By Chris Lane
By Jeff Balke
By Aaron Reiss
By Angelica Leicht
By Dianna Wray
By Aaron Reiss
By Camilo Smith
By Craig Malisow
Faith Cuthrell, Reiki master
I am a Reiki master who does not believe in esoteric things as the way Reiki works. It simply is guided by God, and fellow Reiki masters I know take a scientific view and have been able to use statistics to validate the practice of Reiki.
The bottom line is that a Reiki master does not have to be a member of the Reiki Alliance to be a valid practitioner, and Reiki is not some touchy-feely nonsense.
I urge people to keep an open mind and find Reiki masters who speak with clarity and simplicity about the subject. There is no need for this type of punitive legislation,
Vicki Grant, Reiki master
Gifts and Greed
While admittedly not a regular reader of your paper ( I live in North Carolina), I do have a brief comment to make about the pending legislation.
I am not currently a Reiki practitioner but someday hope to become one. Having only certain "elitist clics or groups" eligible for this endorsement that your article addresses is not only elitist but also discriminatory on a financial basis.
I will never have the $10,000 that these two groups "charge" for the blessing of their endorsement. I do feel, however, that I have a gift that can be channeled and developed. Is this gift, then, to be denied on the basis of some snobbery from those who stand to gain financially from this arrangement your state proposes? I think reason and common sense must prevail. Look at what having those with a vested financial interest involved has done to Salt Lake City. Do you desire a repeat of that debacle?
Timothy S. McHale
I read with great interest your article on Reiki and the attempts by the Reiki Alliance and Reiki Touch to utilize the legislative process to essentially take over the practice of Reiki in Texas.
Approximately 15 months ago, the Reiki Alliance attempted to trademark the word "Reiki" so they could control its use. The vast majority of Reiki masters are not alliance members, and thus that action would have had the effect of taking away the right to use that name. When that effort was denied them by the United States Patent Office, this legislation seemed to follow.
What the public may not have understood is that these organizations are elitist and believe that only they have the proper teaching and practice. They charge $10,000 for master training and see their power and control of the field eroding as other masters charge far less (from free to approximately $800).
What is the legitimate role of the government in regulating a spiritual practice? Do we really want the government interfering in spiritual issues? I would hope the answer to that is no. Additionally, is government intervention necessary in what essentially is a price-fixing scheme by Reiki Touch/Alliance?
This legislation represents the worst motivations by both the Reiki Touch and Alliance organizations and represents the worst of Big Brother government taking over areas where the constitution forbids them to go.
Tim Fleck has shone a big light on the pest of the impeachment process ["Which Bug Gets the Gas?" January 7]! In a nutshell, "I am Tom the Hammer DeLay" builds a giant PAC machine under campaign finance loopholes, extorts votes for impeachment by threatening to withhold campaign funding and subverts the will of the majority by prolonging this ------? Put a mustache and helmet on the poster boy for the pollution industry, and you have a little FYhrer.
H. Clay Moore
Down To Earth
This sanctimonious character, Tom DeLay, now professes to judge the character of the president. Believe me, he is not the upright pillar of the community that he professes to be. Please bring the hypocrite jackass idiot down to earth. He is certainly not the one to be casting stones of purity at our troubled president.
Jose M. Sanchez
Published:It turns out that Bridget Schmal's letter, published as a letter to the editor in the January 28 issue of the Houston Press, in which she thanked the Press for running the story "IB or Not IB" [by Wendy Grossman, January 14], was not intended for publication. Schmal meant to sent it just to Grossman, but since she e-mailed it to the address where readers mail letters to the editor and didn't write "not for publication" on it, we thought it was a letter to the editor. We are sorry.