Yes, why would anyone find it to be within their right to steal from someone else knowing full well that it is wrong?
It happened to us as someone decided to help themselves to part of our outside Christmas decorations. From the lighted display of Mary and Joseph and the Baby Jesus, they decided their need for the Baby Jesus was greater than ours thus eliminating a part of the whole display. And with that they decided that the little green Christmas tree with lights was theirs to take also. But they did leave part of the overall display.
The Christmas tree can be replaced, but the replacement of Baby Jesus is not as easily accomplished. Our plea to whomever took the display piece is to have them return it with no questions asked. Then it can once again be part of the whole display for all to enjoy.
Why? Try as you may to answer that question for a 3-year-old granddaughter who has no understanding of wrongful doings as to the taking of Baby Jesus. It isn't an easy task.
The taking of someone else's property and especially at this time of year when it has been put on display for many to enjoy certainly takes away from the true meaning of Christmas.
Howard J. Blanck
I am one of the 'weak-minded' religious types Gov. Ventura speaks about. Although I doubt that his conclusion was a result of any serious, strong-minded study of the world's great religious truths, he may be on to something. Historian Mark Noll of Wheaton College put it this way: "The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is no evangelical mind." Sadly, protestant evangelicals for the last hundred years have suffered from an anti-intellectualism that has made us look weak-minded. A current case in point is the abortion debate. There is a whole lot of inflammatory language and name-calling being thrown about by both sides. And although I agree with pro-life conclusions, I hear very few convincing arguments in the marketplace (or church for that matter) against abortion. If God has established laws concerning our behavior, is it out of the question that he would also have established laws concerning our thought processes? I think the apostle Paul used the phrase "rightly dividing the word of truth." If you think I am wrong, I invite you to try convincing me. I can be found at email@example.com.
Randy R. Mertes
Recently, in an article in The Dispatch, regarding the potential annexation by either Brainerd, or Baxter, Dr. Holbrook made what seemed to me to be a very simple observation that seems incredibly obvious. Dr. Holbrook suggested that perhaps Brainerd and Baxter should give consideration to the idea of merging our two towns! Imagine that. Neither community is so big that it's not a possibility. What we have in common is greater than what we have as differences. We would be served better by our politicians if there was an effort to unify our common efforts at making this a better community than if there is a continued conflict for the betterment of the whole. We, the community, are much larger than our respective towns. Our community could benefit from a unified approach at governing.
This is not to say there has not been cooperation in the past. But, have any politicians made this suggestion? Would the average citizen be opposed to such an idea? Just imagine that much of our parallel city government might be eliminated ... some offices could be eliminated and there definitely would be unity in decision making.
Just the very fact that both city governments are ready to annex in the same general area, with independent reasons, should send up a red flag to the community. Who is being served, here?
There's something wrong, here. There's something wrong when the County threatens to sue one of our cities. Sustaining growth for big commercial projects should not be so urgent that we burn bridges between our two towns. Mutual cooperation seems much more imperative than chasing more tax dollars at the disservice of the community, as a whole!
Dr. Holbrook struck a chord that deserves serious consideration.
Brainerd Dispatch ©2013. All Rights Reserved.