Jeff T. Barrie’s Sept. 17 letter calls us to follow his advice and to “tell the truth.” To do so, we need to be very concerned about the total opposites between proven historical documentation found and this author’s litany.

Before his presidency, Thomas Jefferson wrote the “Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom.” It covers our basic freedom of religion — to believe or not to believe, and “not to diminish, enlarge, or effect one’s civil capacities.”

A few quotes include: “Men are to be free under the laws of nature and nature’s God.” “Human rights are an indissoluble birthright given by God and therefore inalienable!”

Jefferson was deeply religious, according to the American Heritage Book of Presidents. He attended church services regularly. His memorial is more Christian than any other president’s.

Some of Lincoln’s words: “Let us have faith that right makes might,” “A new nation dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal,” “this nation under God,” “with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right,” “A house divided against itself cannot stand” (regarding the Civil War, also in Luke 11:17).

Jesus on homosexuality: Against God’s law. It’s best to refer to Romans 1:24 here, for detail on these activities, if interested.

Abortion in the Bible is covered as “murder” (civil-taking a life with malice aforethought). A person’s spirit/soul enters the fetus on conception. Food/drug accusations found no verifications (Strong’s Bible Dictionary).

Let’s live and let live!

Joan Wheeler

Corvallis

Our nation is strong because it’s secular

David Prichard (Letters, Sept. 18, “Secularism foreign to Founding Fathers”) keeps writing letters with a misdirected argument that the founders of our nation were influenced by the Bible. Perhaps he’s right, but his point is ambiguous.

There are people today who believe that the Bible should be our primary standard for law. I don’t know if Mr. Prichard feels this way, but I strongly disagree.

We may be a nation of many Christians, but the Bible should not dictate our laws. It doesn’t matter if the Founding Fathers were inspired by Biblical teachings because the First Amendment makes it clear that the government shall have no established religion.

This does not prevent citizens from being religious. In fact, this secular aspect of the government protects religion from the corruption of politics. The law allows any church to freely pursue its faith and the government even encourages them with tax breaks.

I would like to emphasize that “religion” is not synonymous with Christianity. There are many religions and belief systems in this land (with profound philosophical disagreements amongst each other), and it is inappropriate for the Bible to serve as a significant inspiration for law.

Don Boucher

Corvallis

Criminals don’t stay within city limits

If we live in the city, why should we care about voting to restore deputies out in the county? Because criminals don’t respect much of anything — especially not those signs that say “city limits.”

They can do their meth-making and criminal plotting out in the county, where law enforcement is now awfully scarce. And then come peddle their evil goods and commit crimes here in the city, where the pickings are more plentiful.

The latest sorry statistics from the Oregon Progress Board suggest that’s just the sort of thing that’s happening here. Crimes per 1,000 people in Benton County are up 20 percent since 2001.

Is it just coincidence that since 2000 the Sheriff’s Office has seen a 19 percent staff cutback? There are now only 15 deputies trying to cover 798 miles of roads. And from 3 a.m. to 7 a.m., there are none. The eyes and ears we need on the lookout to thwart crime out there have been severely reduced.

And after more than a decade of continuing cuts, the county’s ability to assure public safety is being sorely tested. The situation is bad, and it will surely get worse, unless we citizens step up now and approve Measure 02-64. It will restore vital law enforcement services for everyone in Benton County. What happens in the county matters to us in the city.

Curtis Wright

Corvallis

M49 would protect Oregon agriculture

I would like for you to consider the impact of Measure 49 that is on the ballot in November.

We passed a law that large housing developments could not be built on farm land. Now people want to be able to build two to three houses on farm land.

I believe this is not good because of global climate change. The large areas in California and other places farmers grow row crops are suffering from increased temperature and lack of water. Scientists say this will get worse in the future, leaving our temperate area — with our ability to irrigate crops — one of the only places to grow vegetables! Also those people living in the country will only waste gas driving to and from jobs, etc.

Joyce Crawford

Corvallis

War eating up our community’s assets

Kudos to both Rep. Darlene Hooley and to the protesters who brought up the issue of Iraq war funding during her recent visit to Corvallis.

The Willamette River United Act would make it easier for smaller river communities to get $100 million in federal money over 10 years, and that is a good thing. However, the cost of the Iraq war has exceeded $453 billion dollars, each community along the river’s share of the bill will be huge.

For example, as of Sept. 6, Eugene’s share is $128 million; Corvallis' share is $45 million. Albany’s share is $42 million (see www.nationalpriorities.org).

And that is only current monetary value. The longer we are in Iraq, the more in debt we will be. Rep. Hooley could assist the small river communities to a greater extent by voting against any funding of the Iraq war than with her new river aid proposal. Otherwise, it’s simply a matter of “the right hand giveth, and the left hand taketh away.”

Marybetts Sinclair

Corvallis

Don’t give illegal aliens sanctuary

Developing effective and fair immigration reform will be extremely difficult as evidenced by the recent failed legislative efforts. A factor making this process much more difficult than it has to be is the existence of so called “sanctuary” cities, some of which are in Oregon. These cities, for reasons I cannot understand, have chosen to refuse to cooperate with federal authorities in the identification of criminal illegal immigrants. In fact, they openly advertise that they will protect illegals. This situation most likely encourages and even entices people to enter the country illegally.

It does not appear that the federal government is going to directly confront this issue even though the nation’s security and long-term welfare is being adversely impacted by it. However, increasing publicity by the news media documenting the extent and effects of the illegal immigration problem may force some action.

One reason for this is that according to the news media, there is a great deal of confusion and disagreement on just what the federal laws are and how they relate to state laws. Hopefully, Congress will rectify this situation soon.

What can be done? One approach would be for the government to withhold funding to the “sanctuary” cities until they comply with federal law. Another way would be to hold the “sanctuary” cities responsible for the actions of illegals that they encouraged to enter the country and protected. They should be liable for the increased costs for medical and other social programs as well as damages for criminal activities.

Chuck Lane

Blodgett