Lane cartoon insults citizens of Dundalk
It sickens me to see how low The Evening Sun has to stoop these days to sell papers. Are you trying to become the New York Post of Baltimore? I am totally disgusted by the editorial cartoon that appeared in the Sept. 29 Evening Sun regarding John Arnick and Dundalk.
As a sales executive who does business with many large corporations in the Baltimore-Washington area, in the last year and a half I have had the opportunity of doing business with many companies and organizations in the Dundalk area, including Mr. Arnick's office.
I have yet to meet anyone that even closely resembles the characters you have depicted in this cartoon.
I know the citizens and business people in Dundalk to be an outstanding, caring and honest group of hard-working individuals that are a pleasure to work with . . .
If The Evening Sun would spend more time and energy having its staff research and print news instead of trash, perhaps you might gain some respect from the Baltimore community and increase your readership because of a quality product that is being produced . . .
Carole E. Downey
As a businessman in Dundalk for nearly 20 years, I find the Evening Sun cartoon of Sept. 29 offensive and demeaning to the citizens of Dundalk and my employees.
First, you imply these citizens do not have the right or the ability to choose their elected representatives.
Second, the cartoon characterizes these individuals as grotesque and some form of second-class citizen.
It's amazing. Our business has survived using "lightweight personnel" from Dundalk. In spite of this handicap, we've engineered and sold electric generating systems to the likes of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Boeing Aerospace and other sophisticated customers around the world.
The Evening Sun professes to support the concept of regionalism. When you degrade one group, you in fact promote factionalism.
Thomas T. Koch
Who's on First?
"Who needs public religion?" by Ronald P. Bowers (Other Voices, Sept. 22) is a creditable presentation of the losing arguments in the two recent federal cases concerning free speech that the writer cites.
The fact remains that with any judgmental right bequeathed to a person or group, another right of those in opposition is taken away.
The further fact is that it makes no more logical sense to restrain students from an opening religious invocation than to restrain them from singing the National Anthem.
It is their choice, as a matter of free speech, and as a right conferred by the First Amendment. Others have the right not to pray and close their ears, or not to sing.
Nor is it logical to single out religion as a subject that community groups using school meeting facilities cannot discuss, while all other groups speak freely of other topics.
Regardless of arguments to the contrary, First Amendment rights are quite clear and without limitation, except when inciting a riot.
Given that exception, if precedent was set by ensuing riots at every mention of God on school property, then the court might further intervene.
Until such time, however, free speech is once again the law of the land, and Mr. Bowers' arguments against free speech are mute and incomprehensible.
Richard L. Frank
Come on, get real. Do you really think that the cable companies are going to give up their access to the network affiliates? Of course not, because they know they'd lose lots of customers.
No, they'll reach a heroic 11th-hour deal on Oct. 5, no matter how much it costs them. Because they're not the ones who are going to pay. We are.
Oh, they might wait a few months, perhaps till after the holidays. But they'll up their rates, never fear. And they know we'll pay. Or will we?
Carol G. Rosenthal
There's so much talk about teen pregnancy. The music that they play on the radio encourages sex among teen-agers. They glorify it. The songs they play are too dirty for night clubs. While the songs are playing, the dee jay makes a joke out of it.
Some songs they play should be banned from the radio. It's very hard to raise children to be decent with dee jays who don't have any respect for children.
'Biblical astronomy' is bad science
The problem with science education in this country is that there are too many people who are grossly ignorant in matters of science but who think they are qualified to determine what should be taught in the classroom.
In his letter "Debating origins" (Sept. 21), Andred Bobb declared that the theory of evolution is "nonscience." It was quite clear from his letter that he rejects evolution because it contradicts Judeo-Christian mythology.
However, there is a considerable amount of scientific evidence in support of evolution and none that prohibits it.
On the other hand, there is not one shred of scientific evidence in support of the creation "model," and there is considerable evidence against it.
Because of that, promoters of creationism are forced to resort to pseudoscientific hogwash, misrepresentation and outright falsehood to refute evolution and "prove" creationism.
They can get away with it because, as many surveys have shown, so many people are ignorant in matters of science, particularly those who accept creationism.
I find it curious that people such as Mr. Bobb object to evolution being taught in the schools, but are silent when other areas of science that are in conflict with the Bible are taught.
For example, students are taught that the Earth is a sphere and that it is rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun. They are also taught that the stars are other suns and that the Earth has no special place in the universe.
According the Bible, however, the Earth is the center of creation and is a flat, immovable disk set on pillars and covered with a solid vault into which are set mere lights that are the Sun, Moon and stars.
The Catholic Church had Giordano Bruno burned at the stake for saying, in contradiction to the Bible, that the Earth moves. It forced Galileo to recant under threat of torture for saying the same thing.
Moreover, virtually all the leaders of the Protestant Reformation -- Luther, Calvin, Wesley, etc. -- condemned the Copernican view of the cosmos.
Even today, the creationist Association for Biblical Astronomy rejects the moving Earth "theory." Further, the members of the creationist Flat Earth Society hold that the spherical-Earth view is a "Satanic lie" designed to discredit the Bible and that the Apollo Moon landings and pictures of the Earth taken from space were faked.
If Mr. Bobb really believes the Bible, he should advocate the teaching of biblical astronomy in the schools as a counterpoint to the "atheistic" Copernican system.
In his Sept. 21 letter, Andred J. Bobb calls evolution theory a "nonscience" and says it does not belong in science classrooms. To Mr. Bobb, the debate on origins is a matter of religion and philosophy, not science, and the public should not permit "religion such as atheism to use scientists and scientific resources to promote its beliefs."
Evolution theory should indeed be taught in science classrooms. Evolution does not, as creationism does, ignore or distort volumes of evidence to avoid contradicting a few passages of ancient scripture.
Evolution is scientific because its many assertions are freely and systematically tested through the search for evidence in the real world.
Evolution theory has itself evolved as a result of the many thousands of discoveries in paleontology, geology and genetics since the time of Charles Darwin.
Far from being a belief promoted only by atheists, evolution is supported by most of the population and by the great majority of scientists, most of whom believe in God.
Atheists and secular humanists do have an agenda for the science classroom, but it is merely to promote scientific literacy in all aspects of the natural sciences, including evolution.
Larry D. Rosen