To the editor:
In his Monday letter, pastor Mike Robinson argues that a God exists because order cannot come from disorder, uniformity cannot come from the accidental, and design cannot come from chaos. This argument is only a more descriptive version of the old “you can’t have something from nothing” argument for the reason that a God exists.
Well, pastor, if this is true and you can’t have something from nothing, then where did “God” come from? This must be one of those logic-defying “mysteries” that religious people have no answer for, but insist must be believed anyway.
Although it is true that millions of people have no problem ditching their logic and reasoning skills in favor of supernatural beliefs, I’m happy to report that there are many millions of others who refuse to do so, and this number is growing. Given the choice of relying on invisible supernatural beings to guide one’s life or relying on one’s own intellect and rationality to do the same, more and more of us are choosing the latter.
So, pastor, believe what you want, but, hey, if you ever get a chance to meet the someone or something that created your God (remember, you can’t have something from nothing) I would like to have his/her/its contact information so I could give him/her/it a critique of God’s job performance on Earth thus far. I’ll be waiting.
To the editor:
I would like to commend Bill Bukovi for his letter to the editor in Sunday’s Review-Journal, “Let’s stop the ‘teacher hate’ rhetoric,” and Michael Harrison for his letter in Monday’s Review-Journal, “Once again, state shortchanges teachers.” I agree wholeheartedly with both letters and find it hard to comprehend our state’s reluctance to increase teacher pay while planning to increase the pay for District Court judges and state Supreme Court justices by 23 and 21 percent, respectively.
I think it only fair that if 2-plus percent is adequate raise for teachers, then that same percentage should be the maximum limit for all raises to all of the elected positions in our state. After all, the folks seeking these elected positions were willing to accept the current pay when they ran for election.
To the editor:
Regarding Monday’s letter from teacher Michael Harrison complaining about the pay raises passed by the Legislature: I’d take any raise myself. Deal with it.
My husband and I retired to Las Vegas almost 13 years ago. At that time, we were able to live on my husband’s retirement check. Now it takes that plus my Social Security check and half my husband’s.
We are both in our 70s. We paid taxes all our married lives — school taxes being the largest of all taxes. So I figured we paid school taxes for other people’s children and then our own children. Yet, at our age, we are still paying the school taxes of everyone else’s children again — and it is again the largest part of our tax bill.
Being on a fixed income, we’ve had to adjust to every increase in every utility bill and anything else it takes to live. But we suck it up, pay and make do with what we have. I sure could use a new car, new carpeting, the house painted, etc. But each one has to wait its turn until we can work it into our budget.
Gee, if I didn’t have to pay all those school taxes, my wants would be satisfied sooner. But I’m making do with what we have. I love living here and enjoy retirement, whether that includes getting needed things or not.
Mr. Harrison made his choices. I’m sorry it’s so hard for him, but we’ve all had to do our thing and go on.
NORTH LAS VEGAS
Serve the law
To the editor:
Do judges sitting on the bench serve the people or do they serve the law? In my humble opinion, they should be serving the law. If the outcome of serving the law does not please the people, it should be the law that is changed, not the judge.
The manner we now use to select our judges, competitive elections, encourages just the opposite. An unpopular decision, regardless of the law, is used by an opponent against the incumbent. That makes us a society of men, not a society of laws.
Still, I can’t argue against having the people’s participation help determine who sits on the bench. This leaves the dilemma of how to serve the law while keeping the people involved. I suggest that judges be appointed, yet after a year face retention elections. Judges standing for retention are not beholden to those who appointed them. Not on the bench by popular election, they are not beholden to the people. They are totally beholden to the law.
The “fourth estate” has the responsibility to publish the record of the judges standing for retention. While groups will campaign for and against retention, judges, beholden only to the law, need stand only on their record. Perhaps then the people will become more attuned to the law and not who is on the bench.
Terry E. Peele