Your Published Letters

Your April/May/June '08 Published Letters

From the June 15, 2008, edition of the Las Vegas Sun:

'Four conservative justices more than enough'

It’s reassuring to see that the four U.S. Supreme Court justices who would allow the president to suspend the Constitution as he chooses will sometimes not get majority support.

In Thursday’s 5-4 Supreme Court ruling that prisoners cannot be held at Guantanamo indefinitely and without being charged with anything, the court acknowledged that the Bush administration doesn’t have “the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will.” Naturally, our president thinks this is a bad decision.

Our precious constitutional right of habeus corpus is meant to protect us from being imprisoned without being charged with any crime. We are all in danger when the president or the Supreme Court ignores that right.

But this close decision should also cause apprehension that a future president needs only one appointment to the court to give these “conservative” judges a solid majority in future decisions. One of the presidential candidates has said he would appoint this kind of judges.

Voters must seriously choose if they want to allow our Constitution to continue to be trashed by the president and the courts, or if we want a president who respects the Constitution.

Mel Lipman
Tamarac, Fla
Lipman is president of the American Humanist Association, vice president of the International Humanist & Ethical Union, and former president of the Humanist Association of Las Vegas.

From the June 9, 2008, edition of the Pensacola News Journal:

'Louis Pasteur!'

Periodically, a Christian fundamentalist provides "proof" for the veracity of an untenable notion, and fellow fundamentalists parrot the "proof."

Creationist parrots are now squawking "Louis Pasteur," alleging Pasteur demonstrated that living matter could not be generated spontaneously from non-living matter. However, Pasteur only showed that living matter was not generated from inorganic material in a sealed container in his laboratory during a short period. He did not demonstrate that living matter could never have arisen from non-living matter.

Nobel laureate George Wald stated: "I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation." Wald proposed that the probability of life originating spontaneously under present (i.e., recorded history) conditions is "impossible." However, he said that the 4.5-billion-year existence of our planet changes this probability: "Given so much time, the 'impossible' becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain."

After the discovery of ribozymes, Francis Crick (codiscoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule) proposed that pre-biological origins of life could be made possible by self-replicating polymers. Atoms, cosmic radiation, sub-atomic particles, force fields and time are the stuff from whence we came.

David N. Miles
Orange Beach, AL

From the Lincoln County News (Maine):

'Bring on the Golden Age'

Expect to hear the words “values, core values, family values” a lot in the coming election year. These emotionally charged slogan words are used predominantly by the Christian Right. I, as many good people who do not agree with them, am totally insulted they consider themselves having a monopoly on “values.”

I’ve become aware of the fact that there are many people having trouble with the rapid changes in society, and I suspect they, like Islamic fundamentalists who want to re-establish the “golden age” of their caliphates, are also striving to bring back one which has been lost.

For consideration, I’ll propose the 1940s, early 1950s, the times of my childhood, a time when “dear hearts and gentle people read the ‘good book’ all week.” Motion pictures are good references. Absent are African-Americans, except as servants for whites. T hey roles women played are of kindly mothers, secretaries, housewives or family disruptors; for the most part, helpless without men. No gay men, lesbians, agnostics, atheists, except as objects of ridicule, persecution. Everyone “different” was relegated “to the closet”. (As were the KKK and pedophilia, unfortunately). This “Eden” has been dissolving rapidly since the 60s. They want to go home again, via some “faith-based” manipulations; they’re uneasy, “threatened” (as they have said) by the direction the country is proceeding, to where “God” and “Country” and “Church” are one and the same. Those “happy days’ were not so for many, though, comfortable, secure, and “safe” for them and theirs, as they remember them being. They and their vision are holding the break down on our progress in the world, the future.

Let this be a golden age to advance civil rights, choices, tolerance.

Carl Scheiman,
Walpole, ME  

From the June 7, 2008, edition of the Las Vegas Review-Journal:

'Practicing Medicine a Privilege, not a Right'

In your May 29 editorial, "Indentured servants," you imply that doctors, based upon their religious beliefs, have a right to refuse to provide services to some people.

