Thank you so much for the insight and devotion in Jennifer Phillip�s column, �Withholding judgment� [May].  The words in the article were ones that I have wanted to hear for as long as I've had the ability to understand.

I was raised in a Southern Baptist missionary family.  My mother was an exceptional person who knew her relationship with God and followed his will.  She was aware of her many purposes here and respectfully rejected many trivial opinions of others to alter her course.  I was and will always be so proud of her decisions.  Examples of her witness were the several times that she went to a local bar owned by her friend�s sister.  The lady wasn't a Christian; however, she had an enormous love and respect for my mother because Mom didn't judge or condemn, but loved this lady without reservation just as God directed her to do.

One of the biggest reasons that I've chosen the Episcopal faith is the dedication of this church to respect the dignity of all persons.  I don't believe that God intends or directs his children to judge or condemn his other creations.  Who are we to say that he has made mistakes?

I know that God's plans are too great for me to question.  I pray with the Rev. Phillips that God will help us to remove the blinders we wear in his name and that we will all better understand his love and how to use it.

I am very grateful for Vicki Gray's prophetic voice and warning [�Echoes of Evil,� July/August] as she shares with us the torment of her soul at the sight of the tortures at Abu Ghraib. What she shares with us resonates in my soul and conscience. I am German, and I am American.

When I was a child of 10, I witnessed German SS driving the exhausted, starving prisoners through the village street. I bear that burden of responsibility as a German. Since 1956, I have been an American, bearing now the burden of Abu Ghraib. There is a difference between the two countries and the two nightmares: Germany was, thank God, defeated. The horror ended in 1945. America continues in ever-growing power; her people, on the whole, afflicted with a very short memory span.

May God have mercy on us all.

I was appalled to read the appalling opinion piece by Vicki Gray equating the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib with the slaughter and starvation of innocent people at Auschwitz and Dachau.  She referred to the actions by a few people to a relatively few prisoners as "appalling crimes" and "American torture chambers."

Smashing airliners into buildings is appalling.  Killing your own people to prevent them from becoming free is appalling.  I, too, have toured Dachau, and Abu Ghraib couldn't compare with Dachau.  The prisoners at Abu Ghraib were suspected terrorists and criminals who were killing their own people as well as our military personnel.  Auschwitz and Dachau housed innocent people whose only crime was being Jewish!  Dachau was truly a torture chamber.  Abu Ghraib was not.

Ms. Gray's political agenda was revealed in her next-to-last paragraph, where she lists people she apparently disagrees with who just happen to have conservative viewpoints.  Then she plays psychoanalyst or clairvoyant and tells us how the president thinks.

Abu Ghraib was a painful reminder that we are human and make mistakes.  It doesn't deserve the kind of agonizing self-flagellation that Ms. Gray propounds.  If she is in a "self-made, self-willed hell," it is certainly of her own making.

From the proud mother of two honorable military men.

Alex McDonald's column �Loving your neighbor� [June] was informative and touching, but as a Registered Nurse, I find it discomforting that all the pro-organ-donation articles and public education ads I read never include the cost to the patient and the families post organ donation.

Organ recipients must take anti-rejection drugs every month for the rest of their lives that can cost from $800 to $2,500 per month, plus have increased risks of other organs failing.  No one ever mentions any of these costs, or risks, and I feel this is misleading to the public.

I am an Episcopalian for the same reasons Mr. McDonald states he is -- "the Episcopal Church is much more understanding of people and their foibles and therefore much more inclusive" -- but I draw the line at people who behave stupidly, ruining their bodies, then expect to get help later with organ transplants.

Yes, we should love our neighbors as ourselves, but that doesn't mean I have to agree that an alcoholic, or IV-drug abuser, deserves a liver transplant, or that a two-pack-a-day smoker for 40 years deserves new lungs.  I don't think they do. I would take care of them lovingly and with kindness, as I do to all my patients, but I would not fight for them to get new organs.

I know I must struggle with this decision myself, as everyone must, but I cannot see plunging my family into debt in order for me to save myself.  It is ridiculous and I do not believe a very Christian thing to do to my family.  Until the organ-donation services can show me studies that prove the recipient is not plummeted into debt from medical bills, and continued hospital visits, I will not be an organ donor.

Just last night, I picked up a saved Forward Day By Day written by Bo Cox and wondered how he was doing. The last time I asked someone at Forward, I was told his parole had been denied, and I felt sad for him.  His writing in all issues was so powerful and real.

