Illinois Governor Candidates

I am writing in reference to your recent article about the governor's race in the state of Illinois between U.S. Rep. Glenn Poshard and Secretary of State George Ryan ("When Life's at Stake, Even Hard-Line Republicans Can Vote Democrat,” May 10-16). You omitted some important facts.

You cited the fact that Ryan has chosen a pro-abortion candidate as his running mate. Though Poshard did not choose his running mate, he did endorse her, and she is also pro-abortion. Poshard's campaign has taken great pride in the recent bus trip around the state to promote the Democratic ticket. Included in this trip, of course, was his running mate.

What is even more insulting to the pro-life electorate, is his strong support of U.S. Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun. Certainly, if you are aware of politics regarding pro-life legislation, you are aware that Moseley-Braun claims to be Catholic, yet, she is a staunch supporter of the partial-birth abortion, and she has stood right by the president in all anti-family legislation. Poshard has done his best to promote her as she runs for re-election.

In the meantime, Ryan is proudly running with Peter Fitzgerald who is the pro-life Republican opponent of Moseley-Braun. Ryan has worked hard in our state to pass state legislation that is pro-life. Poshard is aligned with people who are not pro-life, and our fear is that if he is elected, the state legislature will override any attempt to pass pro-life legislation.

The state Democratic leaders, in their attempt to gain control of the governorship, chose Poshard because they assumed that the pro-life voters would vote for him. I believe if he were truly a pro-life candidate, he would distance himself from Moseley-Braun, but like many politicians, he too has his price. If he wants to be elected, to keep the party leadership in his camp, he must promote Moseley-Braun as well. I hope that you will reconsider and report these important facts.

Penelope Garbe

Rockford, Illinois

Responsibility Rests With Us

Kevin Hasson's articles on the separation of Church and state (April 19-25 and April 26-May 2) are necessary reminders of the difference between what is and what should be. But there is another reminder we need: the government of the United States derives its power from the consent of the governed. Things could not be as they are unless we, as citizens, at some point gave our consent.

It is therefore not the fault of the runaway courts, or even the arrogance of the American Civil Liberties Union, that is responsible for the current absurd state of affairs in which the Bill of Rights has become the Bill of Oppression.

Every time a teacher takes down a picture in the classroom, every time a city takes a cr&egave;che off the courthouse lawn, every time a school board accepts a change in the name or timing of a holiday (the word, after all, derives from holy day), we are aiding and abetting the secularization of society and the oppression of a people who claim to be religious.

Isn't it time we stopped?

Marie Dietz

via e-mail