Licensing by a state is an earned privilege, rather than an inherent right.
That privilege is granted to doctors (as well as lawyers, pharmacists, etc.) based on the assumption that they will not refuse to provide their services because of a patient's sexual orientation or religious beliefs.

A doctor who will provide services to heterosexuals but refuses to provide the same service for gay patients should not have the right to a state license, which gives state approval for them to practice their profession equitably.

The editorial's metaphor comparing doctors to indentured servants makes no sense. Indentured servants could not choose to revoke their agreements, but doctors can always choose to give up their state license.

States should not grant licenses to professionals who choose to unfairly discriminate in choosing who will be the recipient of their services.

Mel Lipman
Tamarac, FL

The writer is a former president of the Humanist Association of Las Vegas and is currently president of the American Humanist Association.

From the June 7, 2008, edition of the Anniston Star:

'Bible Belt Christians'

"People, you have to have Jesus in your life, otherwise we're all doomed." Dogmatic statements proclaiming that Christian beliefs are right and all others are wrong have been plaguing humanity for almost two millennia.

An ancient law ordered all citizens of the Roman Empire to subscribe to the Christian doctrine established under Emperor Constantine at the Council of Nicea. After this, for more than a thousand years the subjects of Christendom had the choice of unquestioned acceptance of Christian dogma or torture and death. Christ proclaimed, "I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness." However, the Christian world was in darkness until the Age of Enlightenment. Not until Christianity began to lose its influence did mankind emerge from darkness into an era of reason, science, ethics and human dignity.

What did Christians do before "they took prayer out of schools and the Ten Commandments out of courtrooms?" They hung witches, whipped slaves, pillaged Native Americans, sent children to sweatshops, lynched African-Americans and denied equal rights and opportunities to minorities and women. Today sex-based and religious intolerance continue in the Bible Belt.

From the May 29, 2008, edition of the Mansfield News Journal:

'Actions against Dann unethical'

With the support of Gov. Ted Strickland, Democratic members of the Ohio House of Representatives acted unlawfully and unconscionably in the impeachment proceedings against then-Attorney General Marc Dann.

Their impeachment resolution was brought under section 24 of article II of the Ohio Constitution. This section says the House can impeach an official "for any misdemeanor in office." Because there was no evidence that Dann had committed a misdemeanor, no authority existed to remove him from office under that standard. Bob Taft met the standard but Dann didn't.

To get around that problem, the resolution used the less stringent standards for removal from office contained in section 38 of article II and in the statutes implementing that section (R.C. 3.07 through 3.10). But the statutes specify that those standards apply to the judicial method of removal. It involves collecting signatures of over 600,000 qualified electors and then having the matter heard by an appellant court, whose decision can be appealed.

By bringing the impeachment resolution under section 24 but not using the removal standard contained in that section, and instead using the removal standards that apply to an entirely different procedure, the representatives acted illegally and fraudulently. Their resolution was intended to deceive the public into erroneously believing that an impeachable offense had been committed.

Additionally, Democratic leaders applied force and intimidation by having the state inspector general ransack the attorney general's office and seize computers and other property. He previously hadn't used such strong-arm tactics even against the Bureau of Workers' Compensation after the announcement in 2005 that millions had been stolen from the agency.

Democratic state officials should be ashamed of their extremely unethical conduct that drove Dann from the office the voters had elected him to hold. The entire episode is a huge miscarriage of justice and affront to democracy.

Joseph C. Sommer
Attorney at Law
Columbus, OH

From the May 27, 2008, edition of the Birmingham News:

'Traditional beliefs not always desirable'

A recent letter writer said: "Traditional Christian beliefs have always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."

While science has produced strong evidence that sexual preference is an innate trait, Christian conservatives claim homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle chosen by the sinner in violation of God's law. However, homosexuality has been scientifically documented in more than 450 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, insects and other animals. Are these animals all "sinners?"

Ironically, while homosexuality is commonplace in nature, homophobia is not. This is a religion-inspired, malevolent trait of man.