Imagine my surprise when I opened Episcopal Life today and saw his photo with the Rev. Jackie Means and Suffragan Bishop Rayford High; then found his article in �First person.�

I am so delighted he is out and doing well. I kept looking for more issues of Forward from him and was always disappointed when he wasn't the current author. He was one of the best Forward ever had, and I hope he will write more articles/books.

A copy of Dr. Kathryn Challoner�s �A letter to a patient� [June] should be landing on the desk of every senator and congressperson in this country. Although one wonders if even this eloquent depiction of what our failed health-care system means at the human level would be able to compete for their attention with the buckets of campaign cash that flow from the corporate interests that profit from our present arrangements.

The marketplace is a wonderfully creative force in providing us with a wealth of goods and services, but it is not the best way to accomplish everything. With at least 44 million individuals at a given time uninsured in this country, and 75 million persons (according to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation report cited by Dr. Challoner) playing Russian roulette with medical coverage that comes and goes, the marketplace is utterly failing to deliver an adequate health-care system.

Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, has been quoted as saying, �We simply cannot insure everyone,� and he is apparently willing to let it go at that. Bill Frist has it wrong. We cannot continue failing to insure everyone.

Yes, we should pray for the Dr. Challoners in our midst, and for their patients. But prayer is not the end of our response. Taking the lead in demanding just change in the system is also an obligation for the community of faith. Demanding adequate access to medical care for all people is just one concrete expression of what it means when we vow in our Baptismal Covenant to respect the dignity of every human being.

Episcopal Life�s article on a recent Sabeel conference [�Affirms call for sovereign Israel and Palestine,� June] seriously distorts the choices that Christians face as they deal with the painful and complex issues of Middle Eastern conflict. The conference assumed -- and the article seems to agree -- that we must choose between Christian Zionism on the one hand and full-fledged support of the Palestinian Authority on the other.  Either we are fundamentalists driven by eschatological concerns, or we are advocates of justice who relentlessly decry Israeli policy.

One conference speaker, Rosemary Radford Reuther, warns that �subtle collaboration with Israel and a �sophisticated and unconscious Zionism� exist in mainline churches.�  In other words, if you speak in support of Israel, even in moderation, you�re really a Zionist, and thus in league with �fanatics and fundamentalists� (Ms. Reuther�s words).

I am deeply distressed that Episcopal Life would publish such a biased and ultimately polarizing article.  No balancing views were presented, no recognition that many nonfundamentalist Christians believe that a Jewish state is essential for Jews today.  We live, after all, within living memory of the Holocaust. 

Our Jewish brothers and sisters need a safe and secure homeland.  Does this mean unthinking support for every aspect of Israeli policy?  Of course not.  As Christians, we care deeply for all who suffer in that troubled land -- Palestinians and Israelis alike.  But neither does it mean that we should unremittingly criticize the state of Israel.  I plead with Episcopal Life to bring balance to the pages of our church�s official newspaper.

I write in regard to the article by James Solheim, which appeared in your June issue. I knew that Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals regard the Bible as God�s own word and take literally the words in Scripture to be the real, unchanging truth. It is only recently, however, that I have heard that they not only espouse the course of Israeli foreign policy, but also seek to bring about thereby the end of the world and Christ�s Second Coming.

I was staggered that the number of adherents in America purports to be 100 million. Taking the Bible literally also requires one to believe in a two-dimensional world, to ignore the discoveries of science and to believe in creationism. This is pretty serious stuff, indeed. Those of us who believe in the love and mercy of Jesus Christ are taken aback. Is the clergy doing a good job of interpreting Scripture for modern man? Speaking as a lay person well advanced in years, I can tell you that knowledge of these views of  �Christian Zionists� is not widespread among the laity. It ought to be, and I therefore would encourage Episcopal Life to write in some detail about the origin, history and modern development of this movement.

After reading through Episcopal Life, I figure the Rev. Martha Giltinan [�Banns in Boston: No we should not marry them,� July/August] is going to get some awful e-mails. I hope I am wrong about that. I think she is a thoughtful, realistic and compassionate person. I consider myself fairly open-minded and flexible. However, I don't think condoning and celebrating marriage between same sexes is what God wants, either. I don't see it anywhere in Scripture. I don't agree with prejudice or hatred. And I don't think we should call each other names just because we don't agree. I do not hate gays and lesbians; neither do I celebrate their lifestyle. No one knows for sure how all this came to be: nature or nurture?

Civil unions are one thing, but aren't we supposed to keep the separation of state and church? If we can't have the Ten Commandments up in front of a courthouse, we don't have to sanction gay marriage in a church. The issues are different, but the principle is the same.

