Your views: Readers' letters

Flood plan

The flood protection programme for the lower Whanganui River is timely and coincides with the district council project to create a comprehensive plan for port development.

The flood issues are compounded by the relative narrowness of the river through the built-up area of the central city and the bends in the river, particularly at Shakespeare Cliff -- which slow the flow, the widening of the river as it turns past Landguard Bluff and, again the narrowness of the mouth between the moles.

Whenever the river flow slows, it allows the silt being carried to settle, further limiting the flow capacity. This occurs alongside Kowhai Park (although this year it moved further down past the Dublin St Bridge), at the basin by the yacht club and Q-West, as well as the harbour basin.

It is my opinion that flood banks will never be high enough, as global warming has the potential to put far more water down the river than we have seen in the past, thus a significant requirement in effectively managing flood waters is to identify a means to increase the rate at which they escape to the sea. This can only be achieved by increasing the "fall" or the height the water drops over the distance it travels to the sea. As the height cannot be changed, only the distance can be altered by shortening it. This can be achieved by diverting the river outlet out to the sea at Landguard Bluff.

With the current project to develop the port both councils have an opportunity before them. They can work together to share the cost of this diversion, creating the outcome Horizons requires and creating a significant increase in available land to be used as both port land and public land for recreation on the banks of the river.

Everyone will be asked to pay rates, district as well as regional, but not everyone will benefit from flood banks. So there is the challenge: Truly represent the people of this city to get the best result that will benefit everyone.

MURRAY SHAW
Bastia Hill

Nukes link

The USA's continued sick admiration of nuclear weapons seems to have guided the Department of Corrections in not objecting to the Auckland South Corrections Facility operator SecureFuture using UK nuclear weapons-maker Serco to run the day-to-day activities at this prison.

Do they not realise that this is illegal under Section 5(2)(b) of our 1987/86 Nuclear Free Zone law, which prohibits aiding and abetting overseas nuclear weapons activity by officers of the Crown or their agents?

It seems that whistle-blowers for nuclear-free New Zealand need new whistles. The letter and spirit of the law must be upheld for peace to prevail. The August 6, 1985 Treaty of Rarotonga's Article 2(2)(C) against encouraging any nuclear weapons activity guides application of our law.

Where are lawyers for peace here? They need to professionally expose the error of Corrections flattering the makers of absolute evil and degradation.

RICHARD TINGEY
Levin

Faith and bias

Wow, Russ Hay (letters, February 21) seems irate. Ignoring the obvious distortions allows room for two points.

First, the vehemence and ire of his responses reaffirm my original assertion that atheism is a faith position, even according to the definition he has made up regarding what he calls religious faith.

Atheism adheres to the "statement of belief and doctrine" that there is no God "with no necessary foundation in fact or evidence". This is apparent because of the inherent limitations of empiricism.

It is untrue, though, that Christian faith has no necessary foundation in fact or evidence; Russ simply refuses to accept it. That would make him an atheist rather than an agnostic, at least with respect to the God of the Bible. That is my dispassionate observation, not an insult or slur.

Second, Russ disavows the biblical concept of God. His perspective is therefore anthropocentric, strictly material and is by that limited to the finite.

Because God made all things, he owns all things and holds the unassailable right to determine the fate of things according to his own law and purpose. Were he lawless, capricious, given to gratuitous genocide, who could argue?

He is not, though. He says: "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live" (Ezekiel 33:11).

Two things about that: Since God hates wickedness, it is obvious that he is not himself wicked. And, the death of the wicked is justice meted out according to God's standard. All persons fall short of that standard, including Hittites, Amorites, Amalekites, etc. and the timing and manner of God's justice is his prerogative.

That should be enough to make people think and refusing to accept it won't make a scrap of difference to the reality.

JOHN HAAKMA
Wanganui