Your Published Letters

From the August 31, 2007 issue of the National Catholic Reporter.:

'Christopher Hitchens'

Christopher Hitchens and I had a half hour "conversation" on July 12 on the syndicated "Interfaith Voices" radio program hosted by Sr Maureen Fiedler of the Quixote Center.

My problem with Hitchens is not so much with what he doesn't believe as with his blanket, uncritical assault on all religion, progressive as well as fundamentalist/extremist, and his failure to offer any positive alternative. We are all believers in some things and disbelievers in whatever conflicts with what we do believe. In a pluralistic society and world beset by serious problems (global warming, resource depletion, deforestation, desertification, the growing gap between the superrich and everyone else, racism, xenophobia, deficits in social justice, civil liberties and democracy, etc) it is imperative that progressive Catholics, Protestants, Jews, humanists, Muslims, Hindues, and others work together to the maximum possible extent to promote the many values we share.

Ben Franklin got it right over two centuries ago when he wrote, "We should then cease to reproach each other with what was done by our ancestors, but judge the present character of sects or churches by their present conduct only".

Edd Doerr
Silver Spring, Md.

From the August 27, 2007 issue of the Washington Examiner.:

'Congress has low ratings because it's not doing much'

Congress' approval rating is dropping mainly because congressional Democrats have shown too little interest in doing anything about the Bush administration's serious damage to our country's economy, civil liberties, the global warming and energy crisis, national security, armed forces, international image, women's rights, separation of powers, the federal judiciary, etc., not to mention the disastrous Iraq war and the neglect in cleaning up Afghanistan and Al Queda. If the Dems want to win the White House next year and expand their majority in Congress, they are going to have to show some results, and sooner rather than later.

Edd Doerr
Silver Spring, Md.

From the August 22, 2007 issue of the New York Times.:

Do You Say "Atheist"? (Re: "I Say 'Atheist,' for Several Good Reasons" HNN Aug. 22, 2007)

Not only did Bobby Kirkhart make a well-reasoned argument in favor of self-identifying as an atheist, she also pointed out the downside of debates over which nontheist words are bad for our community. The only thing related to how we identify that may harm our community is the tendency of some to attack their allies over how they've chosen to self-identify.

Once members of the general public understand who we are and what we really believe and don't believe, they tend to lump us together in much the same way black and gays continue to be stereotyped. If we use our energies to further separate ourselves and divide the tiny number of us who are "out" about our minority view, we do more harm than just waste our time, for such internal battles squander the opportunity before us. With our profile raised like never before and our leaders cooperating like never before, it's time set aside divisiveness and start changing people's minds about the respectability of our common convictions.

Roy Speckhardt, Washington, DC
American Humanist Association

From the August 22, 2007 issue of the New York Times.:

'Graduating From the Electoral College'

Your [Aug 22] editorial on the Electoral College was right on target. Proportioning the Electoral College would be fair only if all states were required to do so, and in the same way.

Edd Doerr
Silver Spring, Md.

From the August 16, 2007 issue of the Austin American-Statesman.:

Abortion, immigration

Former U. S. Rep. Tom DeLay last month told a college Republican audience that there is a link between legal abortion in the United States and illegal immigration. Yes, but not the way he thinks.

In the real world, illegal immigration to the United States from Mexico and Central America is because of overpopulation in that area, largely because of the scarcity of family planning, education and wherewithal. Plus, abortion is illegal in most of those countries.

If family planning and abortion were legal south of the border, there would be a lot less illegal immigration.

Edd Doerr
Silver Spring, Md.

From The Nation magazine online Web Letters, Editor's Pick section on August 16, 2007 :

Re: The Gay Presidential Debate by E.J. Graff

I realize that E.J. Graff apparently slept through part of the Gay Presidential Debate she nonetheless decided to write about (it was nearing 11, past my bedtime, so I won't be able to give you details), but has she slept through the first part of the twenty-first-century as well? It’s insulting to the LGBTQ community to demean the issues of civil liberties that we care so deeply about and say, “these are [not] the most important issues of the day” and "Please, let them talk about something besides marriage." They are important to me, and I am not at all grateful that most of the candidates danced and ducked the questions with a “big wink and nod.”

Her tasteless dismissal of Dennis Kucinich as a “pixie,” when he was the one and only candidate in the debate to unequivocally support the rights of everyone in the LGBTQ community, is offensive to everyone who has worked, often at their own peril, to bring these issues to a public forum. We are past the point where we have to settle for the “elect-able candidate.” We got Don’t Ask Don’t Tell the last time we did that, a mistake we don’t have to make again.

The recent Community Marketing Inc. survey found that 92.5 percent of gay men and 91 percent of lesbians voted in the 2004 presidential race--9 out of 122 million. More than enough to make our collective voice, especially in a democratic primary, one to listen to. It’s way past time to acquiesce to "not ready for marriage" or “let the States decide” from the candidates. I can, and will, ask for the rights I deserve, while Ms. Graff naps through the most meaningful period in LGBTQ history.