I am writing in response to Rev. Martha Giltinan's column �Banns in Boston.� She asks: "Why would a pacifist, feminist Democrat, one with cherished gay friends not be in favor of same-sex unions?"

I pose a similar question: Why would a conservative, Republican, Anglican married mother of two be in favor of same-sex unions?  The answer is basic. People should be allowed to make their own choices in life.  I do not want the church or government restricting my freedom to make my own choices in life.

The Rev. Giltinan states that marriage is a "type of reconciliation between men and women."  This is not true. Marriage is not a reconciliation of our sins, and that is her interpretation alone. She states further that "same-sex couples cannot participate in this symbol; for they do not complement each other as God intends."

How does the Rev. Giltinan know what God intends? Many great scholars, rabbis and "holy men" of Jesus' time knew what God intended, knew how Jesus was supposed to act and who he was supposed to associate with. Jesus surprised them all and associated with sinners and outcasts.

If Jesus were here today, his behavior might surprise us. He might even embrace the homosexuals of today and officiate at their weddings. The Rev. Giltinan has not even considered this idea and has closed her heart � just as the contemporaries of Jesus did.
I urge Rev. Giltinan to open her heart and consider her life experiences if she were gay.

She may not be so quick to judge and preach obedience if she walked in the shoes of another.

I am writing to express my extreme displeasure with the actions of Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold and the National Council of Churches in issuing a pastoral letter calling for a �change of course� in Iraq [Newswire, June]. The letter calls for a renunciation of violence. It is not the United States that is carrying out the bombings and murdering Iraqis foreign nationals. If you are talking about violence, put the blame where it belongs � on the extremists and terrorists.

The letter calls for turning over reconstruction to the United Nations and for us to recognize our responsibility to �contribute through security, economic and humanitarian support.� There are more than 20 other nations involved in the rebuilding effort. Resolutions have recently been passed by the U.N. that will facilitate transferring control back to an Iraqi government. Iraq�s infrastructure has been almost completely rebuilt. Schools and hospitals are open. Commerce is growing. Oil is flowing. And the amount of aid pouring into Iraq from the United States probably dwarfs the amount rendered from all the other nations combined.

Has our church leadership moved so far left that it has bought into the ravings of those who see the United States as the bad guy in every issue? I have to ask, what change of course would Bishop Griswold like to see? What more would he have us do?

Amnesty International is calling on Christians across the country to become involved and urge their local churches to participate in the National Weekend of Faith in Action on the Death Penalty this Oct. 22-24. The annual event seeks to bring together two important approaches to social justice: grassroots human rights activism and faith-based community action.

Amnesty International invites individuals of all faiths to reach out, educate and initiate dialogue with members of their community. In past years, participants have hosted speakers , watched videos, held discussions, led prayers, delivered sermons. Participants receive an organizing packet, which includes the Faith in Action resource guidebook.

To participate, contact coordinator Kristin Houle at 202-544-0200, ext. 496, e-mail her at khoule@aiusa.org or visit the website: www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/faithinaction_form.html

I'm an active Episcopalian and an active Scouting volunteer ["Scouter"].  I'm chairman of the Protestant Committee on Scouting of the Alamo Area Council, BSA.  I'm in the Diocese of West Texas.

I'd like to respond to a letter written by fellow Scouter Ed Sholander in the May 2002 issue of Episcopal Life.  In his letter, Ed laments the absence of a national group of Episcopal Scouters.  I'm happy to report that such a group does exist.

I invite Ed and other interested persons to join the National Association of Episcopal Scouters.  For information, write to Amo Kearns at P.O. Box 6574, High Point, N.C. 27262 or by e-mail at soxit@aol.com . The association does not yet have a webpage, but Episcopal Scouters are on the web at:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/episcopal_scouters/.

Please join us and support Scouting in the church!

Yesterday I received the June issue and was saddened to read on page 5 under the "Newswire" column, "Support for assault weapons ban" and can only ask: Why? The 19 banned semiautomatic arms in the 1994 Clinton Assault Weapons Ban are not assault weapons.

The 19 arms are semiauto only, just like many .22 rifles and great shotguns like the Browning Sweet 16 used by millions of Americans. Unfortunately, the banned ones look like the machine guns, so the Sarah Brady folks and others have labeled the arms as "assault weapons.�

I spent 26 years on the street as a federal agent and never arrested a criminal with any of the banned weapons. I arrested many armed criminals who were banned from any gun possession by state laws and Section 902, paragraph F of the Federal Firearms Act of 1938.