Rationality and compassion dictate tolerance of those law-abiding citizens who are different than we may be. If archaic edicts or beliefs are wrong, caring people must reject or change them.

Zealots cannot give one valid reason why protected homosexual acts between consenting adults is wrong. The best they can do is quote the Bible, which sheds no light on why homosexuality is wrong - only that God finds it to be an abomination.

David N. Miles
Orange Beach, AL

From the May 27, 2008, edition of the Birmingham News:

'Traditional beliefs not always desirable'

A recent letter writer said: "Traditional Christian beliefs have always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."

While science has produced strong evidence that sexual preference is an innate trait, Christian conservatives claim homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle chosen by the sinner in violation of God's law. However, homosexuality has been scientifically documented in more than 450 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, insects and other animals. Are these animals all "sinners?"

Ironically, while homosexuality is commonplace in nature, homophobia is not. This is a religion-inspired, malevolent trait of man.

Rationality and compassion dictate tolerance of those law-abiding citizens who are different than we may be. If archaic edicts or beliefs are wrong, caring people must reject or change them.

Zealots cannot give one valid reason why protected homosexual acts between consenting adults is wrong. The best they can do is quote the Bible, which sheds no light on why homosexuality is wrong - only that God finds it to be an abomination.

David N. Miles
Orange Beach, AL

From the May 21, 2008, edition of the South Florida Sun Sentinal:

'U.S. Constitution must reflect the changing times'

The May 5 letter, "Constitution a flexible document, not written in stone," advocating that the U.S. Constitution be interpreted today based on societal concepts over 200 years ago, is frightening. The letter incorrectly implies that the Bill of Rights cannot undergo a change in meaning. That would mean that there is no constitutional right of privacy; that prayer could be mandatory in public schools; that inter-racial marriages could be prohibited; that use of birth control devices could be forbidden by governments, etc. After all, none of these rights appear in the original Bill of Rights.

The framers of the Constitution understood that they could not foresee societal changes that would affect the originally stated rights. That was the reason they included the Ninth Amendment, which states that the listing of specific rights in the original document shall not be construed to mean that these are the only rights we have. As our society changes, the interpretation of our Constitution must also change.

An effective and just Supreme Court would try to adapt the spirit of the original Constitution to current times. While some justices may not realize it, we are no longer in the 18th century. Our Constitution should apply to the 21st century.

Mel Lipman
Tamarac, FL

From the May 19, 2008, edition of the Observer-Dispatch:

'Reason allows us to discern what is moral'

A recent letter writer attributed the lack of morals and common sense in modern society to getting rid of the Ten Commandments, atheism and the teaching of evolution. Common sense should make it obvious that those things have nothing to do with immorality whatsoever.

Simply put, evolution explains the process through which life developed over time. Exactly how does accepting this make one immoral? Using this logic, one could assume that our children’s biology teachers are an unscrupulous lot.

Ironically, the Bible provides us with instances supporting a barbaric sense of morality, which most Christians have since outgrown. For example, would you consider stoning a woman to death for not being a virgin when married as ethical?

Despite what religious texts tell us, it is ultimately our reason and common sense which allows us to discern and fairly discuss what is moral.

A. C. LaMonica
Stittville, NY

From the May 17, 2008, combined edition of the Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News:

'Gays deserve the same rights as other Americans'

Polls show that the majority of Americans still oppose gay marriage. Many people seem to think that this is an issue that should be decided by popular vote. It is not.

We are fortunate to live in a country that places a high value on individual rights. The right to share your life with someone you love is a basic human right, not one that can be taken away by majority opinion.

The recognition of basic civil rights protects minorities from the possible tyranny of the populace. This is a well-established principle in our great nation.

We do not have to agree with gay marriage. But as a society, we must recognize that gays are among us, and that they have the same rights that we do.

Mike Smith
Denver, CO

From the May 12, 2008 edition of the Pensacola NewsJournal:

'Evidence, please!'

