Nothing wrong with Palin's views
This is regarding Barbara Kaplan's letter, "Truth about Palin scary enough."
She erroneously cites the U.S. Constitution, religion and the Founding Fathers.
She wrote: "(Palin) believes creationism should be taught in public schools, crossing the line between church and state established by our Founding Fathers." No. They include: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust." (U.S. Constitution) "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, ..." (James Madison, amendment proposal) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." (First amendment.)
Palin supports teaching creationism alongside evolution in public schools _ not JUST creationism.
Other complaints: shooting wolves in a non-sporting way, trying to get books banned, denying abortion rights to women, and accepting federal aid. With hunting, a primary goal is to keep the animal population numbers down _ regardless of how it is done.
Book banning? It would behoove us if some books WERE banned. I'll judge Palin by what she has actually done in office and not by what she may have been thinking.
Abortion? Female rights? What if the baby is female?
Palin accepting AND rejecting public money from the feds? Without knowing all the details, it's of no concern to me.
In our culture, NO politician with viable ideas made public CAN get elected.
Best we can do is make an educated guess on the matter. Real reform in government/environment involves sacrifice, and few people support sacrifice that directly affects them.
John de Marrais
Worcester
Obama right to oppose Illinois bill
The Rev. Wright's focus on Senator Obama's denial of the Induced Infant Liability Bill had me upset and distraught at the notion that a possible future president of the United States could be vehemently against a bill that ostensibly protected the lives of unborn children. But I knew there must be more, so I did a little research for myself.
What Rev. Wright forgot to tell you was the fact that Illinois law already contained a bill that "requires doctors to provide medical care for infants in the rare case that they are born alive during abortions." Along with that, the bill contained statements that undoubtedly gave citizens a foundation for unnecessary lawsuits against the "hospital, health care facility, or health care provider" in these situations.
In fact, this bill was seen by many as a blatant attempt to undermine the pro-choice movement instead of its seemingly unabashed goal to protect babies born during abortion.
Obama remained firm in his rejection of this bill because he knew that its intentions were not those explicitly described, but rather were implicit, in an obvious attempt by the pro-life politicians to gain an edge on the Roe v. Wade debate. He also recognized the additional torment this bill would place on the already lawsuit-laden health care system. Obama is not the barbaric, baby-killing senator that Rev. Wright has portrayed.
Instead, the reverend has just fallen into the same cowardly, unintelligent, accusation-stricken politics that the right wing has come to represent.
Owen Moss
Otego and Williamstown, Mass.
Moss is a student at Williams College.
Print this story
E-mail this story
