Letters for December 14, 2006
Re “Combine church and state” (Letters, Nov. 30):
Mary Santomauro misunderstands the separation of church and state. What she doesn’t realize is the original reason we have the separation of these two entities is to protect them from each other.
In England, around the time the Pilgrims came to what is now the United States, the church had taken control of the state, resulting in policies which were oppressive to those that did not share the church’s views.
In our lawmaking, we should not let religion influence our government’s policies. According to many Christians, contraception goes against the word of the Bible. If we were to follow that word, instead of the people’s will, we will be closer to having the condition of government that prompted the pilgrims to leave England. On the other side of the coin, if one doesn’t want to use contraception, the government shouldn’t force that person to. That is the true purpose of the First Amendment.
Why can’t people have inalienable rights because they are people, instead of because God may or may not have granted these rights to us?
Abortion is bad
Re “Plan B is abortion” (Letters, Nov. 16):
There are points in the abortion debate that have not been made by your letter contributors.
There are reasons for opposing abortion besides religious convictions. I came to be anti-abortion after admitting, discharging and interviewing abortion patients at a hospital where I worked.
Although men father aborted babies, they are twice-removed from the abortion. Therefore, they are logically able to accept the “choice” theory while realizing that abortion frees them from emotionally and financially supporting a child. Women resort to social services because men refuse to support the children they father.
Women certainly control their reproductive lives just as men do. Both can decide not to have sex, have sexual intimacy without intercourse, use contraceptives and become sterile. Selfish demands for sexual activity without responsibility for the results of that behavior creates a hypothetical need for abortion. Those of us opposed to abortion don’t want to control other people’s sex lives—we just want to stop the killing of innocents.
Women also have the right to control their own bodies. It is someone else’s body that gets destroyed in an abortion. Women do not abort themselves!
After five and a half years of employment, I was fired for being anti-abortion.
While the abortion debate continues in newspaper columns, babies are being vacuumed out, dismembered and removed piecemeal and having their brains pulled out after the head is born. How any human being can support these ghoulish acts is beyond me.
Judith M. Hansel
Focus on the positive
Re “Easygoing pizza” (Foodfinds, Nov. 22):
I disagree with what was written about Slices Pizza. The article is inaccurate. It stated that the parking lot had some issues, none of which were there when I was. I have been to Slices twice and have had great service, as well as some dank pizza. I grew up in Buffalo, NY, with a lot of Italian friends, all of whom know what a good pizza is. Slices has the best pizza in Reno.
I was offended that your paper would print an article about a family-owned business that is just starting out. The owners introduced themselves to me and were kind and courteous. We had a good talk about their food and what their new venture was all about. I thought that news publications were there to support the community that supports them. I hope that you can do a new review of Slices and maybe then the author could focus on the positives and actually talk about the pizza.
Confused by Hook
Re “High taxes hurt jobs and the little guy” (Right Hook, Dec. 7):
I’m confused by your continued publication of Mike Lafferty’s columns. Your newspaper has a distinctly liberal direction, which I appreciate since it generally coincides with my own liberal slant. As a liberal, I seek to learn about and understand viewpoints that differ from my own, so it makes sense to me that a generally liberal periodical would include a regular column by a conservative commentator.
Rather than providing meaningful insight into how a person with conservative values would approach issues of the day, Lafferty is content with name-calling and drawing loose analogies between “liberal” public policy decisions and the closure of a local regional business. He apparently expects his readers to draw the conclusion that Copeland’s Sports entered bankruptcy as a direct result of national policymaking by liberal Democrats, yet he provides no evidence. No analysis is offered to show that Copeland’s balance sheet could have benefited from a lower federal minimum wage. No management statements demonstrate that Copeland’s was blocked from outsourcing key departments overseas by the loss of tax incentives.
Why do you publish this man’s writing? Did you wish to provide a genuine conservative point of view to broaden your reader’s perspectives? If so, choose someone who can demonstrate conviction and critical thinking rather than resorting to low blows and parroting of other writers’ catchphrases.