Saying nothing sometimes best

State Rep. Sharon Har has compared the re-definition of marriage to include same-sex couples to marrying more than two people, or a person and some other plant, animal or object ("Constitutional amendment on marriage stirs questions," Star- Advertiser, On Politics, Sept. 15).

It’s difficult to imagine an elected official saying such a thing about, really, almost any other citizen group.

Because these comments come from a Hawaii House representative, they legitimize some of these deeply hostile beliefs.

Freedom of speech and choice of words go hand in hand for any public figure. If one has to draw straws for the right words to form what is supposed to be a logical opinion, it’s often better left unsaid. One will come across as wiser.

Willy Shum
Downtown Honolulu

Mural created in different time

The call by a Hawaiian activist to remove a mural from a public building has fostered a much-needed conversation on censorship versus Hawaiian culture.

When this mural was commissioned, the mainstream media and the general public did not focus on Hawaiian cultural issues as much as today.

During that time, an artist, Hans Ladislaus, was in a position to create an artwork for a public space.

He easily could have painted something pleasing, such as a landscape or a garden. Instead, he focused on a tough subject and sought to call attention to an important cultural issue.

Perhaps the imagery of the bones were used to show how the Hawaiian burial grounds were being exposed by a wave — a wave of development that was forgetting the host culture.

In one sense, the artist and the Hawaiian activist who called for removal of the mural are saying the same thing. They are just speaking in different voices.

This conversation must continue. Uncloak the mural and let the words of the Hawaiian community speak next to the artwork.

Jodi Endicott
Kailua

Censoring leads to banal images

I wish to add my voice against the removal of the muralat the Hawai‘i Convention Center.

Hawaii Tourism Authority president Mike McCartney is a responsible and conscientious caretaker of this facility, but it was a mistake for him to accept a narrow and untenable interpretation of the artwork.

If we censor all things that are not just pretty, cute, self-congratulatory or a mass-market mythology of Hawaii, we will, in the end, provide the world with the most disgusting and banal image of Hawaii that has nothing to do with this place.

Robyn Buntin
Robyn Buntin Gallery

Art censorship a bad precedent

I am absolutely appalled at Mike McCartney’s decision to censor a publicly purchased work of art on account of the cultural beliefs of a few Hawaiian activists.

While I celebrate and wish to protect the rights of those activists to adhere to their cultural values, I also feel strongly that they dare not impose those same beliefs on others.

This terrible decision sets a precedent akin to the Taliban’s recent blasting of ancient Buddhist sculptures.

Can book banning or burning in our libraries be far behind?

Charlie Aldinger
Manoa

Art is in the eye of the beholder

It is wrong to censor art for cultural reasons.

I hope here in Hawaii we don’t get into malicious, threatening fights.

Art is in the eye of the beholder, but it is also to have people think and feel.

We need it all.

Sheila James
Diamond Head

Report did not blame ‘regime’

Referring to the United Nations report about the Aug. 21 chemical attack in Syria, your headline said, "U.N. team pins deadly strike on regime" (Star-Advertiser, Sept. 17).

This is flatly contradicted by the statement in the story which said that "the 38-page report from a U.N. scientific team did not assign blame."

The story then cited various "Western diplomats and independent experts" who blamed the attack on the Syrian government not on the basis of facts but on the basis of "indications," "logic" and "strong suggestions."

In other words, they were speculating, and your headline writer wrongly viewed the results of the speculations as facts.

Oliver Lee
Aina Haina