Cut out the hatred
Published: Saturday, Jan. 12, 2013, 8:56 p.m.
In a letter of just a few words (“Leave us alone,” Jan. 6), Dana Risa Dinsmore demonstrates the danger of religious fanaticism.
In arguing to retain the Ten Commandments monument at Valley High School, the writer concludes that atheists are tools of the devil and that rather than expressing a legitimate view, they should go elsewhere to cause “trouble.”
She adds for emphasis, in an apparent attempt to intimidate those who would dare challenge her supreme view, that her “110-pound Doberman” stands with her. In other words, “How dare anyone disagree with me. I am a Christian. My majority view is right and it shall prevail.”
I wonder if the writer is familiar with the following biblical passages:
• Matthew 7:1 — “Judge not, that ye be not judged.”
• Ephesians 4:31 — “Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamor, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice...”
• James 4:11 — “He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law...”
• Psalms 101:5 — “Who so privily slandereth his neighbor, him will I cut off: him that hath an high look and a proud heart will not I suffer.”
I agree with Ms. Dinsmore that this historic monument should remain, but I'm embarrassed to be on the same side of any issue with a hater who deals with those who believe differently in a disdainful and contemptuous manner.
No god or legitimate church would preach or sanction hatred and intolerance toward our fellow men and women.
Oren M. Spiegler
Upper St. Clair
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Prevailing wage downsides I
- Prevailing wage downsides II
- Hero at rest
- Lies and disrespect I taught …
- Forcing their beliefs
- Valid comparison?
- Us & them
- Unconstitutional funding
- ‘Chained’ sellout
- Fuel tax increase