Voices > Mailbag

Mailbag

Issue: "Court in the balance," April 1, 2000

Not another one

Thank you for your follow-up report on Elián Gonzalez, "Seeing past pro-Castro propaganda" (March 4). It took the sting out of the Mailbag writers who, in the same issue, implied that the communist government of Cuba is simply a government we do not agree with, and that we as a nation don't have the right to make a moral decision for another country-so let's just send Elián back to his parent in communist Cuba. Do "liberty" and "freedom" mean nothing to this generation of Christian Americans? The child has family in the United States who risked their lives to attain freedom, just as we veterans fought in Vietnam to preserve freedom. We lost the battle in South Vietnam, but at least some Vietnamese adults and children escaped to the United States. Let us not lose this one, too. - Robert C. Freewald, Major, USAF (Ret.), Cedar Bluff, Miss.

Captive speech

I was distressed to see so many letters by people who think Elián should be sent back to Cuba. Cubans do not have the right of free speech, and so we cannot discern where Elián's father would want him from anything he says while under the watchful eye of Castro's revolution. The update on Elián in the same issue, noting Elián's grandmother wanted to defect and K.A. Paul's change of heart after seeing conditions in Cuba, was more proof of this. - Jared Blakely, 16, San Antonio, Texas

Solomon in the house?

We see you’ve been enjoying the content on our exclusive member website. Ready to get unlimited access to all of WORLD’s member content?
Get your risk-free, 30-Day FREE Trial Membership right now.
(Don’t worry. It only takes a sec—and you don’t have to give us payment information right now.)

Get your risk-free, 30-Day FREE Trial Membership right now.

In your March 4 Mailbag, I read the best argument to date for returning Elián to his father in Cuba, namely that it sets a precedent for allowing our government to interfere in U.S. citizens' custodial affairs for political reasons. Everything seemed clearer until three pages later I read that perhaps his father's real desire is to have him remain here. There are so many issues involved here-it will take a Solomon to decide this case properly. We should pray that God will raise up such a judge. - Elisabeth A.M. Hall, Heidelberg, Germany

Not feeling it

I appreciated "Explaining McCain" (Feb. 26), informing us where John McCain stood on the issues. The letters critical of your article spoke of his veteran status, how the writers felt about him, and his "strength, courage, and intellect." I, for one, care more about issues than the feel-good quotient of any candidate. - Linda Gregory, Kennedy, N.Y.

Still relevant

Judging from the many letters critical of your excellent coverage of the disingenuous McCain campaign, your goal of bringing a dose of journalistic reality to the public remains as relevant as the day you published your first issue (Mailbag, March 4). - Rich & Ruth Heckmann, Fayetteville, Ark.

Who knew?

After seeing all the negative Mailbag responses to Bob Jones IV's article on John McCain, and seeing what has transpired since those letters were written, it seems that a month ago few people recognized the depth of John McCain's antagonism toward people of faith and his inability to apologize for his unkind remarks toward them. - Mike Thaman, Lima, Ohio

A model journalist

As a long-time subscriber, I have always enjoyed and profited from Bob Jones IV's clean, lucid writing. His articles are in-depth and substantive. He is fair as well as thorough in his reporting, a model for Christian journalists. I applaud him for his coverage of Sen. McCain's campaign in the face of what must have been a very painful personal situation for him. Even with his father under national attack, Mr. Jones continued to do a first-rate job as a Christian journalist. - Sharon Hambrick, Taylors, S.C.

Our point, exactly

Thank you for Marvin Olasky's fine rebuttal of William Safire's blistering column ("The conspiracy," March 4). The point of "Explaining McCain" (Feb. 19) was that the mainstream media is so in love with Mr. McCain that they are not reporting the whole truth. This kind of reporting brought us a president who lies and cheats. William Safire proved your point by becoming so enraged about a negative article on Mr. McCain that he failed to address the facts. - Suzanne Brown, Lee's Summit, Mo.

Why?

Why is it supposed, by William Safire and others, to be a conflict of interest for Mr. Olasky to edit a magazine that deals with George W. Bush just because Mr. Olasky once voluntarily advised Gov. Bush? Why is not the same concern voiced about the fact that Mr. Safire's contemporaries in mainstream journalism vote for liberals by a huge margin while pretending to present unbiased political coverage? - Greg Miller, Columbus, Ohio

Comments

You must be a WORLD member to post comments.

    Keep Reading