Dear Editor, A few notes regarding the little debate between
Lisa Pampuch and Fred Oliveri. Pampuch’s column promotes tolerance
and correctly describes the Constitutional position on religion,
which includes freedom for and from religion of any specific
variety.
Letter writer misinterprets columnist’s point
Dear Editor,
A few notes regarding the little debate between Lisa Pampuch and Fred Oliveri. Pampuch’s column promotes tolerance and correctly describes the Constitutional position on religion, which includes freedom for and from religion of any specific variety. She simply asks to be free from having other ideas forced upon her, either directly through intimidation, or indirectly through taxation.
Fred’s letter cries out for censorship of belief systems with which he disagrees. He misunderstands a couple of things about the Constitution and laws of our country.
n The Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, has repeatedly held that “religion cannot cross over into the government.” While the debate may seem never ending, the law is clear.
n The Constitution was largely written to defend minorities against “tyranny by the majority;” therefore if it were true that a majority wanted to spend public money on religious displays, it would still be unconstitutional because of the First Amendment.
Fred’s statement that he should be able to spend public money on religious activities because the majority is in agreement with him is exactly what the founding fathers wanted to limit.
George Orwell’s book “Animal Farm” is a good example of what can happen without these protections. Fred’s arguments are like those of the pigs who ruled the world in that book. If they could get a majority to say it, then that made it real and the law would follow that version of reality. That is how it works in many religiously ruled countries such as Iran; and that is the problem with mixing religion with government.
Fortunately for our great country, that logic doesn’t work here. Pampuch’s arguments for critical thinking would be a good model for Oliveri to follow. That along with a dose of tolerance would make his perspective more consistent with the American Constitution.
John N Quick, Morgan Hill
Time for change at the Santa Clara Valley Water District has come
Dear Editor,
The act of charging twice for the same water, exposed by the Great Oaks law suit reported this week by the Times, seems clearly the result of a lack of oversight from the Santa Clara Valley Water District Board, a group whose membership has too many old connections to the water district bureaucracy to be effective judges of actions, or to represent the needs of the citizens who elected them.
The time for change has come.
Wes Rolley, Morgan Hill
Recognize the signs of harassment and treat others with respect
Dear Editor,
The increasing number of suicides among young gay and lesbian teenagers in the United States compels me to stand up for their cause.
I wonder, why is there so much aversion towards homosexuality? I grew up Catholic and I certainly do not recall such intense animosity toward this group of people. Is it a moral issue? Perplexed, I called my brother Claude, a Catholic priest. He recites article #2358 of the Catechism: ” … They do not choose their homosexual condition; … ” He carries on to article #2359: “Homosexual persons are called to chastity … ” In other words, they don’t have the right to experience the joy of being in a committed, loving relationship. I find this message paradoxical. My thoughts go to Lawrence King, a 15-year-old who was shot in the head by another teenager just for being different.
What if it was you or someone you love? Your brother, your sister or your child? Imagine what it would be like to grow up in a society that rejects the essence of who you are. The same way you do not choose to be a girl, or a boy, black or white, American or Mexican, the same way you do not choose to be “homo” or “hetero.”
I tell my children to recognize the signs of harassment at schools and to be compassionate about it, because words DO hurt. We don’t think about it, yet anti-gay harassment is a fact of life for many students.
In 1998, Alana Flores and five other students had to file a lawsuit against the Morgan Hill Unified School District which failed to provide them a safe environment to study. Thanks to their courage, the MHUSD had to provide a mandatory anti-harassment training to faculty, staff and students. I must add that I am very pleased that the district has decided to maintain the training even though the court supervision expired.
Finally, it is vital that we acknowledge and correct the profound hypocrisy our society embraces toward lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. What kind of message do we send our children when we tell them that the California State rescinded the right of consenting same sex adults to marry? What kind of message do we send our children when we “punish patriotic Americans who serve our country” for admitting publicly that they are homosexual?
Such ostracism teaches them that not only “are you different” but most importantly, that “there is something wrong with you.” Ultimately, it is this implicit message that drives children to commit suicide. How many kids must die before we finally realize that the most important commandment of all is to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
Gays, lesbians and transgenders should have the right to be recognized without shame, lies and prejudice. In Dr. Martin Luther King’s own words “I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”
Lydie Jones, Morgan Hill
