Lori, Casey, and Jan what have these young man done to you for you to show this kinda of hate towards them? do know them personally? I do. Did everyone forget about all this even happend for?

Well, Leo, they haven’t done much to any of the people of me personally, but they have done stuff to people we know, which is just as good. Why are you trying to justify Cadena and gang’s actions by what was alleged to have happened at Walmart earlier that evening? If such a thing happened why does no one except for Cadena and gang know about it? Are you suggesting that no one in Walmart had a clue that someone’s hair was being lit on fire? That’s quite a strong accusation, so why it hasn’t been quantified yet? Probably because it never happened.

I myself attended the trial, and besides the family and friends of Cadena and the witnesses, I don’t recall anyone else. It just infuriates me how there are these comments on the Tribune site of people whole know nothing of the case but take sides anyway and then charge others with what is effectively racism.

Where is the concern for the girl who got her hair burned? The problem is that prejudice is alive and well in Willmar. Why didn’t those people go to the police about the hair burning? Because they dont trust them. If you didn’t comment on the white kid burning some minorities hair, then you need to take a long look in the mirror. YOU are the problem. Make it so that the new comers can trust you and then things will settle down. That approach has worked in Worthington to huge success. Get a trustable, honest chief of police, replace your county attorney, and start up a community group of minorities to educate and work with newcomers. There are many minority people who do not want to be in the news for negative things. Give them a leadership role and cooperate and it will all come together.  

I’m only going to focus on the italicized text in this one since the rest is drivel. And the second is from Larry H. of Willmar, MN.

Brian G: I thought the article said “tried” to light the girls on fire? So, has it been confirmed this “white boy” did in fact ignite the girl’s hair on fire? Or did he try? Either way, he should be brought up on charges as well. What is sad is the fact that the law was taken into the hands by others trying to exact revenge. It appears the perp has become the victim as well, but that should not excuse his actions.

Why should the victim here be brought up on charges? We have no proof that he did anything wrong! The only thing remotely near proof is the word of one of the attackers and from the details that are known, we can’t believe them. We can’t believe them because they claim that there was no gun, no altercation, and that they we just going for a ride, all of which were disputed by both the witnesses and physical evidence when the police arrived. Why would they (the attackers) lie about these details if they had a “good” reason to assault the teens? Perhaps I’m biased since I know some of the people involved in the case as well as some more of the background that isn’t in the paper, but I still think that calling for the teen to be brought up on charges for burning hair is ridiculous. It flies in the face of reason and you cannot come close to such a conclusion without some serious assumptions or disregarding facts.

I’m getting rather sick of this whole worship debate/battle my church. One camp grumbles that we don’t sing enough hymns and the other wonders why the first group cares what songs are sung. Personally, I just wonder why we only seem to sing the same songs each week and I while I enjoy the hymns, I do understand that others enjoy other styles.

Recently I’ve been taking notice of the worship director’s words when she’s speaking to the congregation. Her speeches have a condescending air to them, basically slapping around her nay-sayers. These speeches normally consist of her telling everyone that we shouldn’t allow our personal tastes in music dictate how we worship God on Sunday mornings. I find this both funny and sickening. Funny and sick because by her choosing certain songs that she finds “worshipful” isn’t she doing the same thing she’s lambasting?

In a recent article in the church’s newsletter¹ (page 4), she ends up calling those who enjoy and would like to listen to older styles of music in church, basically dead. That is, since they don’t like the newer styles, they slowly killing themselves and the church (in that newer, younger folks won’t come to church because of that). But why do this to the people who are part of the church? Why disregard their wants and needs for the sake of those that may come? If you disregard those you have, you’ll end up losing the current members and in the future the newcomers, who will turn into the “old music” folks after a while.

Why is this an all or nothing ordeal? Why can’t both styles be represented? Why can’t both the needs of the current/old and new members be met? Is it an impossibility to have an equal amount of old and new?

¹FBC First Facts (May 2008)