Letters to the Editor
SE
Published Letters: 86 Editor's Choice: 7
-
Oh for crying out loud...!
[Read the article: Our best friends are scarily, heedlessly in debt]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To all those raving about how the LW is a self-righteous do-gooder, get over yourselves. She is not being self-righteous or obnoxious at all. She simply sees friends she cares about making choices that could possibly have a very negative impact on their lives. As a caring friend, she wants to help and is asking for the most appropriate way to do that. She's not trying to rub her good life in their faces.
Friends care about each other and try to help. If LWs young friends tell her they're not interested in having that conversation, then she should agree not to bring it up again. But there's nothing wrong with a good friend voicing his or her concern, as long as it's done politely and respectfully.
-
The beauty of feminism is that it gives you the freedom to choose...
[Read the article: Should I take my husband's name?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Taking your husband's name is only blatantly un-feminist if he expects or demands you to change your name but would not be willing to change his. However, that is clearly not the case for you. From your letter, it sounds like your future husband is supportive of any decision you make. You just have to weigh all the pros and cons of each option and go with whatever works for you. At its core, feminism is simply the idea that women should have equal social, legal, and political rights as men. And...this includes the freedom to make the choices that are best for you.
I am getting married in a couple of months, and I'll be keeping my birth name. For us, there was never a dilemma. Both my future husband and I feel that it's unfair for the woman to be expected to give up her name, although, even as ardent feminists, we see perfectly valid reasons for making other choices. However in our case, no other option really makes sense. We're of different nationalities (American and Indian)and each of our first names sounds really goofy with the other's last name. Our last names are long, so a hyphenated name would just be unwieldy. Inventing a new name for a family name seems like more trouble than it's worth, especially since we haven't decided whether or not to have children. We're perfectly happy to each keep our birth names and eliminate paperwork and conufusion. If we do decide to have kids, I'm sure we'll reach a good compromise.
Just go with the option that makes the most sense for you.
-
"Getting caught up in judging this religion, analyzing if it should be judged the same as other religions, ignores the fact that no one should be judging another's religion."
[Read the article: A friend is involved in Scientology. Should I interfere?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I would like to be PC and agree with that...except for the fact that there are certain wrong religious beliefs that cause harm. Reasonable people absolutely do have the right, and possibly even the responsibility to stand up and call bullshit. Scientology, like some other religious beliefs, can directly cause harm for its followers. Scientology teaches things that are demonstrably false, and juxtaposes these wacky ideas with enough science-y sounding ideas to trick people into believing them. Scientology renounces tried-and-true medical practices (particularly psychology/psychiatry) that are known to be effective; followers who go without treatment are at risk of worsening their conditions. The church of scientology bullies people into staying and threatens those who want to leave. If you want to say that alerting people to the potential harm that this belief system can cause is being judgemental, then I guess I'm being judgemental.
This same idea can be applied to other religions as well. There are pentecostal christians who reject life-saving medical treatment themselves as well as for their minor children because they believe that they will be divinely healed. There are extremist muslims who think that blowing up non-believers is acceptable. ...and the list goes on.
I think that as well-intentioned as the previous poster's idea is, it's not practical. If a system of belief is at risk of causing great harm to others, responsible and rational people are well within their rights to voice their objections. Religious freedom goes as far as all our other freedoms: Your freedom extends only so far as you are not harming anyone else.
Wow - I just got really off topic! Sorry, but I had to respond to the 'don't have the right to judge' statement.
That said, I do think that the LW needs to back off his/her friend for a little while. Just be supportive, go out, have fun, have conversations that don't focus on Scientology. When the subject comes up again, your friend may discover that she can't explain her beliefs without them sounding ridiculous. Hopefully, that will lead her to examine her beliefs more rationally. Of course, if you see your friend doing something drastic like giving up medical treatment or giving all her money to the church, do whatever you hae to do to talk some sense into her!
-
To Annonymous
[Read the article: A friend is involved in Scientology. Should I interfere?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]YOU ARE NOT DISAGREEING WITH ME.
I totally agree that *all* religions have their wacky points. That's why I'm not religious. I'm *not* just picking on a few religions I don't like - I just chose a few examples that illustrate religion causing harm, and expressed my opinion that reasonable people need to point out the harm being caused. Because Scientology is the topic of the day, it's the one I discussed in more detail.
You're arguing with me, but you're really agreeing with me.
Since you - or another annonymous - brought the constitution into it, let's go there. The constitution gives us freedom of religion. That's fantastic. We can all worship or not worship as we so choose - *provided we're not harming anyone else*.
But by no means does say that I have to acknowledge all beliefs as equally valid. I maintain the right to call bullshit on a belief that is demonstrably false or harmful. That doesn't infringe on anyone's freedom of religion; it exercises my freedom of speech and the free and open exchange of ideas that our society values.
I'm glad to see that there are plenty of other people who agree that the "you can't question someone's religion" idea is nonsense.