In his letter ("See 'Expelled'," April 23) Jacob Pawelski states, "There is a wealth of scientific evidence to support creationism, as well as evidence discrediting the theory of evolution." I would like to add that, "There is a wealth of scientific evidence to support that the earth is flat, as well as evidence discrediting the theory that the earth is a sphere."

I am not going to provide evidence for a flat earth, because it is so voluminous that it would take too much time and space to do so. Scientists who state that the earth is spherical are misguided and are merely promoting their own agendas. Furthermore, many scientists believe the earth is flat.

I do not need to provide evidence that the earth is flat. I believe it; therefore, it is true. Since I believe the earth is flat, public schools should teach this as real science.

It should be obvious that the purpose of my sardonic response to Mr. Pawelski's letter is to demonstrate that letters making sweeping, dogmatic statements without providing any supporting evidence are meaningless.

David N. Miles
Orange Beach, AL

From the May 1, 2008, combined edition of the The Other Paper (Columbus, OH):

'Strickland, not Dann, is the arrogant one'

Any arrogance on Attorney General Marc Dann’s part is dwarfed by the arrogance of Gov. Ted “Boss” Strickland and the other state officials who have been trying to drive him from office. In November 2006, Ohio’s voters chose the person they wanted to be attorney general for the next four years. Under the law, state officials are supposed to honor the voters’ decision unless the person commits an impeachable offense.

That remains true regardless of whether the person makes some mistakes that certain cowardly and silly politicians think could embarrass them. They don’t own the attorney general and are not free to decide whether he stays in office. This is a matter of the voters and the law.  

Nevertheless, state officials have been trying to force from office a duly elected official who, as far as anyone knows, has not committed anything near an impeachable offense. Their actions show distain for the rights of voters and the requirements of the law. Arrogance can’t get much worse than that.

Joseph C. Sommer
Columbus, OH

From the May 8, 2008, edition of the Denver Post :

'Opposition to personhood initiative'

The Post’s exposé on the impetus for Kristi Burton’s personhood amendment should be an eye-opener for Coloradans. Ms. Burton has based her efforts on what she “thinks” about the hazards of abortion, not only to the fetus but also to its mother. There is no mention of any scientific studies or actual data to back up her perspective.

This is clearly an attempt to legislate a moral code that many Coloradans are sure to disagree with. Many of us are law-abiding, moral, ethical people who do not recognize the authority of gods - Ms. Burton’s or otherwise. Others believe in a god but not one who is intent on subjugating women by refusing to let them take control of their own fertility.

Thanks to the boost provided by The Denver Post’s front-page ink, the measure is now likely to gather the signatures necessary to make the November ballot. Coloradans beware - do not let our competing gods turn us into criminals.

Mike Smith
Denver, CO

From the April, 2008, edition of the Columbus Monthly:

'Person of the Year?'

If the founders of the U.S. were still alive, they would not have supported Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman as your Person of the Year, but likely would have viewed him as Turkey of the Decade [“Person of the Year” –January].

There was no principle the founders believed in more passionately than freedom of speech. Since Coleman became mayor in 2000, though, free speech in Central Ohio has been significantly reduced by actions such as the city’s ending of public-access TV, the government channel’s censorship of speakers at City Council meetings and increased restrictions on protests at City Hall

Joseph C. Sommer
Columbus, OH

From the April 28, 2008, edition of the Mobile Press-Register:

'A debt to deism instead'

Letter writer Robert D. Pinkston ("A debt to Christianity," April 23) correctly states that religious freedom was given to us by the Founding Fathers.

The Founders were familiar with the restriction on individual liberties that Bible-based theocracies had imposed upon peoples in the past including in the American colonies. To prevent this in the new nation, James Madison wrote the First Amendment to the Constitution. Madison, like many other Founders including Jefferson and Franklin, was a deist, not an orthodox Christian.

Deists subscribed to a rational religion of nature. Their God created nature and nature's laws but did not interfere in human affairs and did not appear to them through divine revelation.

The deist Founders wanted to ensure that religious dogma would not be imposed upon the citizenry of the United States. Only the U.S. Constitution, which does not mention in its text the Bible, God or Christ, would be the foundation and governing document of our legal system.

