Dear Editor:

(In response to "You May Now Kiss the Cartoon" in the Feb. 11-17 issue of Urban Tulsa Weekly)

I recently read the article "You May Now Kiss the Cartoon" and must say that I found it an interesting take on themed weddings.

I am about to get married in March, and our wedding will be a 1940s themed World War II wedding. Why you ask? Well I am a WW2 historian and re-enactor as is my fiancée.

This hobby is a big part of our life, and we have met and made some great friends through this hobby. It was one of the first things that gave us that common ground when beginning our relationship. So, I say if a couple is thinking about having a themed wedding go for it. A wedding should reflect the couple and their outlook on life or their personalities.

When we were first planning, our wedding was going to be the traditional chapel wedding. Well, needless to say, we argued more about the planning and preparation of a traditional wedding than now since we decided to have this particular themed wedding of the 1940s.

I was the one initially against having a themed wedding and felt that what would we think in 20 years or later if we got out of the hobby. The more I thought about it I thought why not? It is supposed to be a memorable day for us, so why don't we really make it memorable for us and our wedding guests.

Since we changed the theme to 1940s WW2 wedding, I have had friends, family and co-workers come to me and say it so fits us, and it is such a different kind of wedding than the standard traditional wedding that they cannot wait to come and be a part of it.

That is the other reason for our themed wedding, it gave us the opportunity to share with our friends and family our hobby and have a better understanding of who we are and what we do when not at work or on the weekends. As I read the article it seems to me the wedding planners (which honestly I have no use for at all) are trying to impose their so-called sense of a "proper" wedding on the couples when they are planning and setting up for a wedding. Their idea of a wedding is one that is dictated by society, which in our case is not us and when we tried for that it caused more headaches than what it was worth.

Themed weddings may be considered a niche market or on the fringe of proper society etiquette for a wedding. But I think a couple should plan a wedding that they are happy with no matter how simple or possibly "themed" it might be. Do not let society or an overpriced busy body (wedding coordinator) dictate to you what you should do. It is YOUR special day so make it reflect your hobbies, interests or personalities. Thank you.

-Brian

Faith for the Faithless

Dear Editor:

(In response to "Oh, Jupiter!" in the Feb. 18-24 issue of Urban Tulsa Weekly)

"Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord!" This scripture comes from the Bible ... but if you don't believe that the Holy Bible is God's Word and only recognize the Book as a compilation of myths and old wives tales, you can find plenty of reasons to avoid any significant religious purpose for prayer anywhere. The claim that nothing religious should be connected with governmental activity is pure nonsense.

Just read the history of our nation's founding fathers and their acknowledgement of God's sovereignty and providence and gracious blessing. These folks sought God in all they did, and many of our public government buildings are engraved with scripture reference or a declaration of God's hand in it all.

The scripture also teaches that there is a coming day of judgment for nations as well as individuals. May God help all believers in the United States of America, the state of Oklahoma and the city of Tulsa to stand strong against any atheist, or God denying group that encourages our ignoring of His eternal Word. The Psalmist said it well: "Forever O Lord, Thy Word is settled in Heaven" Psalm ll9:89

-Bill Weir

Dear Editor:

(In response to Bill Weir's letter)

Mr. Weir, (the other letter writer) DuckPhup raises some valid points, though, as a Christian I naturally take issue with his belittling dismissal of the Bible and of God. But, also as a Christian, I take full responsibility for his attitude toward us and our beliefs.

The issues discussed in this article (and in the comments on the article) underscore a fundamental problem with Christianity in this country: We think of America as a "Christian country," so to be "American" is to be "Christian," in our view. As a result, token acknowledgment and ceremonial lip service to Jesus Christ are almost political obligations for elected officials, and if that makes non-Christians uncomfortable, then they can just get the hell out and go live in some godless land in some other country, we tend to think.

But, if we want people to believe as we do, then the burden is on us to give them reasons to, and if we decline or fail, then we have to acknowledge their right to voice their convictions just as we exercise our own. Instead of giving people the benefit of the doubt and proceeding as if their intellectual objections are sincere, though, and attempting to provide a rational, objective case for belief in Jesus Christ, we just spout scripture, as if that's going to cast some magical spell on them, expecting them to afford it the same authority that we do.

If the city councilors want to pray before a meeting, and not be obligated by politics to pray to a Wiccan moon-goddess or to Allah or to Krishna or to Thor or Poseidon--but to the God and Father of Jesus Christ--what's to stop them from meeting privately in a conference room before the public meeting and asking for His guidance and blessing then? Why the need to make it part of the formal structure of a public meeting?

-Bryan Douglas