The law of the land

Dear editor:

I should like to respond to Donald Cunningham’s letter of March 11. I do appreciate Donald’s well-worded missile, with a tone of graciousness that some writers seem to lack. I cannot agree with him on two points.

First, I disagree with some laws, as I suspect many folk do, but I respect them and try to follow them. One good example is the “seat belt law.” I know Arkansas law was slow to follow the laws of other states on this matter, but I disagree that it is the government’s role in playing a safety man for individuals. However, I do my best to use safety belts, even though statistics show that in some cases the belts restrain too much and prevent removing the driver from his/her seat.

So, I may not agree with the decisions of the Supreme Court on a certain matter, like abortion, but I recognize it as the law of the land. In the case of abortion, I am certain that Donald remembers the old days when patched self-inflicted abortions or cheap black market abortions reigned, resulting often in the death of both fetus and woman. So this issue is another one that has two sides.

In the matter of Jesus’ teaching in the four gospels, it is a far stretch to interpret his admonition about “bringing the little children unto me” as having anything to do with abortion. That is a very good example of bad theology. He taught that we must come to Him as a child (someone out of the womb and living in the everyday world and thinking), as I am sure Donald recalls from the Scriptures.

As to Ms. Robinson’s attempt at satire, we have seen another example of her tremendous lack of knowledge.

Have a good day, and try, as I do, to follow John Wesley’s admonition: Do no harm, and do good everywhere possible. The sunshine is back! John W. ” Doc” Crawford Hot Springs