Capitol should have Christmas tree, Nativity
I do not understand the problem our governor has in determining whether the nativity display at Christmas would amount to an endorsement of religion. This nation was founded on faith. Our coins and bills all say, "In God We Trust." That should be clear to all people.
This is America, a Christian nation. Our state Capitol should have a nativity scene and a Christmas tree if officials wish.
A.J. Morehead, Lacey
Never miss a local story.
Apologize for erecting a menorah
The ignorance being displayed in the recently filed Wesselius Capitol nativity lawsuit is founded in a common confusion many Americans face during the Christmas holidays. Ignorance is simply a lack of understanding that corporate profiteering in bed with the church has complicated by confiscating the symbols of this most treasured event.
Dec. 6 is the feast day of St. Nicholas, on whom the character Santa Claus is based. Nicholas became a saint ages ago when the church confiscated his great deeds, coupled them with the solstice celebration and perpetrated the myth that Christ was born on Christmas day. This was done because Nicholas was purported to have raised three children from the dead, a very Christ-like act that threatened the power and control of the church.
St. Nicholas was the first to erect a Christmas tree indoors under which he placed the many gifts he acquired for the children during a time of famine. The tree became a symbol of hope for all honoring the Christ-like qualities Nicholas embodied. It was an evergreen tree, a symbol of life everlasting.
Through corporate marketing, Santa Claus has replaced Nicholas in symbol. This has been confused by the church and religion with the myth that Dec. 25th is Christ's birthday thus making the holiday a religious centerpiece for those willing to believe church dictate.
Life is universally a just cause for celebration. Therefore the remedy is for Gov. Gregoire to apologize for the menorah, erect our traditional tree and let religious followers celebrate privately however they choose.
Diane Dondero, Rainier
Woe unto those who created this trial
It's not about the pill, it's about God.
The Stormans family shows integrity, character and obedience to God. For this they are being boycotted and harassed.
We will all stand before God and show ownership for our choices.
The governor even got involved. Peer pressure? Who takes ownership of this choice? Woe unto those that misused their authority. What motivated her choice?
In John 15:18, Jesus said, "If the world hates you, you know that it hated me before it hated you."
Shame, shame, shame.
Stormans will survive this trial. What about those that created this trial? Woe unto them.
Cheryl Huber, Olympia
Think of the precedent
Stormans might set
I am dizzied by the spin of those defending Kevin Stormans' decision to discriminate against women by refusing to provide birth control medication at Ralph's pharmacy.
According to this spin, to fail to support intolerance is itself intolerant. Consumers should prove their open-mindedness by enriching someone they disagree with because he is local.
Well, the Thurston County Republican Party is also local, and let's put it this way, I shop elsewhere when it comes to them, too.
This is not a debate about whether the Stormans family is free to give to far-right political candidates. Nor would one necessarily stop shopping at Bayview and Ralph's due to the Stormans family's role in establishing the right-wing Daniel's House of Prayer - along with others leading efforts to rescind gay rights and women's reproductive freedom - in the residentia l South Capitol neighborhood.
Nor could one reasonably disagree with a decision by the Stormans family to not stock items in their grocery stores. However, pharmacies are licensed by the state - and licensure is a privilege, not a right. It is not intolerant for consumers to expect a pharmacy to provide legal medication and to, at a minimum, shop elsewhere if it does not.
To suggest that alternative pharmacies are available is to ignore the significance of this precedent; do you really want other pharmacies (including, perhaps, those in one-pharmacy towns in rural Washington where poor women are place-bound) to see that this is a decision you will financially endorse as a customer?
I'm continuing the boycott.
Jeanne L. Koenings, Olympia