It was disappointing to read editorial writer Robert Behre’s June 22 column on Taveau Church in Berkeley County.
It seems that he’s seeking to lay blame for the failure of an initiative that, in all simplicity, just could not meet the needs of all parties involved.
Mr. Behre acknowledges the difficulty for small congregations to maintain property no longer used for worship, but then suggests that negotiations between the parties failed when the church stopped communicating.
In reality, the church responded to every communication from the preservation group, even those that came circuitously from its hierarchy and from outsiders.
For the record, church members took a final vote in May and relayed their decision to the preservation group.
Furthermore, it is deeply disconcerting that Mr. Wood, a “lawyer and minister” of a United Methodist church, would have said that the future of Taveau is “determined solely by the Rev. Clayton Jones.”
Rev. Jones is deeply loved and has been reassigned annually for the past seven years.
However, because of the structured one-year temporal relationship between a church and its assigned United Methodist minister, he could have served only as our chosen spokesman.
Suggesting anything else would be a shameful failure to acknowledge the long-ongoing efforts of church members to find a viable solution to save the landmark, which has been in their possession for 175 years.
Let’s be clear: The preservation of Taveau would not just be a landmark to the church’s architectural structure, but also a monument to the black men and women who preserved Taveau as a place for their worship and a beacon of light in the community.
Its preservation would be a testimony to their faith in God and to the faithfulness of God.
The church does not take this responsibility lightly. What is needed now is a solution, not blame or finger pointing.
CYNTHIA GIBBS
Member, Cordesville United Methodist Church
Alexandria, Virginia
States should decide
Roe v. Wade was not — and does not belong — in the Constitution.
The Supreme Court returned it to the states’ jurisdiction where it should reside.
This positioning now permits us to have closer access to our state legislators to engage in and influence the parameters of our state’s abortion law.
Marchers and protesters should go home and put their energies there. Do your homework.
DIANE E. SMITH
Mount Pleasant
States control freedom
The issue of slavery was to be decided by leaving it up to the states.
History tells how that turned out. Now six Supreme Court justices have overturned Roe v. Wade and told each state to decide the issue of abortion.
President Abraham Lincoln ended the control of one people by another.
Why is the control of a woman’s body by anyone but her even a question today? Why let states decide a woman’s freedom? Will history repeat itself?
ELIZABETH SUMNER JONES
Columbia
Politics and ageism
Former Congressman Joe Cunningham is running against Gov. Henry McMaster for his job.
Mr. Cunningham just turned 40 while Mr. McMaster is 75.
In light of obvious gaffes and gaps displayed by one of the nation’s highest officeholders, Mr. Cunningham suggests banning folks from office above a suggested age due to presumptive cognitive decline.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer are presumably exceptions.
I suspect “reaching across the aisle” has become tiresome for Mr. Cunningham, so alienating senior citizens (myself included) is his new tack. My question would be which should we prefer: misinformed or uninformed voters?
Presumably voters also would be subjected to cognitive tests before being allowed to register as qualified voters. Interesting times indeed.
ROBERT GREEN
Beaufort
