Letters
Web Site's Narrow Definition of 'Christian'
After reading "Cyberspace Not Exempt From Religious Intolerance" (Sept. 10), I question the value of any Web site which claims to be the one repository of all locations where Christian worship can be found. As an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I have heard nothing in any of my meetings that is not related in some way to the worship of Jesus Christ. It seems the "House of Worship" Web site review board prefers to discount this worship by removing it from their list of Christian churches.
I would recommend that Web audiences resort to prayer rather than the Internet for guidance on where to find a true "house of worship."
Stan Pugsley
La Caada, Calif.
Thank you for your comments about religious intolerance. My church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, bears the name of Christ, and he is the center of our church and our prayers. Our talks end in his name, we teach of his love for us, we teach from the New Testament, yet we're still considered non-Christians [by the House of Worship Web site]. Besides, the "House of Worship" Web site says that all churches are to be listed there. Are they placing judgments on what are churches and what are not? Do they have to fit into a neat little category known only to a few? What about Catholics, Jews, Seventh-day Adventists? This is why so many are turned off by religion. Christ would not have acted this way. He wants all of us to work together for the good of mankind, not to separate and castigate because we don't all worship him the same way.
Patricia Crawford
Via e-mail
I read the story about the House of Worship Internet site's decision to exclude the Mormon (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), Unitarian, and Jehovah's Witness churches from their directory. A quick check of their Web site indicated that, because of this change, you can no longer find a listed "Christian" church by using the key words "Jesus Christ."
K. Lamonte John
Burke, Va.
Preserving America's coastline
The editorial "Buying Back Beaches" (Sept. 8) raises several important issues, but unfortunately misses the mark in pointing to solutions. In the face of eroding beaches and expanding coastal development, the most pressing need is for a comprehensive, nationwide policy to manage our coastal resources.
Investing about 100 million of federal tax dollars in our coastal sector, which produces $331 billion in taxable revenue as well as 5 billion jobs with a payroll of $91 billion can hardly be termed a "government subsidy." Nor should the fact that beach sand moves from year to year be a cause for deriding the extremely modest expenditure of taxpayer dollars to repair erosion.
Efforts are being made at the federal level and in some states to improve and coordinate the programs that help to preserve our coastal resources. But there is still a need for states and localities to assume a greater role in developing policies that will result in sustainable growth for coastal communities.
Finally, it is time to stop attacking those homeowners and businesses who have built "too close to the ocean." Most of these property owners built when there was more-than-ample sand to protect their structures from destruction by severe storms. They are the victims of a failure of government policies to renourish beaches where the creation of ports, channels, and dams have inhibited the natural flow of sand that would otherwise maintain the stability of those beaches.
Howard Marlowe
Washington, D.C.
President
American Coastal Coalition
The Monitor welcomes your letters and opinion articles. Only a selection can be published, and we can neither acknowledge nor return unpublished submissions. All submissions are subject to editing. Letters must be signed and include your mailing address and telephone number.
Mail letters to 'Readers Write,' and opinion articles to Opinion Page, One Norway St., Boston, MA 02115, or fax to 617-450-2317, or e-mail to oped@csps.com
