Regarding Carl R. Trueman’s March 15 Sunday Opinion essay, “James Talarico represents Christianity’s past, not its future”:
In describing Talarico, the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in Texas, as practicing old-school Christianity, Trueman demonstrated a major pitfall in the contemporary practice of Christianity: placing a time frame on timeless truth. The teachings, morals and values presented by Jesus of Nazareth are based on simple lessons: Love your God and love your neighbor. There are no time frames or even hints that we will have to reinterpret his teachings.
My father, an Episcopalian minister with a strong theological background, defined “religion” as “that which individuals use as personal government in their lives and actions.” Attempting to shoehorn politics into the Gospel through tortured interpretations is to remake Christianity in one’s own image.
Peace and love are not old or new. We would do well to remember lessons that, though ancient, are timeless in their intent.
Derek T. Havens, Mason Neck
James Talarico sets out a vision of Christianity that can be embraced by people who were raised in fundamentalist denominations but no longer feel at home there because our experiences and science-based learning have taken us beyond the doctrines of our native churches. For us, the alternative would be to leave Christianity altogether. Talarico gives us hope that there is a future for us inside Christianity.
When Talarico says “God is nonbinary,” he is not making some new liberal pronouncement; he is restating traditional Christian teaching as reflected in the Catholic Catechism: “God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God.”
When Talarico says “there are many more than two biological sexes; in fact there are six,” he is not inventing some new liberal theological doctrine; he is referring to ancient Jewish writings in the Mishnah and Talmud that recognized multiple sexual identities. We can debate the psychology of gender dysphoria, but we should be mindful that biologists and geneticists tell us that not all humans can be categorized as having strictly male (XY) or female (XX) chromosomes.
By focusing on Talarico’s comments on gender identity, his critics distract from his far more numerous statements on Jesus’ teachings on feeding the hungry and healing the sick.
John Charles Fleming, Austin
It has no meaning to suggest, as James Talarico does, that “God is nonbinary.” A being without a physical body cannot be binary or nonbinary. It is the equivalent of saying that a being without a body or arms is ambidextrous.
Bruce Couchman, Toronto
The dire Strait of Hormuz
The March 17 editorial “How to solve the Hormuz crisis” argued that reopening the Strait of Hormuz requires the United States to stand down. That choice may reduce immediate risk. But it carries a longer-term cost that deserves equal weight.
If disruption of a vital global chokepoint can compel the United States to abandon its objectives, we will have established a precedent that asymmetrical tactics, whether they be mines, drones or mobile anti-ship missiles, can achieve strategic effect simply by raising risk. That lesson will not be lost on either Iran or other powers.
The relevant standard is not perfect safety. In the Strait of Hormuz, that is unattainable. The objective should be to make transit “safe enough,” through mine clearance, naval escorts, air cover and, most critically, government-backed war-risk insurance that allows ships to sail despite residual danger.
De-escalation has its place. But if it comes at the cost of signaling that disruption works, we will find ourselves confronting the same crisis again.
Thomas Grumbly, Longmont, Colorado
The writer was assistant secretary and undersecretary of energy under President Bill Clinton.
The Editorial Board’s prescription rests on the assumption that Iran will have no pretext to keep the Strait of Hormuz closed once the bombing stops. That assumption is wrong. A weakened Iran, exposed to future strikes, with nothing guaranteed, has every reason to keep the strait closed and no reason to open it.
The Battle of Hormuz decides this war. Not the air campaign, not the kill count, not what is left of Iran’s military. Whoever controls the strait controls the outcome. And Iran is structurally favored to win that battle, because the two clocks running in this conflict are not close to synchronized. Economic crises for Iran’s foes will arrive before any military solution.
Iran is winning the war. The regime knows it, and everyone else is waking up to it, too. Trump’s belated cajoling of allies reeks of that acknowledgment. When this ends, it will end on Iranian terms. Security guarantees. Sanctions relief. Legitimacy for a nuclear program the world just watched survive an all-out assault. The humiliation will not belong to Tehran.
Evan Tarbell, Buffalo
In his March 20 op-ed, “The Iran war is metastasizing. Trump needs an endgame.,” David Ignatius argued that “declaring ‘victory’ and walking away would leave the region in dangerous disarray.” Stopping now is exactly what President Donald Trump should do, and what few wartime presidents have had the wisdom to do. Since World War II, only President George H.W. Bush had the good sense to stop escalating; after evicting Iraq from Kuwait, he downplayed the Middle East.
Trump has wiped out the leaders of the Islamic Republic, degraded its nuclear capability and forced it to expend substantial military resources. He should not do anything now that could make the situation worse.
There is some thought that the Strait of Hormuz should be opened through U.S. power. Think again. China receives the most oil of any country through the strait. U.S. service members should not risk their lives to meet China’s energy needs.
Lloyd Leonard, Washington
Stars and Stripes forever
Regarding the March 14 Politics & The Nation article “Pentagon tightens control over Stars and Stripes after blasting it as ‘woke’”:
In January, the Pentagon threatened to take editorial control of independent military newspaper Stars and Stripes. The directive said the publication would refocus its coverage on “warfighting” instead of “woke distractions.” The timing of the Pentagon’s new blueprint for Stars and Stripes is convenient, as the administration has launched conflicts in Venezuela and Iran and weighs a third in Cuba.
In 1946, fresh off the end of World War II, my grandfather Andy Rooney and his fellow war correspondent Bud Hutton wrote a book titled “The Story of the Stars and Stripes: A Paper for Joe.” It pains me to see the legacy of a newspaper my grandfather helped build — one born from America’s triumph over fascism — threatened by the whims of a president who seems to view criticism as treason.
Late in his career, Rooney became famous for his wry commentaries on “60 Minutes,” offering opinions on everything from desk clutter to doorknobs. But one thing he took very seriously was the importance of a free press.
I spent nearly a decade working at NPR, until the Trump administration successfully led a charge in Congress to defund public media. I know firsthand how essential independent journalism is to the functioning of a democratic society. The public cannot hold its leaders accountable if it cannot trust the information it receives. Bringing Stars and Stripes under direct government control would turn a trusted newsroom into a public-relations arm of the Pentagon.
My grandfather helped tell the story of Stars and Stripes. We should not allow this administration to write its final chapter.
Ben Fishel, Washington
Post Opinions wants to know: How soon do you bring up politics when getting to know someone? Is a first date too soon? Share your response, and it might be published as a letter to the editor. wapo.st/discuss_politics
The post A narrow-minded attack on James Talarico’s religion appeared first on Washington Post.
