Editor!
Wow!  The stance taken by Sherry Nuxoll and a couple of her senate partners over the opening prayer led by a Hindu individual certainly fired up several people and raised a bunch of interesting questions!
First, Marty Trillhaase, M.T., from the Tribune demands an apology from Nuxoll with the headline Monday, 3/11, "Is she sorry she is an arrogant bigot?"  Marty, I would like to ask you a couple of questions!  Your "one nation" under God quote and claim that the U.S. is not a Christian nation, smacks of ignorance of history!  Sorry, Marty..., but "liberty and justice for all" certainly never fit the 2000 year history of Hindu's class system which locked you into a birth class, with no chance ever of moving up, e.g. the lowest "untouchable" class. And there is no denying that the vast majority of colonists were Christians of one sect or other, so clearly there is a wide gap between the religious beliefs of these two regions! And the 2000-year history of utter poverty which plagued India is a stark contrast to the 200 year unparalleled freedom and wealth in our own country
Second, I ask you, Marty, and the other critics of Nuxoll's stance, is there such a thing as truth and falsity?  Can two religious beliefs as different as Christianity and Hinduism both be true. One God vs. multiple gods?  Freedom vs. class rigidity?  Are we afraid to claim that both cannot be true simultaneously, and that if one is not true, it must be false?  If 2+2=4, can the claim that 2+2=5 also be true?
And another thing, Marty, would you consider it a bit arrogant on the part of a Christian speaker to suggest a Christian prayer in India in front of a Hindu parliament?  I do believe it unwise to even consider it!!!
Finally, Marty, are we too assume that your opinions are always "true," and that those who disagree with you are always false, or would you claim that both can be true at the same time?  I wonder, and await an explanation!
Jake Wren
Cottonwood

To the Editor
Re: Senator Sheryl Nuxoll
My cousin, Sen. Nuxoll, boycotted a Senate invocation by a non-Christian and justified the decision on her false premise: “the fact that our entire legal system was based on the 10 Commandments.” As a lawmaker, the Senator should strive to be correct before babbling on about the derivation of the laws that went before her. Arguments abound on all sides of that claim, but our U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled that “our entire legal system” was so based. 
The answer is not the exclusivity championed by the Senator.
After 3 years of law school, two bar exams, and 45 years of practicing law, I have yet to come across a Supreme Court opinion where the Justices held that our entire legal system was based on the Jewish 10-Commandments handed over to Moses to give to God’s chosen few, the Israelites. (Martin Luther, an avowed anti-Semite and the father of the Protestant movement was adamant in his insistence that Christians were not bound by the Jewish 10-Commandments), and that attitude continued in the minds of many colonists well before we adopted the British system of laws.
“Anti-Catholic sentiment landed in the Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay colonies along with the first settlers. Catholics were banned from both colonies and in 1647, Massachusetts enacted a law threatening death to Catholic clergymen”. How’s that for unanimity of religious thinking, Ms. Nuxoll?
Justice Rehnquist, arguably the most oft cited expert on American Jurisprudence, said this concerning the exclusivity of the Ten Commandments in the development of U.S. law: “Nearly everything in our culture worth transmitting, everything which gives meaning to life, is saturated with religious influences, derived from paganism, Judaism, Christianity--both Catholic and Protestant--and other faiths accepted by a large part of the world's peoples.”
Yes, even paganism was a factor, and to argue otherwise would demonstrate a lack of both understanding and intellectual honesty.
Wayne J. Wimer, Esq.

Dear Editor:
 According to the March 5, 2015 edition of The Cottonwood Chronicle, Senator Sheryl Nuxoll states in her weekly newsletter that she votes against any bill that keeps the ACA (Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as Obamacare) “going through our exchange” because she believes Obamacare is “socialistic and immoral.”
Socialistic?  Is Medicare socialistic?  What about Social Security?  Check your history.  Germany was the first nation to adopt social insurance in 1889.  Franklin D. Roosevelt is credited with creating the Social Security Trust Fund in the U.S. in 1939, during the Great Depression.  Isn’t it hypocritical for your State Senator who will partake in both Medicare and Social Security while ranting that it’s evil and socialistic?
Immoral?  Let me tell you a true story.  Sheryl and I share an Aunt Mary who suffered from schizophrenia and ended up spending forty years in what was then called the state-run “insane asylum” in Orofino.  After the Depression hit, the nuns who had been caring for her could no longer continue to do so, so she was dumped off at a relative’s farm in Idaho.  Our relatives, who couldn’t care for her either, had her institutionalized in Orofino.  Did they think like Sheryl does that charities should care for those in ill health rather than get help from the state or federal government?
Times change.  Although I suffer from probably a milder version of the same mental illness my Aunt Mary suffered from, I am luckier because of new drugs which help me live an independent life.  My relatives have never had to pay for the cost of my health care.   And after losing my health insurance in 2009, I struggled alone on a low income with thousands of dollars in prescription drug costs each year, but was denied health insurance because of the prohibitive cost which my boss, a staunch Republican and small business owner, couldn’t afford to pay and because I had a pre-existing condition.  Fortunately, I was able to regain health insurance again eight years later in 2014, thanks to Obamacare and a $4,000 net bonus from my boss. (In order to get a subsidy from Obamacare, a person needs to be a certain percentage under the poverty level.)
Your State Senator Sheryl Nuxoll might be trying to take away benefits from the poor and giving them to the rich.  Besides, isn’t it downright hypocritical of her to be against a health care subsidy for the poor in Idaho when she gets full medical, makes about $16,000 as a legislator, has living and travel expenses equal to about $22,000 per year for three months’ work and gets a state retirement—all paid for by the taxes of Idaho citizens?   
Joan Kopczynski
Spokane

Dear Editor:
We would like to be counted among the People of Idaho who do NOT agree with Senator Sheryl Nuxoll’s blatant and outlandish statements and actions against the Hindu Prayer in the Statehouse.  Hers and our shared Catholic faith seems to be planets apart!  Senator Nuxoll stated that this is a “Christian Country!”  We’re not sure where this is coming from as one of the precepts of the founding of the U.S. is Freedom from Religion and Freedom of Religion - Not Christianity!  This statement was anti-American as this country is for ALL people.  We, as citizens of the world believe ALL souls are important creatures of God.  Being Catholic or any other religion does NOT make one special.  The ability to love, open our hearts to and accept one another is the core of our faith.  Is this all about playing to the Big Money Industrialists who seem to REALLY manipulate Idaho politics or to the Tea Party Group to help fund the next campaign?  We’re wondering??? 
Spike and Peggy Dorf
Grangeville

Home

Classified Ads