Guidelines for letters
All letters must contain an address and phone number. Only one letter per week per person will be published; only one letter per person per month regarding the same topic will be published. Feather Publishing does not print third-party, anonymous or open letters. Letters must not exceed 300 words. Writers responding to previously published letters may not mention the author by name. The deadline is Friday at noon; deadlines may change due to holidays. Letters may be submitted at any of Feather Publishing’s offices, sent via fax to 283-3952 or emailed to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Opportunity is before us
Residents of California’s Assembly District 1 have an opportunity to choose someone to represent our interests in the far north of our state. Our interests here are so different that we are almost a colony of the metropolitan and coastal regions, which do not understand our needs. We have a chance to elect someone who will fight for us if we choose wisely.
A Democrat has virtually no chance of winning in our district, so the remaining four candidates must be considered.
Lane Rickard says he wants to fight for our interests, but considers saving the dams on the Klamath a lost cause. He is not interested in promoting the possibility of forming a new northern state, which could radically advance our prosperity here; it is business as usual for him.
Joe Turner, a retired soldier, loves this country and the north state, but is poorly funded.
Megan Dahle, wife of our state senator, says that saving our dams is a federal issue; she does not want to commit to that fight or to the advancement of a state split. How could she help us? Do we really want to place all of our representation in Sacramento with one family. That seems unwise to me.
That leaves Patrick Henry Jones, a long time resident of Redding and former mayor there. Jones is committed to our interests, such as forest management, water rights, and the possibility of a new state which would allow us to prosper unhindered by California bureaucracy. For Jones to win, the residents of District 1 need to return their ballots, recognizing the opportunity before us.
It has long been assumed that moral conduct is primarily a product of the teachings of religious organizations. Yet much of this extends no further than social control and imposed conformity. Morality requires far more depth than merely the imposition of conformity and sectarian indoctrination.
The Hippocratic oath says that a doctor shall do no harm — a simplistic statement perhaps, but a fair definition of morality.
The teaching of morality is as much a secular responsibility as it is of sectarian organizations. The phrase, “Thou shalt not kill” has been circumvented by secular and sectarian adherents alike. Even after thousands of years of moral enlightenment, religious wars continue unabated.
Nor can we claim moral superiority in the secular branches of society. Our own secular branch still retains a self-proclaimed right to kill, redefined as capital punishment. Major religious organizations-throughout the world continue to condone the killing of nonbelievers, rape victims and political opponents.
Morality, much like democracy, freedom, rights and compromise, is a term that is little understood throughout the world. Those nations, individuals and religious organizations that should be the icons of truly moral behavior have failed to support its simplest definition.
A moral person is one who does no harm to others.
Wallace B. Eshleman