Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Letters may be edited for spelling, grammar, punctuation and legal concerns.


Marriage is the first human institution & it was ordained by God

To The Daily Sun,
James Veverka is at it again. He starts out with taking Steve Earle to task for saying that liberals don't believe in God. Steve's heart is in the right place but he made the mistake of making his generality too broad. I do believe that the generality that atheists and agnostics drive the liberal agenda is a generality that can be defended. Liberal Christians, those who truly are Christians, have just hitched their wagon up with a caravan that is headed in the wrong direction, a decision that they will eventually come to regret.

Jim says of liberal Christians, "They just detest any alliance of church and state." Here I'd really like to ask politically liberal Christians, those who have a relationship with Jesus Christ, does Jim speak for you in this matter? If not please make your voice heard. For I am afraid that though Jim may not be as discrete as others, those who drive the liberal agenda are of quite similar minds as Jim. This divorce of church and state, that Jim alludes to is not a good state for any nation to be in, for if there is not an a alliance, then they are at odds with one another. If the Christian church is God's representative here on earth, woe to such a nation.

Jim commends liberal Christians for not taking the Bible literally. Here's the problem with that. If you take the liberty to assume that the bible is meant to be taken figuratively you put yourself in the place where you can make it mean almost anything you want it to mean. That's the purpose of this type of hermeneutics. You get to tell God what He means, instead of reading the Bible literally unless it clearly indicates that a passage is figurative, seeking Him diligently and then submitting your will to His. The latter type of hermeneutics is difficult to do. The first is easy. It's a cinch, which is more attractive to our human will. Yet if we chose this first type of hermeneutics, though it may gain us the approval of men, it puts us in opposition to God.

I've seen some of those Christian-liberal-progressive debate pages, they're a little sly about it, but that first type of hermeneutics is what they're advocating.

Jim goes on to site some misuses of scripture as if the misuse negates the benefit of proper application of the Word of God. News flash, human beings, sinful creatures that we are, can misuse almost anything no matter what the benefit of the proper use of the thing is.

Jim accuses Christians as being a hateful, anti-gay, anti-woman people. He confuses personal human virtue and politics. I have known a lot of Christian people and am one myself. I've known very few who hate homosexuals, none who hate women. I do not hate homosexuals. I love women; I'm married to one. Most Christians deal with the reality of loving homosexual friends or relatives daily. Yet we cannot change what the Word of God say's about this condition. As clearly as adultery and fornication is sin, so is homosexuality. We love the adulterer and the fornicator as well. Yet in the oft quoted account of the woman caught in adultery, what liberal quoters of this passage leave out is that after Jesus pardons her; He instructs her to sin no more.

As to the politics of these issues. It is the gay and lesbian lobby that is forcing a change in the very definition of marriage which has been the union of a man and a woman since the beginning of time, for the purpose of the creation of the family. Even if you don't believe the Bible there are some obvious biological reasons for this. For at least some 6,000 years this union between a man and a woman has been the nucleus of the family and its worked.

Marriage is the first human institution and it was ordained by God. To work to change the definition of marriage in this manner is an outworking of the denial that there is a design in the creation. This goes near the very heart of the Christian faith, and human judges and legislators want to change this institution and force everyone to accept the change. This is what is happening, yet there is hardly a homosexual hater in the true church. Yet the slander goes on.

Also concerning women's rights: Pro-life Christians recognize that life starts at conception. It is quite clear that this is true. Only a strong desire for it to be otherwise clouds this issue. The basis for the pro-life view is that if you have the authority to protect this human life and do not do it, or create deliberate roadblocks to the exercising of this authority. It is a grave wrong indeed. It's called human rights. A group that women are a subset of. To cry women's rights is a political ploy to divide us into voting blocs.

Jim's use of the terrible inhumanities occurring in the civil war in the Central African Republic, to project blame on the Christian Church, just seems to me, to be typical of what Jim does in all of his letters, for there are clearly forces at work there other than that of the direction of the Lord Jesus.

Though Jim seems to be an intelligent man, he doesn't seem to have the depth of understanding to write thoughtfully concerning the subjects he chooses to write about. So I think Jim's Center for the Study of Absurdity is a good thing for Jim, for mocking is what Jim can do.

John Demakowski

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 417

What's the word from the World Nut Daily & the demonology experts?

To The Daily Sun,

Russ Wiles is back with another episode of junk-science and Palinesque word salad. After engaging in goofy semantics with "vaccination" and "immunization" that fools none, he mentions a book by Suzanne Humphries, noted anti-vaxxer. Humphries recently advised Israeli parents not to participate in a booster program of oral polio vaccine after polio was discovered by the state monitoring of the sewage in some southern cities. That is dangerous and stupid advice. As most of us know, sometimes more than one dose is needed for the immune system to react properly. Some immunizations require a series of doses or shots. It's not the science that isn't working, it's that some people's immune system need a bigger kick. In a tiny minority, the usual dosage may not work. Anti-vaxxers will isolate some failures to immunize and blow them way out of proportion as if its the norm. It's the exception.

Russ says he just wants to make informed decisions. Being an anti-vaxxer is an outright confession of being uninformed, just as being a young earth creationist is a confession of being uninformed regarding evolution. One of the websites Russ mentions is wnd.com. Sane folks call it World Nut Daily because it's the extremists of the extremists. The article mentioned, "How vaccine hysteria could spark a totalitarian nightmare," is right out of Ward D in a fenced-off building. Did you know that this "news" site has a demonology expert? A demonology expert! Get out! His name is Karl Payne, author of "Spiritual Warfare: Christians, Demonization and Deliverance."

Mr. Wiles also mentions an alleged whistle-blower at the CDC named Dr. William Thompson that supposedly claimed autism in African-American children jumped 340 percent due to the MMR vaccine. Mr. Wiles says it's an historic confession but the fact is the story is bogus. If you google William Thompson, the Snopes article debunking it is on page one. ScienceBlogs addresses it at http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/08/22/brian-hooker-proves-andrew-wakefield-wrong-about-vaccines-and-autism/. ScienceBlogs might be a bit more informed than a right wing, birther, Obama-is-a-Muslim website that has a demonology expert.

Anti-Vaxxer Brian Hooker's 340 percent "reanalysis" of a 2004 study has been retracted from the journal it first appeared in. In its place is "This article has been removed from the public domain because of serious concerns about the validity of its conclusions. The journal and publisher believe that its continued availability may not be in the public interest. Definitive editorial action will be pending further investigation."

Now to poor defrocked Dr. Wakefield. Russ says, "We now know Dr. Andrew Wakefield is not a fraud and did not even advise against vaccination." Who is "we"? World Nut Daily and the demonology experts? Mr. Wiles claims "Dr. Wakefield was never convicted by a jury or a court of law." That may be simply because scientific fraud at that level may not pass a required threshold. But Wakefield has been tried and convicted by his medical peers and can't practice medicine in the UK.

The British General Medical Council (GMC) investigated Wakefield for misconduct after Sunday Times reporter Brian Deer found multiple problems with Wakefield's study. Problems included financial conflicts of interest and conducting invasive procedures like colonoscopies and lumbar punctures on children without the required ethical approval from the research ethics board. In 2010, the statutory tribunal of the GMC found 36 charges "proven". This included four counts of dishonesty and 12 counts of abuse regarding developmentally challenged children. What was the financial conflict of interest? Wakefield received money from a personal injury lawyer who made a living out of collecting damages from vaccine manufacturers for alleged health damages suffered by vaccinated kids.

James Veverka

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 398