Perspective: 'Taboos' benefit families and society

Blumner believes that the 1960s and '70s "marked a defining moment in human enlightenment." She asserts that "Happily, in most regions of our country, individualism, diversity and mobility make for a taboo graveyard. And we are a more moral people for it."

Oh, really? Well, it depends on what you mean by moral. In Peter Kreeft's excellent book, Making Choices, he quotes an interesting questionnaire. In 1959, a group of high school principals was asked what the main problems were with their students. The principals said:

1. Not doing homework.

2. Not respecting property, e.g. throwing books.

3. Leaving lights on and doors and windows open.

4. Throwing spitballs in class.

5. Running through the halls.

When the same questions were asked in 1988, the answers were different:

1. Abortion.

2. AIDS.

3. Rape.

4. Drugs.

5. Fear of violent death.

In 1959, two-parent families were the norm, and most mothers cared for their young children at home. They may even have tried to indoctrinate their children in those obsolete "taboos." Now that "our understanding of decency has become more sophisticated," is single parenthood to be actively promoted? Or should it be mourned, when it becomes necessary?

As luck would have it, or nature -- or God, for the unsophisticated -- it takes a man and a woman to produce a child. If at all possible, isn't it better for children to have their mother and their father?
-- K.C. Techler, Pinellas Park

Trivializing faith

Re: Avoiding social taboos does not make us better people.

Robyn Blumner wrote, "Collectively, we are brainwashed to follow rules set out for us by our religion, ethnic traditions or social circles without questioning whether they truly will make us better, more decent people."

As a member of the "collection," I am offended. Some of the "rules" of my religion are called the Ten Commandments. Am I to question whether "Thou shall not kill" will truly make me a better person? Honoring my mother and father is a "rule," yet it is as natural to me as breathing. It is bad enough to imply that, if had I questioned, I might not have believed the teachings of my church, whose rules do guide me to become a better person. But, to say I have been "brainwashed" is a profane trivializing of my profound faith. That's terrible.

The people who wrote to Blumner that she was "living in sin," certainly were guilty of judging her behavior. But her knee-jerk reaction seemed a convenient reason to disseminate her views on women's lib, gays and family values as well as to dismiss anyone who disagrees. She should have simply told those people to mind their own business. Instead, she decided to mind everyone's business by authoritatively preaching her dogma. It's claptrap.

At a time when the moral health our country is suffering, it is upsetting to read that spiritual prescriptions, in some cases known as "taboos," are to be taken with a grain of salt rather than with an examination of conscience.
-- Jack Bray, Dunedin

Revisit commandments

Re: Avoiding social taboos does not make us better people.

In her diatribe on the "defining moment in human enlightenment," Robyn Blumner says that Pat Robertson and Patrick Buchanan are wrong.

No, Blumner is the one who is wrong. Now she should go to her room and read the Ten Commandments over and over until she gets it.
-- John Mitchell, St Petersburg

Freedom and responsibility

Robyn E. Blumner's Aug. 27 column Avoiding social taboos does not make us better people stuck some pins in many long-held traditions imposed by religionists and those sharing a common and distinctive culture. Historically, the long-held rules of marriage and some social taboos imposed by the clergy have served a noble purpose, while simultaneously holding in judgment the unfortunates who willfully or accidentally broke with tradition.

At least two intents are evident within the confines of these rules and social taboos: first, to maintain societal control and, second, to give people a basis of long-considered responsible action.

The operative word within Blumner's enlightening article is responsibility. Her article demands a past-due look back at where we have been, hopefully with the consequence of eventual acceptance of major changes in our staid and ancient codes. Those with the courage to invoke these powerful social changes will enjoy a concomitant freedom while shouldering the responsibility this freedom implies.
-- Roger K. Freeman, New Port Richey

Questionable Colombia aid

Re: Colombia's foe in drug war: itself, Aug. 27.

Thank you for the excellent report by David Adams on the conditions and conflicts in Colombia. Thanks also for placing it at the top of the front page. The public needs more information on the United States' increased involvement in a situation that includes warring drug lords, insurgency rebels, paramilitary forces and the Colombian army.

Congress voted a large increase in funding to Colombia this spring that brings the aid to approximately $3.5-million daily for Colombia's armed forces and police. New battalions of the Colombian army are being created, trained and equipped with U.S. government dollars. Since 1996 the United States has funded an ambitious program of aerial spraying of glyphosate (commercial name: Roundup) on coca fields. The spraying is in the southern plain of Colombia, which drains into the Amazon River. The increased funding will increase this eradication effort. In the past four years since aerial spraying began, coca production has doubled.

Adams reports that Edmundo Maya, director of CorpoAmazonia, the state's regional environmental authority, opposes the spraying. Adams writes:

"Maya and others fear the aerial spraying will force thousands of peasant families off their land, creating chaos in the countryside... With no land or jobs many young men and women could become easy recruits for the guerrillas."

We may inadvertently be contributing to an escalation of the civil war that has plagued Colombia since 1948.

What ways has the recent legislation increasing aid to Colombia provided for evaluation of progress toward stated goals? Will the evaluation process include careful research in Colombia, transparent financial reports and interviews with those who do not receive U.S. dollars as well as those who do?

In March, I visited Rep. C. W. Bill Young's office and Sen. Bob Graham's office to talk with legislative assistants about Colombia and my concerns regarding the proposed greater involvement of the United States in Colombia's complicated programs and endemic violence. I have mailed copies of David Adams' story to their offices.

Please keep us informed on this explosive part of our world where U.S. dollars and the U.S. Southern Command are so involved.
-- Ruth Hyde Paine, St. Petersburg

Beware the GOP agenda

Re: GOP has hard heart in legal aid for the poor.

Kudos to Bill Maxwell for his Aug. 27 column.

History teaches that the GOP has consistently demonstrated its concern only for the welfare of the wealthiest citizens, and the current batch of candidates promises more of the same.

The thought of a Republican president scares the life out of me. All voters of conscience need to be at the polls this election to guarantee that the GOP's agenda is not realized.
-- Ron Edenfield, St. Petersburg

Costly Clinton junkets

Re: Don Wright's Aug. 26 cartoon.

Wright should have added one more panel: the cost of President Clinton's fundraising junkets around the country. They far and away exceed the cost of that investigation into his sex life.

Even one of Clinton's big-time lawyers, Lanny Davis, could only offer a smile when that very subject came up in a TV interview.
-- Paul W. Knoferle, Clearwater

Back to Perspective

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page