Development
Monster houses cause concern
Help! Poulsbo is under attack by monsters; monster houses, that is. These huge vanity houses being built do not belong in our old historic neighborhoods.
The city planner said there is no zoning ordinance to control the size of houses and the new zoning ordinance adopted by the council on July 17 would not alter property owner’s ability to build these large houses. He did, however, state that the city could review the situation next year (2003).
Not soon enough. Time is running out. The ordinance needs to be reviewed now before any more “monsters” appear.
The damage done to some of our neighborhoods cannot be undone but, covenants can be put in place for designated areas (other cities have done this) to prevent more damage to our, still, livable Poulsbo.
Anyone wishing to voice objections to the further intrusion of these “McMonsters” can contact the mayor and/or council members by writing then at Poulsbo City Hall, P.O. Box 98, Poulsbo, WA 98370.
Mayor Donna Jean Bruce, council members: Jackie Aitchison, Jim Henry, Jeff McGinty, Kathryn Quade, Mike Regis, Dale Rudolph, Ed Stern.
MURIEL WILLIAMS
Poulsbo
Pledge
The history of “Under God”
I would like to shed some light on the “Under God” controversy based on American history.
In 1947, in Emerson vs. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment to the Constitution created a wall of separation between Church and State citing a letter by Thomas Jefferson. His letter was taken completely out of context. If you don’t believe me, read his entire letter for yourself.
Dr. William James, the father of modern psychology, explained it this way: “There is nothing so absurd, but if you repeat it often enough, people will believe it.”
In 1690, Benjamin Harris introduced the “New England Primer” as a beginning text book for students in all schools, public, private, and parochial. This text books was used for over 200 years. It stressed reading, morality, and one nation under God. It had a Bible alphabet, Bible questions and answers, and a catechism. It provided a firm foundation for all students.
In 1844, the Supreme Court ruled that schools would teach Christianity and the Bible, the source of morality. Webster’s Dictionary defines morality as relating to right or wrong. I can’t think of any better set of rules for moral behavior than those found in the 10 Commandments.
In 1892, the Supreme Court offered 87 precedents to maintain Christian principles in our laws and institutions. In 1962, when school prayer was removed from public schools, the court offered no precedents. Since that time, America has taken a new direction, opposite of what our Founding Fathers had envisioned.
Folks, the “Separation of Church and State” we have today is not a teaching of the Founding Fathers, it is not an American historical teaching, and it is not a teaching of our original laws. Again, if you do not believe me, go to your library and read it for yourself. Make no mistake about it, we, the citizens of this nation are being robbed of our great American Heritage, “One nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all”.
RICHARD STOLL SR.
Poulsbo
Savage Lands
Omnipotence or omniscience?
(Mr. Irwin) having read your article “Savage Lands” in the April 17 issue, with interest, I am puzzled by this sentence:
“And, not for the first time, I reminded myself that despite my often keen powers of observation — omnipotence is slightly out of my grasp.”
I cannot relate omnipotence to keen powers of observation. Did you, perhaps, mean omniscience?
JOHN B. D’ARMAND, D.M.A.
Deerfield, Mass.
Well, you got me on that one, John. But this only proves my point. I am neither omnipotent (all powerful) not omniscient (all knowing). Thanks for the correction. Sometimes a grammatical puck gets by the goalie.
Commissioners
Denise Hood’s letter was one-sided
The Wednesday, July 24 edition of the North Kitsap Herald contained a vicious and one-sided letter from one of your frequent respondents, Denise Hood.
It seems that Ms. Hood was and is upset by Vivian Henderson’s position on certain subjects, her alleged alliances with certain groups, and her constitutionally-protected right to critique those who she differs with. Isn’t this the same Ms. Hood who has stood up at numerous library board meetings with her ACLU friends and reiterated, very vocally, her support for the 1st Amendment and the right for all to access the vast array of filth available on the taxpayer-supported computers in the library?
Isn’t this the same woman whose husband tearfully told us about his “Vietnam experience” to insure those same rights were not trampled on? And isn’t this the same person whose friends refer to those on the conservative side as “people who were no better than the Taliban?”
My, my, Ms. Hood, is your version of the freedom of speech such a one-way street that only your ideas are free to express and only your friends, like Tim Botkin and Chris Endresen, free from criticism?
I suggest that you take a course in Constitutional law and US history and accurately learn what our framers meant by the Bill of Rights.
RON MACK,
Poulsbo
