Unfortunately, the behavior of few extreme people whose anger led to the destruction of lives and buildings perpetuate this belief, which is against the very core of Islamic principles. Consequently, I would like to remind Muslims that we will all be better off if we are guided by the following verse in the Quaran: "Leave alone those who take their religion a mere play and amusement, and deceived by the life of this world. But proclaim to them this truth: that every soul delivers itself to ruin by its own act; it will find itself no protector or intercessor except God; if it offers every ransom none will be accepted; such is the end of those who deliver themselves to ruin by their own act. They will have for drink only boiling water."
Accordingly, Islam will be better served if the Muslims ignore this insult and better still, stop doing business with them. As the saying goes, there can be no better response to an insult than to ignore it.
S.V. Yumlu
Hagerstown
Rationalizing the killing of innocents
To the editor:
Allan Powell, in his letter (March 6) on the grim outlook for Roe v. Wade, has the temerity to accuse Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito of the practice of "casuistry" during their confirmation hearings before the Senate committee in order to avoid questions about how they would rule on cases involving the killing of unborn children.
Powell proclaims that these gentlemen "because of their educational background will practice the art of casuistry by force of habit and inclination." He does not tell us what this ominous background entails, but he does give us the definition of this evil "casuistry" from an "Encyclopedia of Religion."
It does not take too much imagination to see where this hint might lead us - the two men are Catholics. Thus he assumes two men will, by "quibbling, rationalization and sophistry, justify what does not merit justification."
In this case meaning they would uphold the right of the unborn child to its life. Life or death hardly seems a matter of quibbling. Rather it is Powell who rationalizes the taking of innocent human life with the "sophistry" of talking about the "right of a woman to make decisions about reproductive options." Also, since he is a good son of the Enlightenment, by educational background and inclination, he knows that there are no absolutes. Roe v. Wade has no claim to represent an absolute "right" for any woman. The court gives, the court can take it away. Only God gives us rights that are ours by the fact that we are persons. Too bad our courts and lawmakers have forgotten this foundational principle of our nation.
Richard Giovanoni
Hagerstown
Time for a change in our leadership
To the editor:
If trust is ever to return to our democracy, it must begin by the leaders recommitting themselves to democracy. We hear a lot of talk about upholding the Constitution while political leaders deceive, lie, scam funds, pass pork-barrel budgets and try to dismantle basic fundamental Bill of Rights liberties and freedoms. The administration and the Congress have failed the people on this failed war in Iraq. They have failed on rebuilding the Gulf Coast and they have failed to provide fundamental human rights with secret spying and intrusion into the lives of ordinary citizens.
What will it take to make the leaders of this Republican Congress do what is in the best interest of the American people rather than in their own political interest? What will it take to change the direction of this nation from its fearmongering ways of doing business to an attitude of constructive and sensible dialogue with people everywhere who truly desire the same things we want - life, liberty and the pursuit of their dreams and happiness? It is time for change - from the top to the bottom of Congress. It is time for a new birth of independence from the Orwellian direction in which we are headed.
Raymond Moreland
Frederick, Md.
