Cloak of religion
After 9/11, all over our country people came together in interfaith services and advocated the ideal of love, which actually bridges religions universally.
This is often no longer the case today because there are too many churches (not religions) that have become politicized and racialized, actually belying their own fundamental scriptures.
Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are on the rise everywhere, which begs the question, as already well-addressed by Associated Press writer Elana Schor in her story Dec. 18 (“Church vandalism exposes divisions over faith, politics,” Tribune-Herald, Religion), how authentic the adherents, especially of white evangelical Churches, really are and whether they would pass the litmus test of hypocrisy.
Fighting against BLM and black Christian (!) churches in the name of whom?! Disrespecting and hurting members of other religions as an expression of what religious ideal? Claiming to be a pro-lifer but denying young mothers social support once the baby is born amounts to an ugly lie, since they are only pro-birthers and apparently want to suppress women at large.
I know there are many really good Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. But I also know there are really bad ones, as happens at times in larger families.
Unfortunately, those white Christians demonstrating in the streets of D.C. have obviously never had a chance or willingness to read the New Testament. Similarly, Islamic terrorists have apparently only a myopic, badly confused understanding of the Quran.
Anyone who claims to be religious and to subscribe to a faith, but then resorts to prejudice, racism, fanaticism and even violence, as happens today just too many times, cannot really claim to be a religious person, but uses a religious cloak in order to hide his/her fascist attitudes.
No wonder outgoing President Donald Trump supports and salutes such people.
Tougher penalties needed
An article recently published named Hawaii to be the worst state for drunk drivers.
Punishment for first-time offenders usually has minimal consequences, which is the primary reason it leads to repeat offenders. They usually acknowledge the consequences far greater than jail, but still decide to take the risk of driving intoxicated.
Having just lost a family member to a drunk driver, I feel it is necessary for change.
Why are punishments for first-time offenders so lenient? It is not until someone loses their life that swift action is taken.
Perhaps we should take on an unorthodox approach instead. Rather than getting the standard punishment, such as revocation of their driver’s license or mandatory drug classes, they should get community service by maintaining the crash sites of DUI victims, do ride-alongs with officers when they are called to a scene of an accident caused by a drunk driver, or maybe they should spend time with the families of a victim on a holiday.
What will it take for our justice system to create stricter laws regarding this matter?