Letters 11.29.15

Radical Islam

Thanks so much for the commentary on Islam, “Time to Tell the Truth About Islam” (In Depth, Sept. 6 issue):

I would like to see more articles explaining the motivation and formation of Islamic radicals dedicated to attacking the West and killing Christians. It is difficult for me to understand how so many Muslims can embrace the murderous behavior of groups like ISIS. What virtues do they profess?

         Mike Lambert

         Marietta, Georgia

 

Common Easter

In June of this year, Pope Francis stated that it was imperative that Christians of East and West reach agreement on how to calculate the date of Easter, so that a very visible sign of the disunity of Christians should be removed.

In 1963, the bishops of the Second Vatican Council indicated that they had no objection to Easter being on a fixed Sunday, provided that this were acceptable to Christians not in communion with Rome. Many Eastern Christians, however, feel bound by the decision of the Council of Nicaea in 325. This requires that Easter be the Sunday following the first full moon after the spring equinox — a date which can vary within a five-week window.

In 1997, a group of Orthodox, Protestant and Catholic Christians met in Aleppo, Syria, sponsored by the Middle East Council of Churches. The Aleppo group proposed a new way of interpreting the Nicaea decision in the light of current astronomical knowledge. This formula would result in Easter usually being celebrated on the date currently used by the Western Catholic Church, but occasionally it will produce a different result — the next such occasion being in 2019, when it would cause Easter to fall on March 24, rather than April 21 in the West and April 28 in the East.

I believe that the Catholic Church should offer to adopt the Aleppo formula in 2019, if enough other Christian traditions agree to do likewise.

         Father Gareth Leyshon

         Cardiff, Wales

 

Climate Is a Moral Issue

Regarding Pope Francis’ encyclical Laudato Si (The Care of Our Common Home):

Despite criticism from some politicians, the reason that it is appropriate for Pope Francis to call for action on climate change is because it is a moral issue.

In his book A Perfect Moral Storm: The Ethical Tragedy of Climate Change, Stephen M. Gardiner writes that, although climate change is usually discussed in scientific and economic terms, “the deepest challenge is ethical.”

According to Gardiner: “What matters most is what we do to protect those vulnerable to our actions and unable to hold us accountable, especially the global poor, future generations and nonhuman nature.”

When Pope Francis visited the United States, he called on us to treat others as we would want to be treated ourselves. The Pope also concurred with Gardiner when he asserted that climate change is a problem that should not be left to future generations.

Yet unless we act, we are in danger of leaving them a world that we wouldn’t want to live in.

         Terry Hansen

         Oak Creek, Wisconsin

 

Flawed Logic

One of the most disturbing arguments used by supporters of abortion rights is the one that excludes men from contributing to the discussion because they cannot become pregnant. For the diehard feminist supporter, such as Whoopi Goldberg, abortion is a choice between a woman and her God, and men such as Kelsey Grammer are disqualified from speaking out on abortion since “men will never have to make the decision. Ever.” Of course, men are free to support a woman’s right to an abortion and are enlightened when they do so. And the fact that it was entirely a male majority that authored Roe v. Wade in 1973 does not in any way invalidate that abominable decision.

Apparently, men can opine on abortion if they are of the right mind and disposition. Too many women are persuaded by the ostensible logic of the argument to exclude male opponents of abortion from commentary, ignoring the basic barbarity of what can only be described as the deliberate and direct killing of an innocent human baby, for which no moral justification can be found.

On the surface, the argument makes intellectual sense, but a closer analysis reveals a flawed logic and callous disregard for basic compassion shared by every human being, including men. Men, women and even children have the right to express opinions on any variety of subjects by virtue of their membership in the human community.

John Donne, in his famous meditation No Man Is an Island, underscores the interconnectedness of all human beings: “No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. … Any man’s death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind and, therefore, never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”

In a similar vein, but a slightly different context, the confrontation between Ebenezer Scrooge and Jacob Marley’s ghost again makes clear the interdependence of all human life:

Scrooge: “But you were always a good man of business, Jacob.”

Marley’s ghost: “Business! Mankind was my business! The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, benevolence were all my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business.”

