Published: Saturday, February 11, 2012
Same-sex marriage
Writer could try being 'bigger than that'
In the letter castigating Sen. Paull Shin for his courage to vote his convictions, the writer purports to understand the purpose of religion. He stated that "Religion is supposed to make a person bigger than that."
I'm wondering what religion he was referring to, i.e., was it Islam or Buddhism or Confucianism or Hinduism, or perhaps some form of Christianity conformed into the image of the writer? In Paull Shin's letter to his constituents, he referred to the Christian principles by which he was raised as being a factor in his decision to vote against Senate Bill 6239 concerning marriage equality. But he emphasized that the primary factor in his decision was his belief that the issue is important enough that it should be brought to the people of Washington to have the opportunity to vote on it.
What about that position warrants the writer's scathing comments that "... he should be ashamed of it"? And that "Shin's vote against same-sex marriage is a stain on all of us"? Do these comments epitomize a person who is lecturing Sen. Shin (and therefore all of us) on how to be "a person bigger than that"?
We should be thankful for an elected representative who, even if he in his last term of office, will vote based on his core beliefs with full knowledge that he will be barraged with hate-driven comments as personified by the writer. Perhaps it would have been more noble for Sen. Shin to cave to political or media pressure regardless of his principles.
Perhaps the writer's "religion," whatever it is, should teach him to be "bigger than that." I mean, really now, likening Sen. Shin to "George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Bull Connor and the rest of his ilk"? C'mon. Legitimate disagreement is fine. Unwarranted disrespect is not.
Bill Klimek
Lynnwood
I'm wondering what religion he was referring to, i.e., was it Islam or Buddhism or Confucianism or Hinduism, or perhaps some form of Christianity conformed into the image of the writer? In Paull Shin's letter to his constituents, he referred to the Christian principles by which he was raised as being a factor in his decision to vote against Senate Bill 6239 concerning marriage equality. But he emphasized that the primary factor in his decision was his belief that the issue is important enough that it should be brought to the people of Washington to have the opportunity to vote on it.
What about that position warrants the writer's scathing comments that "... he should be ashamed of it"? And that "Shin's vote against same-sex marriage is a stain on all of us"? Do these comments epitomize a person who is lecturing Sen. Shin (and therefore all of us) on how to be "a person bigger than that"?
We should be thankful for an elected representative who, even if he in his last term of office, will vote based on his core beliefs with full knowledge that he will be barraged with hate-driven comments as personified by the writer. Perhaps it would have been more noble for Sen. Shin to cave to political or media pressure regardless of his principles.
Perhaps the writer's "religion," whatever it is, should teach him to be "bigger than that." I mean, really now, likening Sen. Shin to "George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Bull Connor and the rest of his ilk"? C'mon. Legitimate disagreement is fine. Unwarranted disrespect is not.
Bill Klimek
Lynnwood
Comments
(