Don Iliff’s latest incoherent rant (letter, May 15) provides insight into the irrationality of the liberal mindset.
I won’t address the ludicrous characterizations made by Don except to make two points: Hatred harms the one harboring the hatred much more than the object of the hatred and secondly, how a person or party reacts in the face of political defeat is a glimpse into their true character.
“Liberal Christians” is the term Don chose to describe his view, which is either an oxymoron or at least an indication of confusion. It is noteworthy that Don chose a word sequence where liberal appears first and Christian second in contrast to Christian liberals. Perhaps indicative of priorities?
Christians, as followers of Jesus, are called to know, understand and adhere to God’s word, which is conveyed to us in the Holy Bible and that means the entire Bible, not just the parts we like. Don professes the good news of the Gospel but apparently ignores the sin component of the Bible by supporting a party and ideology that condones gay marriage, abortion and other behavior which is contrary to Biblical principles.
Don defends Obamacare, a failed attempt to provide affordable health insurance to the uninsured. This liberal legislation was either created with good intentions or with the foreknowledge that it would eventually collapse and lead to the establishment of a single-payer system in fulfillment of a liberal dream. Either way, it is a failed policy that does nothing long term for the people it was intended to help. Any policy that is economically unsustainable benefits no one.
The assertion by Don that liberal Christians “know what Jesus would do” is probably true but nowhere in my Bible is there any suggestion that charity or compassion for the less fortunate should be implemented through a program of the federal government. In Jesus’ day, that would have meant utilizing the Roman Empire, which was certainly not supportive of his teachings.
Liberal Christians may have conceptually grasped the message of the Gospel, but liberal ideology blinds them to the fallacy of implementation through socialistic policies and social engineering.
FUNDING WILL HELP OHIO CHILDREN
On behalf of children and families served by Ohio’s child protection system, Public Children Services Association of Ohio is appreciative of Rep. Robert Sprague of the 83rd District for voting earlier this month to provide an additional $15 million per year for children services as part of the 2018-19 budget.
Working with House Speaker Cliff Rosenberger and House Finance Committee Chairman Ryan Smith, Rep. Sprague prioritized the safety of children and the stability of their families suffering from opioid addiction. These funds, if included in the final version of the budget, will help county children services agencies address increased demands for foster care stemming from the opioid epidemic.
Sprague’s vote directly supports agencies right here in the 83rd District. For example:
• In Logan County, between 2010 and 2016, the number of children in agency custody increased by 136 percent, and placement costs for these children have increased by 54 percent since 2013.
• In Hancock County, during the same period, the median number of days that children remained in temporary custody increased by 72 percent.
Rep. Sprague also voted to set aside $10 million in federal funds so that grandparents and other kin who find themselves unexpectedly raising children can access child care subsidies.
Together, these budget allocations will improve the safety, permanency and well-being of children, the innocent victims of this epidemic, and help stabilize families suffering from addiction and other challenges.
If more revenues become available, we urge the Senate to add more funding for children services as this opioid crisis deepens.
Public Children Services Association of Ohio
DO WE REALLY NEED ‘NANNY’?
Sen. Rob Portman (column, May 15) gave an excellent account of concerned local citizens, including himself as a newly-elected representative, organizing an effective local effort to address a local drug problem back when he was first elected to office.
It probably is a blueprint that any community could emulate.
Now, however, 23 years of elections later, it seems that no such programs will be initiated, nor even maintained, absent a federal program to drive it. Thus, the need to preserve the funding for the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
I believe that it was George Will who once remarked that the longer a Republican remains in office, the more he acts like a Democrat. Sadly, another case in point.
Surely, concerned citizens can organize and act without Nanny’s supervision.