My great-grandfather, John Henry Bingham, fought all through the War Between the States and after the surrender refused to take an oath to the "Union." His horse and rifle were taken away from him and he had to walk home from Georgia, which took him three months.
He never owned slaves and was a prominent citizen of McKinney. He was a better person than I am.
I speculate that he fought because he was against being put on an equal social and political footing with Negroes and that he considered abolition would be a major blow to the southern economy, making the agricultural South inferior to the industrialized North.
I am a supremacist myself; I am superior to anything and everything; if I thought differently, I would have changed!
Ross Melton Jr.,
Research opposing views
"The Thoughtful Pastor's" column of Sept. 15 presents several arguments against the idea that the Bible is to be interpreted literally. Apparently, in her view, if an event is supernatural, the irrefutable evidence of all-powerful God, it is not to be believed as an actual event. But otherwise, the Bible "overflows with wondrous words."
Most of her arguments, if not all, are specious, and I would advise anyone who might agree with her to research opposing views by referencing "Bible Apologetics" on the internet.
I do agree, however, that we get to choose how we handle the Bible, including "to justify our prejudices." Let's see, the Bible "overflows" with "stories" that include "unbelievable mistreatment of women," and the idea of literal interpretation is a "white, U.S.-centric, primarily male-generated mindset." H'mm.