Advertisement

Letters to the editor

November 22, 2003

Please get real: Printing this was not 'tolerance'


To the editor:

In reference to his column of Nov. 15, Bob Maginnis and his friends on the Herald-Mail's Editorial Advisory Board just don't get it.

While Maginnis and his friends try hard to "educate" the masses about tolerance, they find it perfectly acceptable to print Mr. Husseini's vile call against the "Zionist-Crusader."

I wonder, Mr. Maginnis: If I had sent a letter railing against the Muslim Crusaders, would that have been printed and then given additional press by the printing of a separate piece asking for everyone's tolerance for my views?

Advertisement

Get real, Mr. Maginnis and Advisory Board. These messages of hate should not be given free press, and if you chose to do so, don't be surprised at our reactions.

Furthermore, don't patronize us with your blather about tolerance. Your judgment in that area is suspect, to say the least.

Jeanne Hugg
Hagerstown

Trimming 'fat' cost us vouchers for child care


To the editor:

About a month ago, in a letter to the editor, a member of the Emmanuel United Methodist Church Social Concerns Committee pointed out that cutting budgetary fat from the state budget has included cutting child-care vouchers for poor working mothers.

A lack of child-care vouchers means that children of poor working mothers like us are more likely to be cared for in uninspected, low-cost situations rather than in fully inspected but expensive childcare facilities.

Now we read that delegates Robert McKee, LeRoy Myers, Richard Weldon and Chris Shank cast their votes against the budget and against the tax increase required to fund the proposed budget.

They explained that they voted against the budget and tax increase in order to defend families and save jobs. (Daily Mail, Wednesday, Nov. 5, page A4)

We do not understand how forcing more poor working mothers to rely on questionable or unsafe childcare defends families and saves jobs. If it does, we wish to share the benefits of uninspected day care with all families.

We call upon delegates McKee, Myers, Weldon, and Shank to save more tax money by extending to all working mothers the benefits that we have received.

Let all working mothers have their families defended and their jobs saved by totally eliminating inspection of all childcare arrangements.

Let all families needing child care be defended by having no option but to place their children in child care situations where there are no health inspections, no fire inspections, and no background checks of the employees.

This, by the delegates' logic, should enable all working mothers to have their jobs saved and their families defended. After all, why should this benefit of uninspected child-care only be given to poor working mothers?

We the undersigned are poor working mothers with young children.

Vicky Gordon
Katy Sweeney
Jannelle A. Stoner
Hagerstown




Speech has gone too far


To the editor:

By the time I reached adulthood, I thought that I had a great deal of common sense. For instance, when I did something I knew that was an action, and when I said something, that was speech. It wasn't until I began seeing and reading about court cases that I became extremely confused about what is an action and what is speech. I had no idea that burning the American Flag was considered a freedom of speech, or that publishing nude photos of yourself on the Internet is also a right of free speech.

Using my common sense and pure logic enabled me to quickly identify the source of my confusion. And I was able to determine that the common sense approach to the Constitution is not enough. You really need a law degree to fully understand it. The reason for the law degree is that it enables you to interpret the Constitution in creative ways.

That opened up a whole new line of thinking for me in regard to the actions of individuals. What actions are considered lawful or unlawful, but more specifically which are simply an exercise of free speech. For instance, are theft, rape, and murder unlawful, or are they simply a means of free speech. Obviously these actions are presently considered to be unlawful. But perhaps that is only because there has never been a Supreme Court case challenging these existing laws under the First Amendment.

Sam Turner
Hagerstown




Decent dress is God's law


To the editor:

After reading Leonard Pitts' article in the Daily Mail Monday, Nov. 10, I felt the need to respond.

He seems to be delighted that an Afghan girl was able to appear in a beauty contest held in Manila.

Please allow me to state that his stand on this issue is no different than that of someone taking delight in the consecration of a gay person as a bishop in the Episcopal Church. Both actions are contrary to the religious beliefs and tantamount to disregarding the basic tenets of a religion.

Islam requires that women should dress decently by covering their beauty. Admittedly, one can argue about the extend of covering but certainly a bikini is not a dress that will satisfy this requirement.

The Herald-Mail Articles
|
|
|