Contradicting the Bible, the document of freedoms conceived by what may be the most brilliant and visionary group of men ever assembled gives Americans the right to worship other gods or no gods, work on Sunday (Saturday) and say anything we like about the various gods (blaspheme).

Hence, for our religious freedom we owe a debt of thanks to our deist Founding Fathers.

David N. Miles
Orange Beach, AL

From the April 21, 2008, edition of the Anniston Star:

'That's All There Is'

Re: "Scriptures are proof" (Speak Out, April 17):

Letter writer Jeff Hines states that the Scriptures are proof of everything that he believes, and he needs no other proof. Among those beliefs are eternal salvation.

While I do not accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior, I need not concern myself with eternal salvation. Why not? Because Scripture tells me that when I am dead, that is all there is: "But the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more reward." (Ecclesiastes 9:5.)

David N. Miles
Orange Beach, AL

From the April 13, 2008, edition of the Birmingham News:

' 'Free Will' is a myth'

In attempting to explain how an omnipotent, omniscient, merciful deity can allow suffering (e.g., the recent accident on Interstate 459 that killed four teenagers), apologists resort to "free will." They tell us free will is "the utmost gift given to us by God."

Can you imagine standing by as your children entered harm's way and you did nothing to stop them? Is that really the ultimate act of love? Or is it the epitome of indifference?

Of course, God-given free will is a myth. It is not free will if you are guaranteed eternal agony for displeasing God. That is the equivalent of saying you have free will when a thug puts a gun to your head and demands, "Hand over your wallet!"

An all-loving deity would not give the Nazis free will and then stand by as they slaughtered 6 million Jews. The Jews certainly did not have any choice in this act of "free will." A merciful God would not allow a lion to rip apart a wildebeest or the shark to mutilate a sea lion. Do lions opt to be savage predators, or were they created that way? Animal and human suffering are hardly benefits of divine free will.

David N. Miles
Orange Beach, AL

From the April 11, 2008, edition of the Tuscaloosa News:

'Biblical passages support violence'

Dear Editor: Letter writer Marlon Long [April 9] rues the monstrous acts of family violence taking place in our society. He goes on to state that, 'We can find meaning easily in God's Holy Word.' However, it appears that 'God's Holy Word' may well be a cause for the dysfunctional family.

The Bible irrationally and cruelly demands the following shall be put to death: He that curseth his father and mother, Exodus 21:17 and Matthew 15:4; and stubborn and rebellious sons, Deuteronomy 21:18-21. What could be more absurd than Psalm 137:9, 'Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.'

'Double, double toil and trouble; / Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.' The three witches in Shakespeare's Macbeth must have been having biblical thoughts as they were mixing their potion. In II Kings 6:28-30 two women agree to boil and eat their sons. Fortunately for one son, his mother weaseled out of the agreement after the other son had met his fate.

Mr. Long says, 'With Christ there is peace and love.' However, Christ says he has not come to send peace, and he declares, 'For I am come to set a man at variance against his father ... ,' Matthew 10:35. In a further repudiation of family values, Christ states, 'He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me.'

As long as the Bible is revered as a paragon of virtue, family violence will likely continue.lettersaprilmayjune08

David N. Miles
Orange Beach, AL

From the April 4, 2008, edition of the Washington Post:

Michael Gerson's Outlook on Abortion

Michael Gerson, ostensibly pro-life, is startlingly cavalier about the lives of women when he attacks anyone who might oppose a ban on "partial birth" abortion -- the political term for intact dilation and evacuation ["Obama's Abortion Extremism," op-ed, April 2].

Restrictions on partial-birth abortions are one thing, but a large number of partial-birth abortions are performed when mothers' lives are in danger or when severe developmental problems have been detected in fetuses. To ban the procedure outright does nothing to prevent late-stage abortion but merely leaves non-intact dilation and extraction methods as the sole resort of women whose lives may be in danger -- methods that many doctors deem riskier and more likely to cause infertility.

Karen Frantz
Policy and Advocacy Associate
American Humanist Association
Washington

Chronological Archives