Any risktakers?

Bob Jones IV has made a point that draws a clear parallel between the plight of our brothers and sisters who are at risk in this nation from the moment that their lives begin at fertilization and those who pretend to be pro-life, a standard that has become lower with the passing of each election cycle. ("Life is not a party," Oct. 3). The question is, of those seeking public office regardless of party label, how many will stand up and defend every single human being from fertilization until natural death without regard to age, health, or condition of dependency? How many are there who would risk their political fortunes rather than turn their backs on a single innocent child? After all, the value of one solitary human being is worth far more than man's concept of power, political expertise, or polling data. - Judie Brown, American Life League

Too many other issues

Your article on pro-life Democrats had me thinking about this as a strategy. I concluded that even for pro-lifers there are too many issues that are important to pro-lifers that Democrats do not support. For example, the recent McCain/Feingold campaign-financing legislation, which was largely pushed by Democrats, would effectively muzzle independent voices on many issues and would largely concentrate the forums of discussion in the mainstream media. We all know how fair and open-minded the mainstream media have been toward the pro-life view. - Tom Thornton, Minneapolis, Minn.

Let the light shine

In "But so what?" (Oct. 3), you report the results of the latest USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll, showing Bill Clinton's rising job approval rating. I was surprised you reported the results as if you considered them accurate. I believe these polls have been proven to be inaccurate many times over, especially at election time. No polls predicted the Republican landslide of '94, and the same can be said for several elections since then. Your readers should not be disillusioned or swayed by these poll results. They are just another attempt to influence our thoughts in a certain direction and make us believe that our revulsion toward President Clinton puts us in the minority. - Joni Halpin, Plano, Texas

Protecting the kids the TV way

I want to thank you for "Sex, lies, on videotape" (Oct. 3) about the networks complaining of airing President Clinton's testimony during the day and their concern for "the children" when, in fact, their evening fare of sitcoms that week was worse than the testimony. - Ruth Hill, Ishpeming, Mich.

No threat

In the article "Finding their voice" (Oct. 3), Pat Robertson is quoted as telling the Chinese Premier Zhu Rongju that he had nothing to fear from Christianity: "I urged the thought that Christianity in particular, and other religious values, are in no way a threat to the government of China, but actually, these would be bulwarks against a materialism which could sap the vitality of this great nation." I wonder if he pointed to the United States as an example of religious freedom. Our Christianity has been no bulwark against materialism but has gladly joined in the spending spree, sometimes at the expense of Chinese Christians in labor camps. - Maria Engel, Pasadena, Md.

Kudos and complaint

Thank you, Joel Belz, for pointing out the fault of the husbands who were unwilling to confront President Clinton when he groped their wives. They may have saved themselves immediate grief, but they protected the President's continuing immorality. Margie Haack in her Oct. 3 "Is He in the dorm?" seems to have fallen into the same trap as these unwilling husbands. When faced with the fact that her child's dorm roommate was fornicating each night below her bunk, Mrs. Haack saved her child and herself immediate grief by not intervening. She saw this as a trust in God. The words of Martin Luther have never been truer than today: "I am much afraid that schools will prove to be great gates of hell unless they diligently labor in explaining the holy Scriptures, engraving them in the hearts of youth. I advise no one to place his child where the Scriptures do not reign paramount. Every institution in which men are not increasingly occupied with the Word of God must become corrupt." - Gail Purath, Columbia, S.C.

Challenge, not total agreement

I do not always agree with you, nor would I expect to for I do not always even agree with my spouse. But you fulfill your mission to challenge me to think and apply my Christianity to every area of life. - Debra Cooke, Polk, Pa.

Air-brushed report

I am amazed at your apparently uncritical acceptance of pronouncements by the North American Electrical Reliability Council ("Night light," Oct. 3). I realize that you are attempting to report news rather than editorialize, but this issue could be one of life or death for a large portion of your readers. The report makes a specious argument that Y2K will be overcome by industry experience with big hurricanes or ice storms. In fact, its simultaneous disruption of power systems worldwide make it equivalent to a hurricane covering the entire industrialized world! - Ted Thomas, Shelbyville, Ky.

