Come out from among them . . .

Paul Stevens of Waxahachie is "deeply saddened." He can't believe that Christian-owned businesses don't want to do business with customers that they feel would compromise their principles. We're supposed to accept anything and everybody. He says he asks himself, "What would Jesus do?"

Then he uses the example of the woman at the well. As do most people of Paul's persuasion, he left out the most important part of that story -- Jesus let the woman know that He knew she was living in deep sin, and He told her how she could be saved.

Paul says, as Christians, we are very diverse and don't agree on things like gay marriage or religions different than our own. We don't have to agree -- if God said it's wrong, it's wrong -- and Jesus never shied away from calling a sin a sin.

Paul says we shouldn't "isolate ourselves from those with differing opinions and practices." So are we to accept everybody and everything? I don't think so. What does Paul do with " Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you"?

What does Paul do with "I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators"?

What does Paul do with "have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them"?

Paul says that Jesus constantly taught his disciples to love one another. Yes, He did. He also took a whip and drove the money changers out of the temple. Paul said that Jesus "ate with sinners, hung out with the undesirables . . ." Yes, He did. But in the process, He always pointed out their sins and the consequences. And I don't think that's what Paul is aiming at when he says a caterer or a photographer shouldn't be allowed to refuse to do a queer wedding.

"'What would Jesus do?'" The Dallas Morning News; August 10, 2014; p. 2P.

You call it unadulterated hype; I call it . . .

Do you know how much our government has spent on high-speed rail since Obama took office? Nearly $11 billion. And the fastest train we have averages less than 110 mph. It reaches 150 mph only on a 30 mile stretch of track. And now, Obama has asked for $10 billion more to pour down this sinkhole. And what will we get for our $10 billion more? Don't know -- on the crowded New York-Washington corridor, it will take at least $150 billion and 26 years to get trains up to the Japanese bullet-train speed of 220 mph.

Here's what Obama said in his 2011 State of the Union: "Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail." Think about that. Eighty percent of Americans? That would mean running trains through every little Podunk village in the country.

Transportation experts said that it didn't take an expert to see that was an unrealistic fantasy. Kenneth Orski, the editor and publisher of a transportation newsletter, called Obama's statement "unadulterated hype." I call it a big fat lie.

"High-speed rail going nowhere fast." The Dallas Morning News; August 10, 2014; p. 5A.

This and That from Letters to the Editor

Eric Foster of Gun Barrel City doesn't like it that we recruit businesses from California to come to Texas. He says that money should be spent on "taxpaying" Texas companies to create brand new "taxpaying" jobs and "rehire" Texans and Texas college grads.

Does he think that the businesses that we recruit won't hire anybody from Texas? Does he think that they will in no way contribute to our economy? Does he think that they will not pay taxes and that their employees will not pay taxes? (Granted, most of them receive big tax breaks, but those are not perpetual). Just what do you think, Eric? Incidentally, I googled Eric and discovered that he's a bit of a fruitcake. He claims to be a famous screenwriter for movies and TV, but he doesn't name any of the shows he's responsible for. IMDB seems to have overlooked him. Looked up the satellite view of his house, and it reminded me a bit of the homes I've seen on Hoarders.

Then there was the letter from Joseph Sartoris. Joseph opines about people having the freedom to "opine on things they know nothing about." He wants to see their credentials. Right back at ya', Joseph. Show us your credentials.

And last but not least among this edition's letter writers was Ron Johnson of Plano. Ron says that he's tired of the Tea Party and Ted Cruz not "stepping up" when they need to. He complains that they "withdraw" when they don't get 100% of what they want. Well, gosh, Ron, do you mean like all those Texas Democrats who fled to Oklahoma a few years ago to avoid a vote? Do you mean like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who won't bring bills to the floor for a vote? Do you mean like Obama who refuses to enforce the laws he doesn't like? Or are you one of those people Joseph is irritated with for opining on things you know nothing about?

"Letters." The Dallas Morning News; August 8, 2014; p. 16A.

You're too stupid to be a Republican.

Just when you think you've heard it all . . . Roland D. Freeman is forsaking the Republican party because he doesn't like his middle name. It seems that Roland's drivers license has his middle name on it, and his voter registration does not. So he received a brochure encouraging him to change his voter registration -- I'm sure in an attempt to make it easier for him when he goes to the polls.

I face the same thing when I vote. My voter registration has my middle name on it while my drivers license has my maiden name on it. All I have to do is sign a little affidavit that says that my drivers license and my voter registration belong to the same person, and that I am that person.

At any rate, Roland says it annoys him to have to use his middle name, and it's stupid to ask him to use it. He says that the Republicans will be losing a 50-year loyalist. I guess it hasn't occurred to Roland that his gripe is not with the Republican party but with his mama. Frankly, Roland, I think you're too stupid to be a Republican.

P.S. I did a little Google search and discovered Roland's middle name. Think Donald Duck's nephews.

"Voter registration." The Dallas Morning News; August 6, 2014; p. 20A.

What was that argument again?

Hasn't one of the arguments for legalizing pot been that it will reduce crime since it will make marijuana readily available and there will be no need to secure it by nefarious means?

A couple of weeks ago, a legal pot dispensary in Colorado was robbed by a couple of bandanna and cowboy hat wearing bandits who pepper sprayed the workers. In another robbery, a man took a large amount of pot from a dispensary in Pueblo County.

What was that again about reduced crime?

"3 Texans accused in 2 Colorado pot thefts." The Dallas Morning News; August 6, 2014; p. 4A.

Maybe Jacob should have taken that into account.

Jacob Lavoro is facing charges for making and selling pot brownies. He had hash oil in his possession -- which carries a much stiffer penalty than marijuana possession because it has much higher TCH concentrations. He has been offered a plea deal which he has rejected because, according to his attorney, they fear prosecutors would be "overzealous" if he missed a mandatory meeting. Well, duh! The solution to that is not to miss the meeting.

Anyway, Lavoro says, "I'm 19 years old and still have a whole life ahead of me. Take that into account." Perhaps Lavoro is the one who should have taken that into account before he opened up his brownie business.

"Pot-brownie suspect 'very scared.'" The Dallas Morning News; August 7, 2014; p. 2A.

I don't really care about your opinion, Jonathan.

Jonathan Rauch wrote an op-ed that I started to read. The sub-head on it said, "When conservative Christians isolate themselves from changes in secular society, we all lose." I assumed he was probably talking about Christians who stand fast by the faith and refuse to go along with every trend that comes along. I think I was right, but I'm not sure. You see, the first paragraph Jonathan wrote said, "I am someone who believes that religious liberty is the country's founding freedom, the idea that made America possible. I am also a homosexual atheist, so religious conservatives may not want my advice." You got that right, Jonathan! And that's where I stopped reading.

"A wall that's not worth building." The Dallas Morning News; August 3, 2014; p. 6P.