The recent editorial on landmark designation for Chicago’s architecturally significant houses of worship articulates what we at Partners for Sacred Places have seen over many years: These places are irreplaceable centers of social services and the arts.

Our research has shown that congregations subsidize community-serving programs and activities, and 87% of the beneficiaries of these programs and events are not congregational members.

Given the right help, many congregations can sustain themselves in historic buildings. We believe that society has a responsibility to encourage the continuation of a sacred place’s civic value, when possible, even if its use and ownership changes. And when they cannot survive, new resources are needed to foster respect for the value of these places.

In Chicago, we have several notable examples of this kind of reuse: Church of the Epiphany is now Epiphany Center for the Arts; Aloft Circus Arts operates out of a century-old church in Logan Square; and the Preston Bradley Center in Uptown soon will be a hub for nonprofits.

Virtually every sector of society — government, philanthropy, the arts, business, academia — has a stake in the future of Chicago’s sacred places. Landmark designation is only one piece of this puzzle.

Emily Sajdak, Partners for Sacred Places, Wicker Park

At what point is the number of gun deaths too many?

I would like to respond to a recent letter regarding the defense of firearms. Initially, the writer offers an argument of semantics concerning the terms used for various firearms. Regardless of the term, address what the object in reference is: a weapon designed to kill as many human beings as quickly as possible.

The writer argues that a variety of other items can also be deadly weapons. However, that is not why they were created or the expected use to which they would be put. It really is unreasonable to argue otherwise.

Second, what is the more likely outcome? Give someone a bucket of gasoline and a book of matches, or refrain from supplying these items, and tell me in which instance is there more likely to be a fire?

The writer further argues for stricter punishments for those who abuse these weapons. I would have to ask, who contemplates committing a crime and thinking about the repercussions if they are caught? Also, we have found in over 150 years that rehabilitation is rarely successful.

You can supply all the statistics you want, but at what point is the number of deaths due to firearms too many? It seems that for some, there is a greater concern about guns than there is about human’s lives.

Daniel Pupo, Orland Park