Editor:
In response to Diane Daiute’s letter regarding religion (July 9): The problem is not whether God is provable, but that our Constitution provides for religious freedom without undue restraint. Restricting believers from murdering unbelievers is a justifiable restraint, but getting fired for saying “Bless you” is not.
This expression is covered by both freedom of (not from) religion, and also freedom of speech.
By the way, the Bible is a real book; it does exist. The choice of whether or not to believe what it says is a part of the individual’s religious freedom.
So, private owners of businesses are real people, entitled to religious freedom in how they conduct the affairs of their business as well as in their homes.
As humans, we are all given to generalizations, which are individually inaccurate. The fact that there are denominational differences does not negate basic religious freedom. War and violence are not caused by religious differences so much as certain leaders’ interpretation of their scriptures—often concentrating on a few ideas/principles out of context of the whole text. Just because some people are guilty of that should not condemn the whole population by way of generalization. This applies to the Irish wars, Muslims, what have you.
Many different religions have been guilty of violence, and I admit it’s enough to turn people off to any of it. I don’t believe any religion has the right (even if it has the power) to force conformity on unbelievers, and that’s what our Constitution says.
That includes atheists. And Christians. You can’t fault them for believing that their way of life is superior to criminal gangs and trying to have an influence on the society they live in, but there’s a vast difference between influence and control by law. I believe in majority rule for basic rules, but that doesn’t mean to annihilate the minority. There must be adequate accommodation for them, too.
As for the dangers of pregnancy, a woman’s choices regarding her health and lifestyle are an individual matter. Some people are rational, make good decisions and do well; others make poor choices, which is their individual responsibility, and they may suffer unwelcome consequences. No one has the “right” to demand that others bail them out of their avoidable predicaments. This is a broad field, beyond sex, food choices, activities, etc.
The last reports I saw, a full-term pregnancy was safer than abortion, and normal delivery safer than optional C-section. This system has worked for how-many millenia. It’s how we all got here. Humans are not yet extinct due to dangers.
Therefore a woman’s choice consists of “Will I or won’t I?” or “What consequence can I accept? Do without and be safe, or take a chance and maybe lose my dreams?” and decide accordingly. If she made an unwise choice and finds herself pregnant, that is her responsibility. Why should all others have to pay for her avoidable consequence? This includes alcohol, drugs, tobacco.
Prevention of pregnancy is a “cost of living” expense, like the electric bill. If a woman wants financial help after making a mistake, she can nail her boyfriend to share with her. Maybe not easy to do, which is cause for serious consideration before any questionable action is taken.
As for the preponderant claim to Christianity by those getting abortions, it’s a more likely designation than Buddhist or Confucian in our nation. That is not to say that no Christian gets an abortion, but that the generalization is not appropriate.
If I join a gym but seldom go there, I can claim membership but I’m still not an athlete. Many people celebrate Christmas and may go to a church a couple times a year, but that may not make them a bona fide Christian. I’m saying that not all the people who claim to be Christians really are. It’s just a box to check on the hospital admittance form that separates you from Muslims, Sikhs, or atheists.
“Sexual freedom” is not a necessity in the same class as air and water, which sustain life. It is a choice of lifestyle, the same as smoking, alcohol or drugs … or religion. Just because a person is addicted doesn’t mean the populace (insurance, government clinics, etc.) is obligated to supply their “poisons.” Sexual freedom is a “right” in the religious sense: that is, its beliefs and consequences should not devolve onto unbelievers. That includes abortion; the cost should be borne by those involved, not the whole “unbelieving” populace. What ever happened to the concept of “individual responsibility”?
It’s still true that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Have young people even heard that old truism?
The “sanctity of life” is much broader than any one religion—it is a social concept. If too many babies are killed there soon aren’t enough youngsters to support the oldsters, as China is finding out. Or not enough girls to marry their sons. (Why is science trying to extend the length of life faster than solving health problems to extend the current length of productive working years? Reducing arthritis would be a good start.)
Children have an implicit value, a possibility for good. Cancer has no redeeming value. That’s the difference in what to excise.
In the Bible, Gen. 2:15 says: “The Lord God placed the man in the Garden of Eden to tend and care for it.” That doesn’t sound like a greedy rip-it-off to me. God told them what to do to survive. Cain didn’t like that and rebelled, then complained of the consequences.
Some people say that Christians have no long-term interest in the health of our planet. Again, a generalization from only a minority. We don’t know how long “short” will be, but it has been 2,000 years just since the time of Jesus’ prophecies, so many of us have a conscientious sense of stewardship, of taking care of what we have for a few more future generations. And not all Christians are Tea Partyers. (I’m against fracking, and I sort and recycle my rubbish. How about you?)
Joan Scofield
Sweet Home