To the editor:
President Obama’s campaign slogan for change said “change we can believe in,” and “change we need.” And yes, it’s nice to believe and have the need for change, but it’s going to take more than just words to make it happen.
Part of the nation’s money had been spent to fix roads that really did not need to be fixed at all. For example, Shaw Ave. was perfectly fine the way it was.
And soon enough, $2.25 billion will be spent on a high-speed rail system in California that isn’t necessary. Sure it’s a great thing and will make California stand out, but during a time like this in which many people can’t even afford to buy food to eat, they could have made a better deal!
What happened to creating changes “so our country can thrive in the 21st century?” How can jobs be provided when “a high school diploma no longer guarantees a job?” What happened to “Our children are our future?”
Maybe our only hope left for higher education is the passing of California State Assembly Majority Leader, Alberto Torrico’s bill, AB 656.
There’s no criticism here, and there’s no telling what to do in a position like what the president is in. All that’s really meant to say is for him to keep the words “I don’t quit,” and do what was promised to his American people.
Susan Xiong

To the editor:
This is a response to the article entitled, “Respect for others religions?” First. let me say that I do agree with your skepticism dealing with scripture and universal implications. Michael Boyle touches on racism and sexism as examples as to how our society will respect religious beliefs that are diverse yet discriminate against attitudes that are deemed as discriminatory (which seems like an odd paradox). To making that connection I give you a mental applause.
The thing though is that in the end, what does one (including you) hope to accomplish by not respecting one’s religious and faith-based beliefs? Are you trying to persuade one that their views are outdated or foolish? Do you wish to show that in an age of scientific inquiry that we can learn about the natural world through more objective means? If you conjured up a yes to any of these answers it would make perfect sense, but that doesn’t mean you are correct, nor does it mean that the religious organizations of our society are correct. The fact is that your beliefs are based on a rejection of religious beliefs, so you would not be who you are today if there were not a religion for you to reject.
From the syntax of your column I can see you are passionate about this concept of accepting and rejecting religious beliefs. And I do enjoy the fact that you are willing to take the time to critically examine an issue as such, because most people will look at this column, see the “R” word and go running. My only real objection to this column is that it seems to be promoting religious discrimination, which our parents, media, and the rest of our biased society do enough of already. We SHOULD respect the beliefs of other faith-based institutions besides our own because whether we acknowledge it or not, we have been influenced by their religious culture in ways that we don’t understand.
Our mental equilibrium shouldn’t be contingent on the rejection or bad mouthing of another group; we should find an intrapersonal path to this state and critically examine how our societies have shaped who we are. By doing this I believe we can see as to how ingrained religious societies are in our overall society, and in us as well.
Joey Wagoner