Letters to the Editor - 10/31/2012
Editor: The misinformation in the full-page Oct. 21 "Deliver Us From Evil" advertisement was appalling. The advertisement and an Oct. 20 rally purportedly to stop loss of religious freedom show how little Americans follow the principles laid out in our Constitution.
I refer only to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits government from interfering with the expression of religious beliefs. I have not seen the militia blocking citizens from entering their house of worship. Nor have individuals been stopped from expressing their religious beliefs.
Could one interpret bills introduced in both houses of Congress to defund Planned Parenthood and stop women from accessing legal medical forms of birth control as forcing their religious convictions on the women of this country?
If your answer is "yes," then U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan has violated his oath of office. According to Linda Monk, an authority on the Consti-tution, "The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from creating an official or established church, preferring one religion over another or benefiting believers instead of nonbelievers." I believe Mr. Ryan represents the government pushing his religious beliefs on women.
It is women denied methods of contraception whose constitutional rights are violated here, not a religious community. When a religious community works to block women from receiving medical forms of birth control provided by law, their civil rights are violated under the law.
PHYLLIS C. REINHARDT
No middle ground
Editor: How could a Catholic vote for President Obama and infanticide?
A full page ad in Sunday's Times provided excerpts of James J. Burke's remarks to the Wyoming Valley Chapter of Pennsylvanians for Human Life about Obama and infanticide.
While Obama was an Illinois state senator, he three times voted against a bill that would have mandated medical care for any infant born alive due to a botched abortion.
Clearly Obama is the most prolific presidential defender of abortion ever elected. For Catholics to support and endorse him publicly is unequivocally unacceptable. The man and the issue cannot be disjoined. There is no middle ground here. For a visible Catholic, one who is well known to be Catholic by participation in Catholic events such as deacon, choir member, or involvement in Catholic activities is scandalous, millstone material.
I would also include the folks listed in a full page ad in the Sunday Times of Oct. 19, 2008 during Obama's first run at president. These folks called themselves Catholics against racism and for Obama and included prominent attorneys, clergy, educators, and lots of other well-intentioned but misguided folks.
A choice has to be made. One's religion or one's politics. The issue is not akin to the economy, jobs, interest rates, home building. It relates to one's moral principles and moral principles always trump politics.
The folks I identified above have to make a decision, the Catholic belief system/moral compass or their political candidate who irrationally believes in a woman's and a doctor's "choice" to kill.
RUSSELL G. RICHARDSON
Editor: Recently many religious organizations have distributed material containing some teachings about a voter's responsibility to his faith, and the writers try to compel members to vote for a particular political party in the upcoming elections.
The message in the material takes three important religious issues and puts them on a pedestal above all others. They are the right to practice birth control, the right of a woman to have an abortion in some cases, and whether those who are against these rights because of their religious beliefs are being denied their "liberty" and freedom of "conscience" if they have to allow others to have these two rights.
On the third issue, is someone really being denied their freedom to practice their religion if they have to allow others in a free society to do things they are allowed by law to do?
The writers list about 45 matters important to Christian voters such as care for hungry, sick and poor people, education and the environment. Democrats strongly support about 40 and Republicans strongly support only about five, but these include not allowing women to ever have an abortion or to practice birth control. With this information, the voting advice is that all issues are not equal, that all abortions are evil, and that candidates who don't oppose all abortions should not be supported - so vote accordingly.
With such advice, perhaps we have to ask whether we want our country to be like countries where religious leaders rule the government and where they don't believe in science or equal rights for women. And, does the New Testament teach us more about living in peace and helping starving, sick and poor people, or more about the evils of birth control and the exact time a human life begins?
Editor: No person or entity may force a person into reproductive servitude.
One political party supports the enlightenment value of individual freedom and one does not. The Republican Party would declare a fertilized egg a person and allow that person to force another to its service.
Egg and sperm are human and alive before conception; they are not avocado or aardvark and dead. It is an affront to science to say that life begins at conception, just as it was to insist that the sun revolved around the Earth. The issue is the enlightenment value of individual freedom or servitude to fiction.
ELMER P. CHASE III, Ph.D.
Truth must prevail
Editor: Satya Prattipati's (Your Opinion, Oct. 24) concern for his daughter's safety is genuine and real. He, unlike President Obama, recognizes terrorism better than our own government.
However, if seeking the truth no matter where it may lead is to be construed as politicizing the issue, I humbly and wholeheartedly disagree with his assertion.
As more details of the Benghazi attack are uncovered, one wonders just how much protection is afforded our Foreign Service personnel. I wonder if our own overseas diplomats question if Washington has their back.
The timing of the fact-finding is unfortunate for the president as it shows his ineptitude and/or complacency towards this event while trying to get re-elected. Appearing on late-night TV shows immediately after the attack illustrates my point. Evidence that the White House knew as the attack was occurring in real time and did nothing should cause Mr. Prattipati real concern.
It's unfortunate that the president's decision-making - or lack thereof - puts him in a bad light. It's far worse that these same traits put our diplomats in peril.
FRANCIS X. KRANICK JR.