It's heartbreaking to see our nation grow so divided
Published May 25, 2004
Re: In God - and the GOP - they trust, May 22.
David Klinghoffer has the country that I live in pretty much divided and even suggests that God may be a Republican. We are made up of liberals and conservatives. Those who go to church are Republicans and those who don't are Democrats.
I fought for my country. Not the Republicans or Democrats. It breaks my heart to see us so divided. The Congress has come to the place where it is Democrat or Republican. Where is us?
The very idea of this person suggesting that God may be a Republican is blasphemy. My God is a God of all people, black, white, yellow and red, Democrats and Republicans. He is also God of the people of the whole world. "For God so loved the world . . ." If I had a prayer, and I do, it is "Please, God, help us to "do unto others as we would have them do unto us.' "
United we stand. Divided we fall.
-- Cliff Bailey, Sun City Center
A liberal lashing
Re: In God - and the GOP - they trust.
As a profoundly liberal reader, I will try to balance my scourging by David Klinghoffer with these admittedly broad generalizations:
The debate between conservatives and liberals regarding licensing of firearms is not about gun control, it is about licensing firearms. "Gun control" is a propaganda term. Is automobile licensing "vehicle control?" Honest, responsible drivers or gun owners need not fear licensing.
Everyone, liberal or conservative, is responsible for supporting the needy to the maximum extent of their ability without themselves becoming needy. Liberals wish to outsource a larger portion of that responsibility to their government through taxes than do conservatives. There's logic on both sides.
Affirmative action bothers conservatives. They know that blacks are free to compete successfully if they wish. The need for affirmative action bothers many liberals. They observe that effective wishing cannot exist without hope, a product of affirmative action.
The Iraq "war" troubles liberals, who believe that only Congress, after thorough debate, and through formal declaration can take responsibility for committing our young to die - a conservative idea. Conservatives argue that constitutional restrictions impede the impetuous reactions expected of "the leader of the world," and that moral choices in the matter of invasion and occupation are conditioned by circumstances. (The very liberal idea for which Klinghoffer hypocritically bashed me.)
Conservatives dislike safety regulation laws - for example laws governing air and water purity - that liberals attempt to promulgate. That is understandable. Compliance tends to lower profits. People must assume responsibility for their own health. They have a perfect right not to breathe.
On education, conservatives accept parental judgment of their children's best interests, also parental nonjudgment for other children, also the parents' ignoring children's interests entirely. Conservatives tend to accept a lot of things that don't cost them anything.
Remember, all the folks who vote conservatively are not conservative. Most are disadvantageously sold conservative ideas.
-- Bud Tritschler, Clearwater
Jesus isn't the GOP type
Re: In God - and the GOP - they trust.
I must admit, I smugly thought that I was a good Christian. I knew that Jesus said that one of the greatest commandments was to "love thy neighbor as thyself" (Mark 12:31), and that we should feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick and those in prison (Matthew 25:35-45).
But now I must admit that I am truly ignorant, or that my Bible is lacking. I have searched and cannot find the passages where Jesus told his followers to fight the Romans and bring about a regime change, or to use force and coercion to make others follow his will. Please show me, so that I might be a true Christian, the passage where Jesus instructs us to treat prisoners as less than human, or that "the ends justify the means." I know that Jesus instructed his followers to pay their taxes (Matthew 22:21), but cannot find the exemption for big business. When I ask myself "What would Jesus do?" joining the GOP is not the answer I get.
-- Paul Starr, Treasure Island
A simplistic description
The article In God - and the GOP - they trust was simplistic. I would like to comment that Democrats typically have a more complex view of responsibility that includes a global view. I'm a Democrat, and it doesn't just boil down to the individual, which is more in the line of Republican thinking.
Democrats hold to complex views of community, a more evolved philosophy than that of simply individual responsibility. Democrats usually understand that larger forces, commercial and political, require an entity to intercede in behalf of less powerful groups. Therefore, government should protect communities from being polluted by multinational corporations that are not vested in a local community and whose profit does not benefit any U.S. community in a significant way.
It goes without saying that although conservatives don't want to be controlled, in general they want to control women's bodies and deny rights to gays. Republicans feel that individuals are "free" to be without health insurance. This kind of freedom I can do without. I would feel more free if I had the freedom to have health insurance, knowing that my government would intercede in some way on my behalf.
Conservatives and the religious may be joined at the hip because black-and-white thinking is less intellectually strenuous than the vagaries of the unknown - which tend to be very stressful. It is easier to think simplistically, rather than making an effort to evaluate. Easier to be "given" what to think by an ancient text, than to question. It may not be a coincidence that the more educated states tend to veer toward Democratic candidates, with the typically less educated states stodgily Republican and conservative.
