Here we go again, with crusaders preaching their holy law: oppression.
Rick Hazelgreen's op-ed on pornography is as ironic and untruthful as the book he probably believes to be sacred ["Planning for porn," Dec. 17].
Striking to me is the tone of his concerns. His proposal to localize these stores in industrial parks is ludicrous and entertaining.
The idea is for the police to "concentrate their major enforcement efforts to a specific industrial park." Almost sounds like the herding of "nonreligious followers" in an organized fashion.
Allowing sales within 500 feet of certain establishments is "an invitation for trouble." So are spray paint sales.
We need to "protect our most precious resource--our children," he says. And he concludes with the idea that potential pedophiles will find a way to abuse our children.
I ask, can't they do that already?
I'd like to refocus his ideas to the churches. Why are churches allowed to be located so close to schools?
The pestilence of religion is scattered throughout communities. Television is littered with evangelists looking for money and preying on the despair of the viewers.
Bibles are placed in all hotel rooms. Billboards with pictures of some figure believed to be almighty block the scenery on our highways.
I say the religious followers are a huge threat to our children. And who says churches are safe? Many priests are pedophiles, plastered all over the news these days.
Why don't we relocate all churches to industrial parks, as well? Maybe we should have officers in churches as in schools to protect the children. What makes people so confident pedophiles aren't running the congregations or aren't already in their neighborhoods?
The fact is, even without these stores, crimes against children still exist.
Rich Barnes
Stafford