RIGHTS: Duty to defend them - Coeur d'Alene Press: Letters To Editor

RIGHTS: Duty to defend them

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Sunday, September 22, 2013 12:00 am

In the Sept. 12 edition of the Coeur d’Alene Press the following passage was included:

“Souza said as mayor, she would vote whichever way the public favored on highly charged topics when the opinion is stacked on one side, regardless of how she feels personally.”

I have waited several days to make sure that she did not want to retract that statement or assert that she was misquoted. To my knowledge, she has not done so.

As to that statement, it is clear to me that God gave each person the capacity to form and hold moral values. He also gave each person the free will to act on those moral values. Failing to act on moral values one holds has the same effect as having no moral values. For Ms. Souza to assert ahead of time that she would go with the flow if elected is not leadership but rather a preemptive forfeiture of leadership.

If Ms. Souza will not act on her moral values at critical times, when will she act on her moral values? The time to ask that question is well before the day of the election.

As to Mr. Kunka, another mayoral candidate, he said in the same issue of the Coeur d’Alene Press, “You can’t protect everyone.” Mr. Kunka is invited to read the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and the Idaho Constitution.

He will see that while you can’t protect everyone you can protect your fellow American citizens and in point of fact you have the duty to do so.

No doubt secure in his knowledge of American history and political science, Mr. Kunka offers up the idea that “the only people who don’t have some sort of protection are white guys between the ages of 18 and 90.” I happen to be in this rather large class of people whom Mr. Kunka feels is without “protection.”

My America, my home for all of my years is a unique and wonderful place.

Capitalism reigns here like nowhere else in the world with its engines of innovation and risk taking. Freedoms of virtually every nature are more closely protected here than anywhere else. Freedom of religion is demonstrated everywhere, with countless churches, synagogues and other places of worship large and small located all across our country. Here like few places elsewhere, the rule of law is honored.

Americans know that if each American citizen is granted a full measure of dignity we are all better off.

I believe that most people know that Mr. Kunka completely misunderstands the America that we know exists because we are all living the American Dream.

My advice to Mr. Kunka is to dry his tears, rejoin us in this great adventure of living in America, and then try again for public office.

NORMAN GISSEL

Coeur d’Alene

  • Discuss

Welcome to the discussion.

10 comments:

  • Rogue Cop posted at 5:14 pm on Mon, Sep 23, 2013.

    Rogue Cop Posts: 2371

    I suppose we could debate semantics and do a few days of back and forth about how special classes are created, but more pointedly your statements that "these laws protect everyone equally", the right to discrimate is not a protected right" (Humanist); and "...the law exists not to grant special rights, but to prevent special wrongs" (Mahiun) is theoretical and idealistic to say the least. Have you followed the controversies in the Universities, jobs, voting intimidation by Black Panthers in recent times? Those are examples of GOVERNMENT sanctioned discrimination after some entity, society or whomever, created a class of individuals who get a bigger share of protection than others. And please don't say that gov't is just balancing the scales...because that conflicts with your theory of "equal protection".

     
  • Mahiun posted at 1:46 pm on Mon, Sep 23, 2013.

    Mahiun Posts: 5643

    RC, as Humanist points out, it is society that first creates the special classes; the law simply plays "catch up" by acknowledging these classes. And the law exists not to grant special rights, but to prevent special wrongs.

     
  • Humanist posted at 11:46 am on Mon, Sep 23, 2013.

    Humanist Posts: 3224

    Society creates the "special" classes. Governments purpose is to ensure that they are all protected equally. Government creating EQUAL protection laws is not government creating those special classes. As Mahuin clearly stated, these laws protect EVERYONE equally. Further, government has determined that the right to discriminate is not a protected right.

     
  • Rogue Cop posted at 1:06 pm on Sun, Sep 22, 2013.

    Rogue Cop Posts: 2371

    Mahiun, of course it does exclude certain individuals, but we all know who the ordinance was designed to protect. Let's not be naive. And let's not pretend that anti-discrimination laws create special classes of persons and alienate others...may not be the intent, but it's reality.

     
  • idahosnative posted at 10:23 am on Sun, Sep 22, 2013.

    idahosnative Posts: 185

    hummmmm......RC that's EXACTLY what he IS! duh!

     
  • Mahiun posted at 9:51 am on Sun, Sep 22, 2013.

    Mahiun Posts: 5643

    ...the recently ordained special class of persons in Coeur d'Alene.
    This part is just flat-out wrong, RC. The ordinance protects sexual orientation; it does not specify which sexual orientation. It protects against racial discrimination; it does not specify which race. And it does not cut off that protection either for those younger than 18 or older than 90.

    (And for the record, I am a white guy between the ages of 18 and 90....)

     
  • Rogue Cop posted at 1:09 pm on Sat, Sep 21, 2013.

    Rogue Cop Posts: 2371

    Gissel's letter lost credibility when he said that Kunk should "dry his tears", implying that because Kunka stated his opinion, he's whining or crying. Maybe those who are complaining about discrimination should dry their tears, huh Mr. Gissel.

    Gissel suggests that Kunka should read the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and the Idaho Constitution. Gissel should follow his own advice, and he might find that none of those documents allow for creating special classes of people. Nor does it specifically single out "white guys between the ages of 18 and 90" as enjoying some advantage over the recently ordained special class of persons in Coeur d'Alene.

    I don't have a problem with Gissel or Tony Stewart endorsing whomever they want for Mayor. Just quit the BS that it has to do with human rights, as if the other candidates oppose basic human rights. One can oppose what they believe as a bad law or ordinance without being anti-human rights. In lieu of the recent McEuen Park fiasco, how about concentrating on voter's rights.

     
  • Mahiun posted at 11:22 am on Sat, Sep 21, 2013.

    Mahiun Posts: 5643

    Actually, I would hope that any candidate or office holder would be more concerned with acting in accordance with the law and the Constitution, rather than the fickle, diverse, and ever-changing "moral values" of either themselves or the community at large.

     
  • Miketeague posted at 9:04 am on Sat, Sep 21, 2013.

    Miketeague Posts: 2629

    Mr. Gissel, thank you for a very well written and intelligent letter. Thank you for your past and continued service to the community and in fact the country.

     
  • Intrepid posted at 6:44 am on Sat, Sep 21, 2013.

    Intrepid Posts: 1057

    No. What candidate Souza said was that she'd not implacably weight her personal moral values above those of the majority in this community. That is a solid virtue in elected leadership. When issues of great importance require decisions good leaders direct but do not dictate. They listen, they counsel, and then they act. The action may or may not agree with a majority. The action may be a compromise. But the action will have sincerely considered the input of others.

    That is what is missing in the current leadership and must not be repeated in the future.

     
default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
Not you?||
Logout|My Dashboard

Stocks

Stocks