I spent working in the National Park Service, including as superintendent at Colorado National Monument.

In my experience of how to successfully market national parks within the context of the national and international tourism industry, I have learned that a name that includes the place and the most recognized physical attribute is critical.

I believe the name that will best attract national and international travelers and grow visitation to the Grand Valley is Colorado Canyons National Park. It immediately identifies the place and the dominant topography with a name that will evoke a compelling image for potential travelers. Those four words weave the imagery and will attract visitors to travel to explore Colorado’s canyon country.

Otto called this canyon country that he so loved the heart of the world. These breathtaking Colorado canyons certainly were at the heart of who Otto was and what he was working to promote.

I hope that Otto’s dream of protecting and proclaiming this geologic wonder of western Colorado, the present-day Colorado National Monument, will soon be transformed into Colorado Canyons National Park. The world is waiting to discover its magic.

JOAN ANZELMO

Former Superintendent

Colorado National Monument

Jackson, Wyo.



COMMENTS

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Page 1 of 1


Regarding the Udall/Bennett article by Mr. Little;
It is apparent that the very government entity that has control over education is insuring our children are kept ignorant of any Constitutional protection from a tyrannical government. U.S. History and civics are of no importance in the education system under this government’s rule. Yet sex education, which is a parental obligation rather than governmental is mandatory in quite a few schools. For probably the last 2 generations, the government has perpetuated dumbing down our students to control these men and women as well as those that follow.

With respect for MS. Anzelmo and Regarding the Colorado National Monument;
Why would Colorado or any state for that matter want to allow the federal government more jurisdiction of land within their borders. As already seen by the BLM articles in the Sentinel and elsewhere, they are unable to maintain access to public lands let alone their management that creates dangerous conditions in our national forests in the state. The continuation or extension of federal jurisdiction over Colorado lands can only lead to more areas of restricted access and poor maintenance. Look at the management of our forests under federal control, their record of management is abysmal and has endangered our forests in not protecting from beetle infestation and uncontrollable fires. Do you really believe they will be able to do better if the Monument, which is now a federal monument becomes a National Park? I vote for Colorado Canyon lands Monument Park.

Page 1 of 1






Search More Jobs






THE DAILY SENTINEL
734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050
Editions
Subscribe to print edition
E-edition
Advertisers
Sign in to your account
Information

© 2014 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy