A response to Mary Scoles, below.

Hello again, Mary.

I really enjoy our discourse.

You are absolutely right in taking offense at that particular statement "...shot in their day.", and I must apologize. It was inartfully used to explain the huge difference in American public sensitivity to accusations of moral impropriety, even dueling over a point of honor - when a sense of honor was more deeply understood than now.

President Andrew Jackson exemplified this sensitivity to personal honor. He is said to have challenged from 5 to 100 persons to duel. Of three of his duels, one resulted in the death of the man he challenged for insulting his wife. Jackson was also wounded by the other man's first shot, which struck him one inch from his heart. He carried that bullet the rest of his life.

Not looking to write a biography here, just wondering what Jackson would have done if anyone had dared to call him a homosexual. In those days life, death, and honor were taken seriously.

Actually, reading my column after we went to press, I recognized two poorly-worded sentences. The other referred to burning and being tarred and feathered, both early "American" activities. "In their day" Americans took Judeo-Christian morality very seriously, especially when it came to allegations of personal immorality. I doubt anyone would have shot a woman in those days (though they did hang Mary Surratt for her part in Lincoln's assassination).

We do have different views of Christianity, Mary. I tried to mention what I thought was the most basic ideas - like life after death, Judgment, Heaven, and Hell. Many no longer believe in Hell- can't please everyone; this may prove to be an eternal surprise for many. Some no longer believe in the Old Testament, but I do. Some no longer believe in the New Testament, but I do.

And some no longer believe in Jesus - these are the folks who have "un-believed" themselves to some place outside Christianity. But others don't even believe this.

I guess that leaves you with something like 5 billion folks who agree with you, That's a lot more company than I have.

I don't seek to vilify individuals for views contrary to my own - the villainy I challenge is the false ideas they promote (which are offensive to my Judeo-Christian views). But I enjoy the debate when debate is permitted.

I defend President Trump because he is a man of his word, the rarest form of political species, who is restoring America to its Judeo-Christian greatness.

There is no "one-size-fits-all mandate for acceptable moral practice" as you say. But America is unique among the world's nations for its particularly strong Judeo-Christian Constitutional foundation - and traditions. Very strong efforts are made by liberals today to change our heritage and create some sort of homogenized hodgepodge of secular, Orwellian newspeak. I disagree with that. Those ideas endanger the continued existence of our Republic.

Lastly (whew) I have no interest in changing what is "historical fact or what opinion is acceptable in the eyes of God." Facts are stubborn, and God has told us (for a long time) what is "acceptable" opinion in His eyes.

We have always enjoyed free will to choose how to live our lives. Isn't choice great!?


To the Editor:
We have different views of Christianity, humanity, politics, “natural order,” and heaven knows what else. I have questioned why you vilify fellow human beings for not sharing your view of the world, defend people in power who give little to no evidence of respect for anyone who does not believe in exactly what they are selling, and believe in a "one-size-fits-all" mandate for acceptable moral practice. It is beyond my pay grade, and yours, to decide what is acceptable historical fact or what opinion is acceptable in the eyes of God. What is certain is that, in this day and age, reference to anyone "being shot" for a point of view is irresponsible and dangerous. Pull it together, man.
Kelly Scoles, Fillmore