Although I have great respect for Dr. Dan Ippolito and his education and profession I was somewhat dismayed at his letter of Oct. 10 that criticized Jim Bailey and his article about “When men of cloth pray for a president’s death.” In calling out liberals for having a double standard he completely missed the point of Bailey’s comments.

One certainly doesn’t have to look far to find many instances of verbal attacks and threats against the lives of presidents throughout history. Numerous presidents have had those threats carried out against them. Unfortunately some succeeded. But the point of Bailey’s column was to examine the source of those words of hatred and who was responsible for them. Furthermore, what is the influence on society by those who speak them?

Anytime hatred and death are espoused by someone who claims a love of God and who has a grip on the direction of the spiritual growth and well-being of others poses a danger not only to the person being threatened but also is a danger to those he is responsible for shepherding. In the end it is a danger to the moral fiber of society. Is it not clear what the result of Jonestown was? Is it not clear what makes an Islamic Radical radical?

I was glad to read that Dr. Ippolito took the opportunity to denounce the pastors referred to but he failed to extend that criticism to any form of media that calls for or glorifies killing as a means to any type of end. In short, what is said from the pulpit touches society differently than what is said from the soap box.

Roland VanHorn

Anderson