America must vote to restore core values from the Bible

America must vote to restorecore values from the Bible
EDITOR:
We are at a critical time in history. Two philosophies have clashed at a crossroads, and only one can prevail and continue to move forward. One denies God a place in government, while the other insists his ways are the very foundation of government. We must ask ourselves "How long is the Lord going to continue to bless a people who turn their back on him?" When the people of this nation recognize God of the Bible as its Lord, then he favors that country with prosperity, protection and stability.
Right now it looks like we are getting so corrupt because we are being drawn away from our godly foundations. Our greatest enemy is not an external threat, but a menace within our own borders, our disintegrating moral characters. We must speak up! Mr. Khrushchev was right years ago when he said, "America will destroy itself."
We should not:
1. Prohibit Bible reading and prayer in schools.
2. Prohibit the display of crosses or Nativity scenes in public places.
3. Prohibit the display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings and places.
4. Remove one nation under God from our Pledge of Allegiance.
5. Remove In God We Trust from our currency.
6. Allow abortion or partial abortion.
Shame on us. Why can't we, as a free people, have these very important decisions placed on our ballot for all to vote on? We talk about freedom and justice for all.
"Where is it?" People, I ask you this November, vote according to the principles of God and our country, even if it does not personally benefit you. This is our responsibility. Also, speak up, America, and do something as your spiritual responsibility, or we will lose our freedoms and blessings altogether..
ELEANOR BREEGLE
Niles
Ask yourself: What would Jesus do about State Issue 1?
EDITOR:
Issue 1 on the November ballot is an issue of the first importance. It is not about gay marriage, which is already prohibited by law in Ohio. It is instead a ballot initiative that would make it impossible for gay couples and other unmarried couples to receive basic benefits, including health care. That is its only purpose: to deprive the partners of gay people of basic health care benefits.
Many people, as they consider what they should do in a specific case, like to ask themselves: "What would Jesus do?" That's not always an easy question, but in this case the answer is obvious. When asked by his disciples who his true followers were, Jesus gave a simple clear answer: My real followers are those who feed the hungry, care for the sick, clothe the poor. Consistent with all his teachings, Jesus set no conditions: Don't ask whether the sick are Jews or Gentiles, saints or sinners, men or women, black or white, gay or straight. Care for the sick, and make no distinctions among people, for they are all God's children, and they are all your neighbors. Jesus taught us to love and care for all our neighbors, and Jesus would never support hate legislation to deprive our neighbors, our children and brothers and sisters and friends, of health care.
Some self-proclaimed religious leaders support Issue 1, but be not deceived: No man can serve two masters. Whether your title is priest or minister, bishop or deacon, you cannot promote hate legislation that denies health care coverage to some of God's children and at the same time follow Jesus, who taught us to love all our neighbors. A vote for Issue 1 is a vote for hate and discrimination and deprivation. A vote against Issue 1 is a vote to care for our neighbors. What would Jesus do?
BRUCE N. WALLER
Boardman
MRDD settlement showshow to put others first
EDITOR:
On behalf of my wife and myself, and especially on behalf of our disabled daughter, Kathryn, we wish to express our sincere and heartfelt appreciation to both the employees and the Board of the Mahoning County Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities for reaching a fair and amicable settlement of issues without a strike. We certainly appreciate the challenges both sides faced in bringing this matter to a resolution. Both sides obviously had the best interests of their pupils and clients in mind in settling their respective differences.
The prospect of a strike was as chilling to parents and guardians alike, but we are so glad that both sides respected the "third side" of the clients.
NANCY and VINCE WLOCH
Boardman