I would add that having access to the Adventist Review online while serving on UN/World Bank projects in places like Kosovo and Afghanistan has been a real blessing to me for the past several years.

Jovitta Thomas


PORNOGRAPHY AND PORNOGRAPHERS
Nathan Brown's column, "The No. 1 Christian Porn Site" (Jan. 20, 2005), seems to say that it is possible to "trick people" into not using pornography. As I understand it, this pornography is an addiction and should be treated as such.

For example, if someone wishes to abuse drugs because of their addiction to them, I don't think you could trick them into accepting sugar water for their next injection, could you?

In addition,(and since the writer did not state the type of porn he was talking about) perhaps a "Burn in Hell" placard might be appropriate for those "people of the industry" who enslave children obtained from third world countries and force them to participate in the vilest sexual acts while being filmed. What do you think?

Bill Henson
Lufkin, Texas


WE'RE SURROUNDED
Thank you for featuring, "Noise," by K. L. Maran (Jan. 20, 2005). Noise, both figurative and literal, has become a leading spiritual problem.

I just read about a man who climbed Mt. Everest with his iPod (it quit working at 17,000 feet). A few weeks ago I heard a woman talking on her cell phone in the next stall in the restroom. At the time I thought that was the ultimate in cell phone rudeness. But last Sabbath in church, a man a few pews back was chatting on his phone during an extended time of special prayer. Perhaps he had little reason to feel embarrassed, because people all around were talking and whispering. After about ten minutes of this, I relocated sadly to my own house, where I knew I could find some reverence and silence.

Things are getting bad when people cannot tolerate silence on Mt. Everest, in the restroom, or in church. Don't blame young people; they didn't create this noisy society, and many of them are longing for some reverence and peace. Many would gladly trade entertainment for substance. It is the duty of parents, teachers, writers, and especially pastors, to lead us all back to a sense of reverence, and to help recreate listening silences. Unfortunately, it is not something one person can do for him- or herself. Second-hand noise is like second-hand smoke: its toxicity is not limited to the person creating it.

Shandelle Henson
Berrien Springs, Michigan


SUPPORT FOR MISSION
Thanks to Roy Adams for his provocatively written article, "How Will God Save the Nations?" (Jan. 13, 2005). He graciously and tactfully traveled through a mine field of variant ideas, but stayed the course and affirmed that salvation is through Jesus only. The importance of, and the need for, being a mission-driven church came through loud and clear.

Since all heaven is involved in seeking and redeeming every person, we should equally become God's partners in this outreach ministry.

Doug Bennett
Ringgold, Georgia


DUAL CITIZENSHIP
I have to disagree with Stephen Chavez and his editorial, "Citizens of Two Kingdoms" (Jan. 13, 2005). As the wife and daughter of U. S. Navy veterans, I am angered at his attempt to force his beliefs on others. He is correct that Adventists should be cautious about endorsing various political causes, but this could be said for anyone, not just Adventists.

However, writing that "under no circumstances should Adventists advocate the violent overthrow of any regime or government," is highly inappropriate. As this world has become more evil it is not always possible to solve problems with a handshake over a cup of coffee. I think of those of Jewish descent. I suppose if Mr. Chavez had been U. S. president during the early 1940s he would have let Hitler decimate the Jews because he believes in passivity.

Like it or not, we can't always be nice and smiley. As I think about the message he sent to all the service men and woman overseas, I wouldn't blame them if they decided that his narrow view of things made him unworthy to continue to receive their protection. We should get out of our ivory towers and take a look around at the real world. Even God had to lead his people into battle sometimes. Violence isn't the best way, but sometimes it's the only way.

If someone wants to be a conscientious objector, that's great. But they shouldn't forget how their words can impact the people who give their lives to make sure others can live in safety and security and write such statements.

Jennifer M. Robinson

The editorial, "Citizens of Two Kingdoms," is something our church members should take to heart and make a part of their lives.

Everything Stephen Chavez mentioned is important today in the way we interact with the people we meet, whatever race or religion they may be. That is the real way they will understand what a Christian is.

Chavez mentioned four things we Adventists should do. All of them are good. I especially liked the fourth one, "breaking down prejudice and stereotypes, not reinforcing them." It's something we all can do.

Betty Jean Sellers
Oakhurst, California


TEARS BEHIND THE TEARS
Regarding the article, "Unseen Tears," by Beth Van Meter (Jan. 2005): While all eight myths listed about domestic violence are true, as in they are all myths, they are also politically correct. Another list is not politically correct, and probably affects about the same number of people. That is when the woman is the abuser.

Just as there are differences between men and women, there are differences in abuse patterns practiced by men and women. Sin is sin, whether it is hidden by political correctness or not. The difference is like arguing that verbal/emotional abuse is better than physical abuse, or vice versa. The truth is that both are evil. Both erupt from self-centeredness, and both are terribly destructive. So it is with the perpetrator: it makes no difference whether the perpetrator is male or female. The family is devastated.

Then why is it that the only articles I remember seeing pick on men as the perpetrators? I know there are far too many men who have this problem, and there are resources for women if a husband or some other man in the household is abusive. But there are no resources for men if a female is the perpetrator. Why is this part of the problem ignored? We focus attention on a problem that is fully as bad as it has been made out to be, but since the other part is equally bad, why don't we say something about it? Is being politically correct more important than facing the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Name Withheld