I like history and movies

I'm a 15-year-old homeschooler, and I wanted to e-mail you to say how much I like your magazine. We stopped getting the paper a while ago because it was so liberal. Now when we get WORLD magazine in the mail I'm the first one to read it. My favorite page is Marvin Olasky's because I enjoy reading his articles on history. I also like the movie reviews. Keep up the good work! - Sara Sharpton, Reedley, Calif.

Poor choice of words

I would like to point out what seems to be an inconsistency in the use of words in your magazine. In "Members of the judiciary committee" (Sept.19), in a description of Barney Frank you write that he was "best known at the beginning of the 1990s for having a homosexual lover." I have never read an article in which you use the term "pro-choice." Why would you use the term "homosexual lover"? I feel that by using that term you are framing the issue in words that the homosexual movement wants people to use, words that portray their life choices as positive alternatives to the mainstream. I object for the same reasons when the term "lover" is used of a person in an adulterous or pre-marital relationship as well. Whether they do it for love, sex, or lust, we can frame the debate by the words we use. What about "homosexual partner"? It is not as loaded emotionally as "lover" or "companion" but gets the idea across. Again the same thing applies in heterosexual relationships. I don' t think of "Jesus, Lover of my soul" and Barney Frank's homosexual lover or Bill Clinton's lovers in the same group. How about using different words for those different relationships? - Joann Phillips, Reno, Nev.

We're committed

I just want to tell you that as long as we have any discretionary budget in our household we will maintain our subscription. - Keith Pauley, Kemah, Texas

Join the conversation

I have been amazed at the continued negative response to the Sept. 5 story about Saving Private Ryan. I wanted to add another voice of support. When that story came out, a number of my co-workers had already seen the movie and had been raving about it. Mildly interested by their feedback, I resolved to see the movie only after reading Chris Stamper's article. I will admit that I'd ideally prefer not to hear such profane language. But I'd gladly sit through it again for the fruit of that decision. The themes of Saving Private Ryan enabled me to have conversations with people about the fleetingness of life, the concept of living a life worth saving, the pain of death and hate. These are topics that can easily lead to a discussion of the role of God in all these things. Movies like this are what people of this world talk about. I, for one, think there is incredible value in doing some discriminately chosen investigation into what the world talks about to find avenues of conversation that can involve the gospel. - Clarice Law, Los Angeles, Calif.

We are sheep

I'm writing in defense of Mr. Olasky's knowledge of Scripture. In a letter to the Mailbag (Oct. 3), a reader objected to Mr. Olasky's statement that "the Bible notes that all of us are sheep in need of shepherds," claiming that "the Bible nowhere states that all [as in all of mankind] are sheep." Indeed, the Bible does say exactly that in Isaiah 53:6: "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Every human being needs the Great Shepherd, whether he acknowledges that need or not. - Shawna P. Steiner, Royal Oak, Mich.

It's not adultery

In a recent article the author indicated that infertile couples who utilize artificial insemination with a donor's sperm (AID) are guilty of adultery. I beg to differ. Adultery involves an act of intercourse or at least-in terms of Matthew 5:28-lustful desire. But AID involves no such act of intercourse or lust. For Christians there are serious moral questions to consider before using AID, but labeling this procedure as "adultery" is inaccurate and hurtful to those Christians who pursue this avenue in their longing to become parents. Desperate infertile couples who are considering assisted reproductive technologies need sensitive biblical guidance as they face ethical issues, not careless terminology. - John van Regenmorter, Grand Rapids, Mich.

Do the right thing

I've noticed that you are always receiving letters talking about how graphic your articles are. I want to thank you for reporting the pure, unbiased truth. I will also venture to suggest that the Bible uses some extremely graphic descriptions-take Ezekiel 23, for example. All these weak-kneed, one-day-a week Christians who oppose detailed descriptions of the true facts are only deceiving themselves. You are doing the right thing. Don't let any non-biblical opinions keep you from doing the right thing. Keep up the good work! - Luke Durgin, Redlands, CA