The 1994 weapons ban did nothing to make my job safer and fortunately will sunset in September 2004. All the ban did was criminalize 19 semiautomatic arms that were never a factor in crime in America. No gun-control law disarms criminals.  Criminals are disarmed when a law enforcement officer snaps on a set of handcuffs and pats the bad guy down. I challenge anyone to show me any gun that ever caused a crime or any gun-control law that stopped a criminal from committing a crime.

To supplement the reports in the June issue of Episcopal Life, I respectfully submit the following observations, which a prominent clergyman offered last April at Grace and St. Stephen�s Church in Colorado Springs.

Stating that the Episcopal Church has gone astray this spokesman, observed that recent decisions made by our church have placed it beyond the pale, that the Episcopal Church was on a slippery slope and that its present course would be fatal. He further expressed sorrow because harm done by those recent actions to the Anglican Communion in general as well as to this province.

These critical observations, which were not reported in the June edition, were made by none other that the Most Rev. George Carey, former archbishop of Canterbury.

It is difficult to know whether to be embarrassed or simply depressed by the article in your June issue on the �heresy of Christian Zionism.� Begin with the disgraceful picture of a former presiding bishop sitting placidly next to Yassir Arafat and former PLO members Hanan Ashrawi (she quit because of �corruption,� but not because of terrorism) and the Rev. Naim Ateek, director of Sabeel and one of the world�s chief promoters of replacement theology, a genuine heresy.

What is this Christian Zionism that the PLO and its friends have identified as heretical? How many Christians who support Israel�s right to exist look forward to the end times? Did Sabeel take a survey? If so, your reporter neglected to mention it. Of course, Sabeel and Bishop Browning will insist that they do support Israel�s right to exist -- but only after the return of the refugees of 1948,  along with all of their descendants -- a definition of �refugee� that the U.N. applies only in the case of the Palestinians.

Obviously Israel cannot accept this suicidal proposal -- as everyone at the table except the hapless bishop knew full well. The �right of return� is a red herring, which is why the PLO is so agitated about President Bush�s sensible advice to forget it and move on. They do not want to move on. They want to destroy Israel, and they say so all of the time. Why don�t the peace and justice Anglicans know this?

Dennis Hale and Adele Travisano
Medford, Mass.

I read with dismay your June article [�Affirms call for sovereign Israel and Palestine�]. In spite of the title, the text claimed that any Christians who are Zionists are either fundamentalists or, as Rosemary Reuther was quoted as saying, other Christians who exhibit a �subtle collaboration with Israel and a �sophisticated and unconscious Zionism.��

I am neither a fundamentalist nor unconscious, but I am a Zionist. I am also, pardon the expression, a �Palestinianist.� Clearly two states must emerge from the terrible ongoing conflict that both sides continue to escalate. But suggesting that Christian Zionism is a position held only by conservative fundamentalists (who, while pro-Israel, are anti-Semitic) is simply not true.

Also, the short article on page 2 [�Israel restricting visas to Christians�] again makes Israel the villain without any suggestion that violence on both sides of the conflict is to be condemned. My grievance is not with what you have reported but with the clear anti-Israel bias in what you have not reported.

I long for the day when Episcopal Life will see fit to give balanced and fair reporting, and not anti-IsraeliA first response to difference is to think it is wrong, that there is some mistake. Christians have spoken of these neighbors as �accidents,� �Unnatural,� even as errors in Creation which God did not intend. Yet at the same time we believe that God has known us as we were being knit together in the womb and that there is nowhere we may flee from God�s presence and love. What would our community look like if we were to suspend our opinions and fears about each other and simply ask:

�What does it feel like to be you in the world? How do you experience God as loving you? How is God�s grace known to you in your body? In your relationships? What does your particular call to holiness look like? Who are you? � And then listen.

For many years I have listened to Americans criticizing people of other countries for cruelties they have committed.  Deep inside I kept wondering what evil we as a nation had done. Given the opportunity, I feel that a great many people would not be able to prevent that hidden cruel streak deep in our natures from sneaking out.

Those people, both adults and children, who have enjoyed bullying blacks, gays, foreigners, children or females are bound to enjoy the chance to lash out at prisoners who have no way to protect themselves. The other problem here is the individual feeling of, "It is none of my business.�

The list includes soldiers not wishing to report their fellow soldiers for fear of the response of those around them and mothers of sexually molested children preferring not to acknowledge the truth for fear of stepping out and publicly making the accusations. The list goes on. Are we afraid of throwing the first stone since we also have sinned?  I doubt it; it is just easier to hide our head and ignore.