Were Mailings Repugnant ...
November 15 2002
I was appalled
when I read "Gay-Bashing Is Repugnant" [editorial, Nov. 12], about the anti-gay
mailings. I agree with The Courant that that kind of behavior is despicable. To
know it was supported by a religious organization is, frankly,
Is there a religion left that teaches basic morals such as,
"Be kind and respectful to your fellow man"? Some Muslims blow up innocent
Americans, some Catholic priests molest children and, now, some Baptists slander
gays. One might think that gay people contribute more good values to this
society than our religious leaders.
I am neither gay, liberal nor
religious, but when I woke up this morning it was the 21st century. What century
do those religious people think it is?
... Or Righteous?
Why is it that when
someone or some group disapproves of or disagrees with the homosexual agenda, it
is labeled as "hate"? Can't anyone disagree or disapprove of a lifestyle without
being hateful? I'm sure that the editorial writer disapproves of stealing. But
because there's disapproval of a person who steals, does that mean the thief is
hated? What a lame platform: Anyone who disagrees with us hates us.
best and real authority is God, and he declares in the Bible that the perverted
acts of homosexuality and lesbianism are a shameful sin in his eyes.
don't know the Rev. Jim Townsley, but I applaud his creativity in sending out
the attention-grabbing postcards regarding the gay-agenda stance of state Reps.
Michael Lawlor and Christopher Murphy.
I laughed when I read: "There
should be no place for this type of hateful campaigning, especially in a state
that is rightfully proud of its tradition of open-mindedness and tolerance."
What is now called tolerance and open-mindedness is sin in God's
Only 200 years ago, the Founding Fathers had a tradition of keeping
and imposing scriptural truths and, thus, our country was blessed. But now we
keep "the rightfully proud tradition of open-mindedness and tolerance" and we
are a country (and state) that is not blessed.
Does anybody else see that
Connecticut becoming a gambling Mecca and the next state to pass civil union
legislation is not a blessing or good thing?
Smith Case Goes Too Far
I think the case
against former New Milford police officer Scott Smith has gone too far
[Connecticut, Nov. 13, "Review Of Smith Reversal Sought"].
He did not
slaughter anyone. He was doing his job as society pays him to do. Being a police
officer is a very dangerous job; one that most of us take for granted. Franklyn
Reid, the man Smith shot in self-defense, was a fugitive with a record.
situation that an eyewitness may see for just one second can change very
quickly, and an officer's life can be at stake. An officer does not shoot to
wound when he thinks his life may be in danger. He shoots to kill because he may
not get a second chance. He has to make a split-second decision.
State's Attorney John Connelly wants the state Supreme Court to reinstitute
Smith's manslaughter conviction, which was overturned by the Appellate Court.
For doing his job by protecting society from criminals? Shouldn't our courts be
protecting our police on the streets?
What this young man is being put
through is wrong. If Reid had been a good member of society, he would be alive
today. He chose to be the opposite and paid the price.
One Republican Party Is Enough
Martin Frost of Texas said that the 2002 elections indicate that America has
moved rightward. This is a complete misreading of statistics.
Americans do not vote at all, and this is because they see no difference between
the two major political parties. They see neither party substantially addressing
the corporate crimes of Enron and WorldCom, and they see neither party
addressing the disarray of our nation's health care and education. They perceive
a lack of Democratic opposition to the irresponsible war plans of the Bush
administration, which are making our once-respected nation appear as an
unaccountable rogue in the international community.
There is no need for
two Republican parties. When the Democratic Party represents the needs and
aspirations of the American people, it will energize our electoral process and
give citizens a reason to vote.
These are observations that The Courant
should be making. Instead, it generally presents headlines that appear to be
dictated by its corporate ownership, and fails to play an independent role so
crucial to the democratic process.
Democrats Should Stand Against Bankruptcy
In "Democrats Stood For Nothing" [Other Opinion, Nov. 7],
syndicated columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. gave examples of the Democrats' lack of
ideas, courage and passion. Another example of how the Democrats lost their
electoral base and deserved to lose is their stand on H.R. 333, the so-called
bankruptcy reform bill.
The bill, initiated by Republicans and major
lenders, gathered more than enough Democratic votes, including those of Sen.
Joseph I. Lieberman and Reps. John B. Larson and Jim Maloney, for Congress to
forward the bill to the House-Senate conference committee. Democratic support
came despite the opposition of bankruptcy lawyers, leading law school deans,
major consumer groups and civil rights organizations, which all recognized the
harshness and unfairness of the bill.
The bill would create a large class
of people too well-off to file under Chapter 7, but too poor to file under
Chapter 13, barring them from bankruptcy protection. Judges would lack
discretion in waiving the proposed rigid means test.
In contrast: In
several states, many affluent debtors would still be able to retain
The late Sen. Paul Wellstone, who had not lost
the way and had led the opposition to H.R. 333, wrote, "It boggles the mind that
at a time when Americans are more economically vulnerable, when they are most in
need of protection from financial disaster, we would eviscerate the major fiscal
safety net [the bankruptcy law] in our society for the middle class."
boggles the mind that Democrats have become indistinguishable from Republicans,
but it should not boggle the mind to understand their well-deserved defeat.
Democrats can begin to find their way by working to defeat H.R. 333.
The writer is the franchisee for We The
People-Newington, a non-attorney bankruptcy preparer.
Doesn't Aid Fitness
I was appalled by the tone and content of Jim
Shea's Nov. 9 column "Waist Not, Eat Smart" [Life].
No one has the right
to tell people how to live, eat or spend their holidays, and no one should have
to feel guilty about it. It is this guilt, so prevalent in our society, that
causes people to overeat "forbidden" foods because they have been given that
Your weight is based on what you eat throughout a series of days.
No one should feel guilty for small indulgences.
As a young woman
recovering from anorexia, I know that it is articles such as this that cause
many people to have eating problems. Shame on Shea for making anyone feel
ashamed or guilty because of his tasteless article.
Copyright 2002, Hartford