I am writing in response to the May 17 article “Seeing isn’t always believing,” about the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

The article once again made me wonder: What is it that religious people do that is so offensive to the people founding this organization and to others who support such a mind set?

Is it the lifestyles that these Christian people practice and preach, based on principles such as loving your neighbor as you love yourself?

Or maybe it’s all those wretched activities Christian people are usually the founders of and still are the backbone of in this nation, such as Alcoholics Anonymous, the Salvation Army, church-based food banks, day care and others.

Maybe it’s the results of Christian-based teachings that families should stick together and marriages should last until death does the parting.

Which of these biblically based teachings are these people against? These teachings are the foundation of this nation and all its laws.

What other teachings would anyone rather have to base a nation on than those which are biblically based?

Even if someone decided there is no God, why would they in any way try to stop or even hinder in any way such positive lifestyles? What does it matter to them if some people choose to go to church and worship God? No one is forcing anyone to become religious. It is completely voluntary.

Actually, the so-called religious people do nothing to harm anyone else; that is one of their most important teachings.

Rather, doesn’t it make sense to join the ranks of the religious, or at least support their teachings?

If the people of Akron were asked with whom they would rather be neighbors, those who follow biblical teachings or those who are trying to tear them down, I would hope it would be an obvious choice.

I hope the next time someone makes a stand against religion in general, people will stop to consider what it is that these people are actually standing against.

John Klotzle

Marshallville

Spin machine ?in high gear

I want to thank the writer of the May 24 letter “Recall Beirut in the 1980s” for putting the seemingly endless investigation into Benghazi into perspective.

It is amazing how prior embassy attacks and multiple deaths were forgotten once we elected a black president.

And now we may have a female president. Even though Hillary Clinton probably won’t announce her decision anytime soon, Republicans are out to destroy her now.

She’s “too old,” she’s “brain damaged,” she was “the worst ever secretary of state.” Every pebble will be turned over and examined to disqualify her.

Even, it is said, Chelsea Clinton planned her pregnancy to assist her mother’s run for office. Really?

Sue Fuller

Wadsworth

Fan chokes ?on new ale

This is in response to the May 23 story “Browns rookie inspires brew.”

I am an avid, longtime Browns fan with cautious optimism for a good season after this year’s NFL draft; however, I was dismayed with the story about Chris Slavin’s new “golden ale,” which showed the label depicting Johnny Manziel in uniform, with a beer bottle protruding from his face mask.

While I certainly can appreciate Slavin’s spirit, I am sorry he felt it necessary to show Manziel appearing to drink a beer while in uniform. What kind of message does this send to legions of Browns fans, especially the younger fans who undoubtedly already think of Manziel as a role model?

As a mom, grandmother and Browns fan, I am offended and saddened that your paper finds this worthy of Page One.

Mary Lynn Savage

Streetsboro

Dangers of ?public prayer

A May 25 letter (“Minority rule,” May 25) expressed the idea that because religious believers outnumber atheists, they should be able to impose their beliefs on others within a secular framework, such as prayers at public governmental functions.

But prayer is a private conversation with one’s deity. Nothing prevents a believer from silent prayer at any time, in any situation.

Public prayer, however, sends an explicit message limited to the religious, and, in most cases in this area, that message is “Christians (only) welcome.”

That is a chilling concept in a multifaceted society and completely inappropriate for our secular legislative entities. It is also against the teachings of Jesus as well as the Constitution of the United States.

I am old enough to remember when God wasn’t in the Pledge of Allegiance. When we were taught the new wording in public school, I was old enough then to know that patriotism and religious faith were two different things and that it was a mistake to conflate them.

Ann F. Kah

Macedonia