Instead, many issues today are compartmentalized according to sex, race and sexual orientation, to name only a few. Unless one is a member of the relevant and protected group, or a supporter of its agenda, there is no right to criticize, no right to disagree, no right to condemn and, certainly, no right to interfere.

Related to the foregoing exclusionary contention is the mantra chanted by pro-abortion protesters to silence pro-life advocates: “My body, my choice.” That statement implicates men as much as, if not more than, women. By what right do men interfere with a woman’s bodily integrity and freedom? By what right can men even open their mouths to challenge or criticize the decisions of women? After all, the “products of conception,” “contents of the uterus,” “blobs of tissue” and “masses of protoplasm” are simply nonjudgmental descriptions of “easily discarded and disposable biological matter,” of no concern to anyone but the woman involved — and certainly not to men.

No Christian man worthy of that name can surrender his obligation to work tirelessly to protect human life at all stages, particularly the most innocent and helpless — the unborn. So, men, never back down in the battle, and always and everywhere put on the armor of God and fight the good fight.

         Gaston J. Sigur

         Upper Marlboro, Maryland

 

Distress Signal

For more than 200 years, the American flag has been the symbol of our nation’s strength and unity. It has been a source of pride and inspiration for millions of citizens and a prominent icon in our national history.

Perhaps unknown to many citizens, the flag has also long been recognized when flown upside down as a signal of distress. For example, a ship at sea would fly the flag upside down to announce that they were in need of rescue for whatever reason. This is a legitimate use of the flag, in accordance with established rules, principles and standards. Its use in this way is not restricted to just ships at sea, but is a universal signal of distress.

Now, there are Americans who are using the flag in this regard, but are coming under criticism for their actions. They believe that we are a nation in distress, and they are reacting to their fears. Many of those who are critical of flying the flag in this fashion are simply unaware that it is a long-established and acceptable way of expressing “we are in need of rescuing.” One does not need to be in the middle of an ocean to require rescuing.

One question comes to mind: Why has our flag not been flown upside down, every day, beginning in 1973, when the infamous decision was made by the U.S. Supreme Court to declare year-round open season on all unborn children?

         Mabel Ryan

         Ocala, Florida

 

Not Our Friend

In your article “Dialogue With a Nation” (Oct. 4 issue), concerns about how comments made by Pope Francis on his trip to America would be interpreted and covered by the media were discussed.

“It is striking how the liberal media tended to focus on the Pope’s call to combat ‘air pollution’ and the issue of immigration,” said Tom Farr, the director of the Religious Freedom Project at Georgetown University. This is no surprise to anyone, especially with political issues, who knows how the liberal-leaning mainstream media works. Like the ideologues they are and they represent, the media will cherry-pick what issues they agree with.

Religious communities are starting to sense what political pundits have known for years: Our increasingly secular society will love what the Pope says when it seemingly fits their agenda of climate change, immigration and open borders, and then turn around and conveniently ignore traditional family values, right-to-life issues, abortion and religious expression not hindered by the government or the PC crowd. The secular media also doesn’t understand how the Pope speaks to his various congregations.

Fox News religious contributor Father Jonathan Morris described, during the coverage of the Pope’s visit, how the Pope chooses to direct his comments toward a specific group. Not all sermons are everything to everybody, in a sort of cookie-cutter fashion. We also must realize something that was evident in the recent Democratic debate held in Las Vegas. The liberal left and the Democratic Party have become increasingly secular and nonreligious. Some of the highest level and most influential Democrats who claim to be devout Catholics, whether it be the Kennedys, Nancy Pelosi, etc., are still supporting abortion, Planned Parenthood and big government taking on more traditional religious roles.

The media will also ignore how taxation, IRS intervention and Obamacare considerations are negatively affecting religious charity organizations. Little was said by the mainstream media about the Pope’s visit with the Little Sisters of the Poor. Catholics, and other faith-based Christians and Jews, must realize the new Democratic Party is not their friend. This is no longer your grandfathers’ JFK/Harry Truman Democratic Party. Don’t take my word for it — just look at their voting records.

         Charles Lopresto

          Phoenix, Arizona