[Nameplate] Fair ~ 71°F  
High: 94°F ~ Low: 67°F
Saturday, July 26, 2014

Reader responds to previous letters

Friday, October 3, 2008

I agree, the people have a right to vote regarding the wet/dry issue in Sharp County. However, I must reply to the "Name Withheld" letter asking "We still live in ... a democracy in Sharp County , do we not?" The short answer is "No. We live in a republic." We pledge allegiance to the Republic of the United States not to the democracy of the United States. A republic prevents tyranny by the majority. If there are sufficient signatures on the wet/dry petition why be upset by a court review to validate the signatures? This vote has nothing to do with separation of church and state. People who attend church have rights too. Let's settle down and allow the process to follow the law.

The Navy veteran's letter also requires comment. Please consider the following:

It is an error to presume one veteran speaks for all veterans. I am a veteran who served in two wars and disagree with the Navy vet on several issues. Does he seriously believe those in harm's way think much about being slapped in the face by a court review of the wet/dry issue in Sharp County?

The veteran did not "give" 20+ years of his life to the Navy. "Give" means to present voluntarily without expecting compensation. Those serving in the military are compensated and those retired receive a pension for life with cost of living increases, healthcare and medicines , educational assistance, tax breaks, and other benefits. Perhaps the compensation is too low and many sacrifices had to be made but serving is a choice and privilege. We should not present a false picture that the veteran "gives " because he/she earns valuable compensation for their service.

Next, we serve in the military to protect and defend our country against all enemies foreign and domestic not to chose what we "feel" is best for us and your country. We must remain a nation of law instead of people reacting to their feelings.

Most disconcerting is the ad hominem argument against those opposed to the making Sharp County wet. Such name calling "self righteous" "hypocrites" "narrow minded" and "fanatics" is shameful and counterproductive. An ad hominem argument appeals to one's emotions, prejudices, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason and attacks an opponents character rather than answering his argument. I believe we should be addressing the issues instead of name calling. People on both sides deserve respect not ridicule. Why does the vet suggest only the "self-righteous" (those against the wet issue) donate money and time to charities -- could the same suggestion be made for those that favor making Sharp County wet? I think so. What's more, contrary to the vet's suggestion, I am certain those opposed to the wet issue do indeed support many charities like New Beginnings.

People are often vocal about their rights. Would it not be a better world if people were as vocal about their responsibilities as well? Some people are only tolerant of those that agree with them. This is wrong. Both sides need to be respectful , refrain from personal attacks, and address the issues.

Respectfully submitted,

Roger D. Delffs

Evening Shade