Ed Johnson
American Humanist Association
Washington, DC

From the July 26, 2007 issue of the Montgomery Advertiser:

Letter insulted non-believers

Gene Dismukes' recent letter, "Atheists cry out for help as well," was both nonsensical and insulting. In the situation described, a person of reason would be concentrating on extracting themselves from the dangerous situation and would not waste precious moments attempting to communicate with a deity.

Those of faith just can't fathom the fact that individuals who reject mysticism and supernaturalism and embrace reason and science will not flip-flop at a moment of personal crisis. Of course, it is during a crisis when real solutions are essential; and our belief in reason and science is reinforced and relied upon -- not reduced or rejected.

When diagnosed with "life-threatening" cancer 21 years ago, I eschewed prayer and the clergy, placing my faith in medical science and its practitioners. Miraculously, after radiation and chemotherapy the tumor disappeared.

If religious faith helps a person through a crisis, that is wonderful. But don't insult those of us who choose reason as a guiding force by stating that we will give it up in favor of reliance on divine help when the going gets tough. That is the equivalent of saying you will lose your faith in God after enduring a personal tragedy.

David N. Miles
Orange Beach

From the July/August 2007 issue of Liberty (published by the Seventh-Day Adventist Church:

'Devastating'

Todd McFarland ("My Country-Sweet Land," March/April) completely devastates Eric Lipman's crabbed view of religious liberty and the meaning of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. As Madison biographer and historian Irving Brant shows in his book The Bill of Rights, the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment very clearly intended to make the Bill of Rights applicable to state and local government and the Congress that approved the Fourteenth shared that understanding. Unfortunately, it took many years for the Supreme Court to get the message and start to gradually bring the Fourteenth to life.

Justice Rehnquist's peculiar stance on the First and Fourteenth Amendments was ahistorical and simply wrong.

Edd Doerr
Silver Spring, Maryland

From the July 19, 2007, edition of the Washington Examiner:

"Bush administration's failures vastly outweigh its accomplishments'

Matt Lewis (Opinion Roundup, July 17) asks, "Why is Bush unpopular despite [his]accomplishments?" The answer is simple.

The Bush/Cheney administration got the US into an unnecessary war, built on lies, that has killed 3,600 US troops, wounded 50,000 more, alienated our allies, strengthened our enemies, weakened our security, fractured our armed forces, worsened the mess in Afghanistan, cost US taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, and failed to catch Osama bin Laden.

Further, this administration, the most corrupt and incompetent in our history, has mishandled the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, overseen the widening of the gap between the superrich and the rest of us, taken government to new levels of unnecessary secrecy, undermined the rule of law and civil liberties, ignored the climate and health care crises, promoted theocratic government, done nothing to prevent the outflow of jobs to other countries, and embarrassed our nation before the whole world.

Finally, the media have not done their job of adequately exposing all of these "accomplishments".

Edd Doerr
Silver Spring, MD

From the July 10, 2007, edition of the Tuscaloosa News:

Religion used as a political weapon

Larry Logan [letters, July 9] urges us "to vote for a new president of the United States in 2008 who is truly Christian and always stands up for God." He is part of a segment of the population that is convinced we have a choice between a God-fearing Christian and a member of a political party that dishonors and mocks God by advocating individual liberties. They feel that no other issues are worthy of consideration.

The strategy of the Republican Party and Religious Right to use religion as a political weapon is not new. It almost worked in the acrimonious campaign of 1800. The religious attack upon Thomas Jefferson may have been even more irrational and venomous than the campaign against John Kerry and the strategy we may see in 2008.

One Federalist writer declared that voters had a clear choice: "God -- And a religious president ... [or] Jefferson -- And no God." Fortunately for all of us today, the man who placed reason above divine revelation and who advocated reliance on human solutions for human problems continued his invaluable public service as our nations third president.

In 2004 we had a choice -- a choice between presidential decisions based on reason that would benefit the body politic and presidential decisions based on personal religious beliefs that pandered to religious zealots. Now look at the mess we are in. "Standing up for God" (who apparently Logan feels cannot stand up for himself) doesn't qualify one as an effective leader. It's time to return to reason.

DAVID N. MILES
Orange Beach

From the July 1, 2007, edition of the Birmingham News:

Evolutionary process ongoing

Evolution suffers from the misconception that it is only a theory and doesn't have practical applications. This, of course, is nothing more than a rallying cry from fundamentalist preachers.

The public should understand that the Darwinian process of natural selection continues up to this moment and has important significance for medical science. Disease-producing agents, known as pathogens, are evolving and pose a medical threat. The process of natural selection has amplified mutant strains of pathogens. Once-effective antibiotics have lost their potency against these disease-causing microorganisms; an example is tuberculosis.

Microorganisms are not alone in this rapid evolutionary process. Many species of insects and agricultural pests have evolved tolerance to pesticides through natural selection, and even rats are developing a resistance to poison.

By understanding and incorporating the evolutionary process of natural selection, scientists are taking measures to stem the resurgence of deadly diseases. I ask fundamentalists if the Bible can provide us with the knowledge to defend against mutant strains of disease-causing organisms.

Science is a dialectical process that continually advances through trial and error. Beliefs that are etched in stone ultimately fall victim to enlightenment and lose their credibility.

DAVID N. MILES
Orange Beach