My point is that saying that conservatives believe in individual responsibility and Democrats believe the individual is incapable of thinking for him/herself is a simplistic description.
-- Glenna Blomquist, St. Petersburg
Beware those who use God to divide
Re: In God - and the GOP - they trust, May 22.
David Klinghoffer opines that religious people are more likely to vote Republican because conservatives (and I guess religious people) believe in individual moral responsibility. He closes by suggesting that God himself is a Republican. At first I thought it was satire. I then realized that Klinghoffer was unfortunately not kidding.
While I'm sure that many religious people believe in individual moral responsibility (as do I), I believe that most religious people vote Republican because the Republican Party spends an enormous amount of time and money catering to religious people. Many of those catering methods are quite frankly misleading and irresponsible. The worst of those methods is the one utilized by Klinghoffer himself: suggesting that God himself is a Republican. Other than garnering your vote, what other intended result could there be for such a ridiculous suggestion? What if someone else suggests to you that God is a member of Hamas or al-Qaida? Now where are we? I guess it's the Republican God versus the Muslim God. Wish us all luck. We'll need it.
Beware of anyone suggesting that God is only on their side, not yours. My God doesn't pick sides.
-- Michael Markham, Clearwater
Selective views of WMDs
Re: U.S. troops find deadly nerve agent in Iraqi shell, May 18.
It wasn't surprising to see how the St. Petersburg Times glossed over the report of the sarin-laced shell in Iraq - that and the quote of former weapons inspector David Kay: "It doesn't strike me as a big deal."
Perhaps the Times editorial staff and Kay should have read and reported on the wire-service message that was reported on by the Wall Street Journal in the April 29 issue stating a terrorist attack in Jordan has been foiled - an attack that was directed at the U.S. Embassy, the Jordanian prime minister's office and the national intelligence headquarters.
Jordanian authorities say this attack consisting of high explosives and poison gas could have reached 80,000 persons. Jordan's King Abdullah called it a "major, major operation" that would have "decapitated" his government.
According to the Wall Street Journal report, the bomb, trucks and funds were said to have entered Jordan via Syria. It also stated that last fall Gen. James Clapper Jr., director of satellite intelligence for the Pentagon, said there had been an unusual amount of traffic - including possible weapons of mass destruction - between Iraq and Syria in the leadup to the war.
Perhaps if Congress had acted sooner and the United Nations' resistance was not there, these trucks could have been intercepted or destroyed. More important is the fact that none of the major news media have covered this story. Tell me it isn't "selective" journalism!
-- John McAuley, Dunedin
Stuck in Iraq for the wrong reasons?
I'm concerned that our strategy in Iraq is colored by the fact that we didn't find weapons of mass destruction or links to al-Qaida. Our failure to validate the reasons for the invasion seems to have redoubled our efforts to "democratize" Iraq. Whether or not the Iraqis want democracy is another issue altogether.
But imagine for a moment that we invaded Iraq, captured Saddam Hussein, and found all the WMDs we'd said were there and more. And what if, after 14 months in Iraq, we found ourselves in the same position we are in today, with American soldiers dying every day and a growing sentiment among the people of Iraq that the Americans must leave?
Would we insist on staying in Iraq and forcing Iraqis to accept a government of our choosing, or would we declare victory for our stated mission and set forth a schedule for an imminent withdrawal, while noting that it was up to the Iraqis, not us, to choose their form of government?
If the reason we will be in Iraq for the foreseeable future (and perhaps beyond) is that we were wrong about the reasons we started the war in the first place, then we need to reconsider what we're doing there. Needlessly sacrificing the lives of young Americans is too dear a price to pay for poor intelligence. In fact, it's not intelligent at all.
-- Meyer Baron, Gulfport
Is oil a problem or not?
Re: Gas prices and the war in Iraq.
Let me see, Democrats claim we are at war in Iraq for the oil. Now they are complaining that the president should do something about the price of oil.
Well, which is it? Or is it just bigoted hatred of President Bush? And, yes, I did say bigoted.
-- Allen Peck, Largo
Finally pointing out the obvious
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi last week called George Bush incompetent. Why is she the first national leader to have the courage to voice this? Any president who will initiate an unprovoked war without confirming his intelligence sources is incompetent! Also, as Rep. Pelosi sadly said, he is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of our soldiers. What a sorry state of affairs.
Who is responsible? Why is this so difficult for our nation to recognize and why have our national leaders been so slow to point out the obvious?
-- Robert C. Kendall, Brandon
Share your opinions
Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by fax to 727 893-8675 or through our Web site at: http://www.sptimes.com/letters/
They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number.
Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length.
