From Our Readers

Why Worry About Grades?

Thank you for the practical and realistic counsel in the article “Young People Ask . . . Why Worry About Grades?” (March 22, 1984) From my own experience I know how truthful the statements are. In school I was among those receiving the best grades. Why? I listened attentively when the teacher was speaking, and I freely took part in class discussions and asked questions.

R. V., Italy

Your article about grades was very helpful. My anxiety about exams was reduced by at least 50 percent. I used to be very worried about exams, although there was really no reason for it, since I do well at school.

M. M., Federal Republic of Germany

Romance Novels

At this moment I am getting rid of 90 romance novels, which is a very big step for me. It was after reading your article “Are Romance Novels Harmless Reading?” (November 8, 1983) that I had the needed stimulus to get rid of them.

E. R., Brazil

The Bishops and the Bomb

Your article “The Bishops and the Bomb” (March 22, 1984) questions the position and timing of the statements of the Catholic bishops and others. Religion at this stage of history and our efforts in our short stay on earth would best be directed toward unity, not divisiveness. To deal with secular matters (i.e. militarism) in a way complying with God’s directives is an OK activity and is needed now more than before considering the magnitude of the weapons, fine. But anti-Catholic rhetoric and criticism of the same Christianity and attempts to serve the same God doesn’t make it.

J. T., California

We do not criticize the Catholic and Protestant religious leaders for speaking out against war. What we find reprehensible is that Catholic and Protestant clergy have, down through the centuries, supported wars fought with swords, spears, guns, bombs, and even nuclear bombs when these first were used, without showing proper concern for the sorrow, suffering and death brought upon countless millions of people, and for the destruction wreaked upon cultures and civilizations. We feel that it is only fair to ask: “Is their stand at this late date taken only because it is obvious that nuclear proliferation is so extensive that a nuclear war threatens their own existence? Is conventional war acceptable because the amount of death and destruction is somewhat less than that caused by nuclear war? We think the statement of nuclear physicist Harold M. Agnew bears repeating: “I think they are hypocrites in that they seem to be accepting that conventional war is O.K. and nuclear war isn’t. For the first time in history, because of the power of nuclear weapons, those who make the decisions to get involved in war are equally at risk with the young people who traditionally are sent off to execute the elders’ decisions. So the churches and all the other decision-makers’ wine cellars, material wealth and other holdings are no longer immune in the event of a nuclear war. We’re all in it together.”​—ED.