Thursday, April 29, 2004
The Weekly is Clearly Pursuing an Anti-Christian Agenda
On Tuesday 23 March 2004, I sent you an e-mail reply to the letter from Aaron Eden of Carmel which you printed in your edition of Thursday 18 March 2004 and which you chose to title “Fundamentalism Is As Dangerous As Hell.” (Mr. Eden, although exhibiting an obvious lack of understanding as to why Christians necessarily are exclusivists as to matters of truth-claims, nowhere made a statement such as yours in his letter.)
My reply letter has never seen the light of day in your newspaper.
In the issue of Thursday 8 April 2004, you print a display ad in which the Weekly , by virtue of adding its logo to the ad, tacitly endorses a Hindu teacher, “Sri Sri Ravi Shankar,” whom you also refer to as “His Holiness.”
I sincerely doubt that Hinduism represents a significant percentage of your readership. However, your failure to print my letter coupled with the ad which I have referenced supra leads me to the conclusion that you, as a matter of editorial policy, are dedicated to pursuing an anti-Christian agenda.
I hope that you will prove me to be in error by printing my letter of reply to Aaron Eden.
Jim Fink | Monterey
Charges of Anti-Semitism? Bring ’Em On.
Best way to fight terrorism? Reign in Israel.
The pundits are missing the point when debating what to do next in Iraq. Our largest credibility issue with Arabs and Muslims is Israel, and until we stop being the only country in the world to support its illegal, inhumane occupation of the Palestinian lands beyond Israeli borders, we will never have the credibility and trust we need to do what needs to be done in Iraq, in Afghanistan, or against Islamist terrorism wherever we think we see it next.
Shalom, Salaam, Namaste, may God bless us all.
Aaron Eden | Carmel
County Clearly Has Contempt for History
Thank you for Jessica Lyons’ recent feature story on the County’s efforts to demolish the Monterey County Jail [“Criminal History,” April 8-14]. Given the strong historic preservation policies proposed in the General Plan Update (GPU3), it is more than ironic that the County administrators are aggressively pursuing demolition of probably the only building owned by Monterey County that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. According to your reporting, as property owner and developer of 136,500 square feet of new office construction, the County has asserted that there is no need to spend money on an EIR, if the EIR will “prove what they already know.”
Will the County allow owners of private property to use this interpretation when applying for land use permits? County officials say that: “(t)he people who are fighting are missing the point…” I believe we do not understand the point of CEQA. CEQA specifically states: “every citizen has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment…” CEQA also states that: “…public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives…”
CEQA applies to all projects, regardless of property ownership. Citizens have the responsibility to question the actions of a public agency when it waives EIR requirements for one of their own development projects.
Joel R. Panzer | Salinas