Regarding the Sept. 28 column “Condemning not the state of our laws, but our souls”: J. Peder Zane’s criticism of Hillary Clinton was schizophrenic and strained.
Zane faintly supported Donald “Make America Great Again” Trump but concluded that we’re really pretty great as we are.
Somehow Trump’s condemnation of whole populations of Mexicans and Muslims is a challenge to the status quo, but Hillary Clinton’s “deplorable” assessment of a portion of Trump’s supporters is an attack on our souls.
Zane implied that Trump’s white supremacist and exclusionist supporters are among the redemptive people he portrayed at the end of his column. But if we are all so good-hearted, who’s creating our divisive conflicts? Could it be that some Americans act on deeply rooted prejudices against those not in their tribe, and need to be called out for it?
Never miss a local story.
Zane accused Clinton of speaking falsely, but is she wrong to deplore prejudice? Is she wrong that certain prejudices are so ingrained in some as to seem permanent? Is she wrong that many Trump supporters express the prejudices she enumerates? As a lifelong Christian, Clinton knows that hating the sin doesn’t condemn the soul of the sinner. Does Zane understand that?