Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 138 Editor's Choice: 12
-
The Catholic Church's riches, and difficulting defending themselves.
[Read the article: Worshiping strict statutes of limitation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Canuckistan Bob, your post puzzles me greatly. You say that "It is rather unclear just how rich the Catholic Church is", and that they might have this land etc. that they are "reluctant to liquidate" seeing as they have churches and convents on them.
I call bullshit. Rich people are ALWAYS "reluctant to liquidate" things of value to pay of for "sins" they have committed. Why wouldn't they sell off some of that pricey artwork so that you wouldn't have to collect only a "parsimonious" wage? There's no convents or churches on those, is there? Face it, the church is greedy. Half of those churches don't have the parishioners or the priests to make them viable entities. They need to just sell them off and pay for the injustice that they perpetrated. And frankly, it doesn't even matter if there is a viable church on that land. Say a well-off family of four, was living in a 4000 square feet house, and they incur a great deal of credit card bills. The courts would not feel badly for that family having to sell that house to move into a more modest home in order to pay that debt. And that's what should happen here. Any claims of "financial hardship" on the part of the Catholic church is a crock.
Regarding how difficult it is to defend oneself against past accusations. That may be true, but it cuts both ways. Remember that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. About the only priests that are going to be prosecuted are going to be the "worst of the worst", when they have multiple reports by independent witnesses and/or over a long period of time, which by sheer volume of evidence (plus evidence of the church's movement of said priest from one locale to another at key points in the alleged timeline of the incidents) will have to be enough to convict them beyond a reasonable doubt. Any priest that only molested one child, 30 years ago, just once or for a short period of time, and was never found out by the church and was not independently witnessed, is not going to get prosecuted because there won't be enough evidence to sustain a burden of proof.
-
Slightly side-topic
[Read the article: Breasts at work]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is a slightly side-topic comment. By stating that "Nursing is so intimate" you are doing a grave disservice to those that are trying to get breastfeeding in public accepted as a normal part of life and motherhood, instead of it being treated as a sex act or public indecency. There will always be a need for "modesty" and "discretion" around breastfeeding in public, I think, but calling it "intimate" is saying that it shouldn't be allowed in public at all.
-
What a racist!
[Read the article: Pit bulls are innocent]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't know if anyone else noticed this in the article - there are far too many letters on this article for me to check - but what exactly did the author mean by this comment:
"There's only one kind of person who owns a pit bull," these people say, and often I imagine that the person they are thinking of is poor and black.
This comes right after this line:
Pit bulls, to them, are ghetto trash, drug dealers' props, trailer park ornaments, symbols of desperation and anger.
So according to him, "ghetto trash", "drug dealers" and "trailer park" denizens are, by definition, "poor and black". Nice.
But then again, maybe I'm wrong about him. He did say that he imagined the OTHER people thinking that. So maybe it's not HIM that is the racist, but THEM. Yeah, that's the ticket.
-
Response to brightstar65
[Read the article: Gonzales' anti-choice legacy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]brightstar, do you know much about the reasons that women choose abortion? The ones that have abortions after 3-4 months are by and large not just sitting around thinking "Should I have an abortion or should I have a baby? Family or career? I just don't know! I'll decide tomorrow!" Mostly the reasons are these:
1. Some fetal abnormalities are just not detectable until after that time. So, push the scientific frontiers for earlier testing methods.
2. Some seriously just don't know that they're pregnant, because they never had any comprehensive sexual and reproductive education. So, push for that. Plus, some women don't have morning sickness, and some have irregular periods, and it might take 3 months before they know what's going on.
3. Because of the dearth of abortion providers and the increase in states requiring waiting periods, and in harrassment inflicted on both clinics and pregnant women, sometimes it takes a while before the necessary funds and transportation can be accessed to have the abortion. So, push for better access.
I'm sure there are other reasons as well. But I bet if you polled every single woman having an abortion after 4 months, I would be surprised if you encountered any that answer that they just couldn't make up their mind any earlier than that.