I fully agree with "Worries rise about co-opting of religion" (March 19). Christian nationalism poses a grave danger to our democracy. I did get a laugh, though, when I read the comment by Southern Baptist leader Russell Moore describing Christian nationalism as "heretical." I was reminded of the great Emo Philips joke where Emo is trying to pin down the religion of someone he encounters on a walk. It ends with this exchange:

" 'Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?' He said, 'Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.' I said, 'Die, heretic!' "

Emo is riffing about the technical and arcane differences between various sects of the Christian religion, and how differences that seem minor to outsiders can bring insiders to blows. I concede that Christian nationalism is a greater threat to democracy, but Southern Baptists and other denominations of Christianity have also been active in trying to legislate their theology on those who do not share their beliefs. The punch line here is that neither perspective should have a seat at the table of our secular government. Our founders built a wall of separation and we should be vigilant about maintaining that wall.

Erica Klein, Richfield

In regards to the March 18 letter on the topic of the Minneapolis teachers strike, I must contest the conclusion. The author states that students have weathered a difficult two years (agree), that the strike may compound these difficulties (agree), therefore the teachers should not be on strike and rather "be thankful" for what they have (disagree).

There is no intentionality in the "timing" of the strike. The district and the union had a contract with a set term, that term expired, they have not yet come to an agreement on a new contract. There is no "default" to fall back on, unless the author means just accept the terms the administration is offering. But this very wrongly assumes the employer position is the "default." That is a value-laden assumption that I strongly urge all readers to question.

In this instance, one could just as easily accuse the administration of being "indifferent to the mental stress they are inflicting on students, families and citizens," and that their inability to come to an agreement is "poorly timed," and they should just accept the teachers union's position and "be thankful" for what they have. If this sounds absurd to you, I understand. Corporations spend substantial sums maintaining the paradigm that the employer's position is the "default," and that standing up for your economic rights is "petty" or selfish. This is the very kind of thinking that the labor movement has been fighting against for more than 100 years. Instead, the labor movement puts forth a world in which workers and employers negotiate the terms of employment, ideally on equal footing.

I leave the author, and the reader, with the following: Of the two economic paradigms, the question is not which do you think is true, but which of the two do you want to be the case. Our reality is what we collectively make it.

Sebastian Ellefson, St. Paul

We are losing the war in Ukraine. No matter how you look at it, we are part of this war. Our weapons shipments alone implicate us. Our military and humanitarian aid implicate us. Which is how it should be. But we are losing. Russian military tactics are to use heavy artillery to destroy resistance. It may look like the Russians are stalled, but they are performing exactly as planned by shelling the cities to rubble.

Our press and expert analysts believe the Ukrainians are beating back the Russians. They overlook the strategic objectives of the Russian regime: pound the cities to rubble and force a huge migration of people into neighboring countries that overwhelm the social systems there. Then use social media to divide the native populations for and against the refugees. Wreak havoc on the Ukrainian cities and the West's social system simultaneously. Ukraine's cities will continue to be devastated by artillery and rocket deployment. Vladimir Putin does not care about his field losses because he's winning the strategy.

Putin believes in old Russia. It's not likely he will sacrifice Russia itself to direct resistance by the West in Ukraine. Therefore, he is not likely to pull the nuclear trigger, which would result in the incineration of Russia. Our response should be much tougher. At minimum a humanitarian no-fly zone and protection of the civilian population from the bombardment. Whatever it takes.

Paul James, Eden Prairie

•••

Apparently the editors' tolerance of diversity of opinion expressed in letters extends to the call for the assassinations of heads of state ("With anguish, anger stirred, here's a hard truth of what must happen," Readers Write, March 17). The letter writer who agreed with his wife after watching Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's speech to Congress that the situation "warrants a huge bounty put on Vladimir Putin's head" acknowledged finding out later that a Russian businessman has done this. In case there is any doubt as to what it means to put a bounty on someone's head, that businessman, Alex Konanykhin, posted a "Wanted: Dead or Alive" image of Putin on Facebook with his bounty offer, which Facebook banned. This wasn't a just playful take on an element of Wild West culture. We can't believe Konanykhin's subsequent protestations that he didn't mean that he would pay someone to assassinate Putin.

Americans do not have the prerogative of calling for the removal, let alone assassination, of another nation's head of state. When we resort to supporting a coup or assassination in another country, no matter how badly that country or leader is behaving, we lose moral standing to object when other countries interfere with our process for selecting or replacing our head of state. Shame on that letter writer for supporting such an option and on the opinion editors for implying that this is within the range of views that are acceptable for readers to express.

Luke Walbert, St. Paul

The American Legion Department of Minnesota would like to commend the writer of the March 21 letter "Take back our flag."

We couldn't agree more.

The American flag is for everyone. The veterans of the American Legion see it as a symbol of unity. Despite the political differences that arise from participating in our 244-year-old democracy, we are all on the same side. We are all Americans. We all want a more perfect union.

We veterans often feel like the last remaining nonpartisan group, and it pains us when people on either side of the political spectrum assign meanings to U.S. flags that plainly just aren't there. Flying the flag is meant as a display of patriotism, not anything more, not anything less. Citizens of all countries around the world display their flags as a show of patriotism. Why shouldn't we?

And as the letter writer said, "America is about us, and we are all lucky to be here."

We would love nothing more than to have people of all political persuasions support the flag.

Tim Engstrom, Bloomington

The writer is communications director for the American Legion Department of Minnesota.

So after 75 years of establishing a trusted Minnesota brand, Schwan's has decided to roll out a cutesy, idiotic replacement called "Yelloh" (March 19). How quaint. How Ad-Men. How Board of Directors stupid. How "New Coke." How sad.

How's this for a response? "Buh-bye." I don't do cutesy, idiotic rebranding. Take me off of your route.

Gary Dunn, Andover

We want to hear from you. Send us your thoughts here.