Let those who want to pray do so
To the editor:
Do we really have “freedom of speech?”
I recently had a book published that my daughter wrote a long time ago. I did the sketching and we both agreed that we need to start as early as possible to respect all, and help to get rid of bullying in school-age children.
The animated rhyming book is easy to understand. When I went to our local library, I told the woman that I would like to donate a couple of books and perhaps I could come back in July and read to the children at story time for ages 3 to 7 years old.
When I returned home, I received a call telling me that I could not read at story time as it mentioned God, and to come back in and pick up the books.
Am I to believe there are no books in the libraries about faith? If people are let to know that it is a Christian story, they can make their own choice if they want their children to hear it.
I believe the majority in our country are Christian. When they took prayer out of the schools, I thought why take away prayer from those who want to pray when those who don’t want to pray have the right not to.
Allow terrorism, share in the crimes
To the editor:
Why don’t Islamic leaders and local Muslims condemn jihadist terrorism, extreme rhetoric and the archaic treatment of women in most Middle Eastern countries? This is a challenge we hear often, especially from the Republican right, but which rings true with most people.
If Erasmus were alive today he might say, “He who allows terrorism shares in the crime.”
Why don’t we hear Republican leadership and mainstream Republicans condemn the racist, ignorant, homophobic and misogynistic ravings of more than a few current office holders and most conservative political commentators?
Can we conclude that these mute Republicans encourage, embrace and endorse the beliefs of this substantial element of the party? It would seem that the “Moral Majority” has become the “Silent Majority” when it comes to the injudiciousness of their own.
To condemn one indifference and not the other is double standard reasoning at its worst.
The abominable Snowden is a traitor
To the Editor:
Edward Snowden is not a human rights activist, he is a loathsome (abominable) traitor and spy.
He stated his aim was to inform the world about the surveillance programs operated by the NSA. He expressed concern the U.S. government could monitor the communications of the U.S. public, but he did not say it occurred.
If Snowden is the activist who just wanted to expose the possible monitoring of the U.S. public, why did he go to Hong Kong (China), a totalitarian country opposed to democratic values and freedoms? Why did he go to China with his four laptops filled with NSA information, and probably allow the Chinese to copy the NSA material?
If Snowden was concerned with the U.S. government infringing on our freedoms, why did he go to Russia, another totalitarian country opposed to our democratic values, a country who most likely copied the NSA information on his laptops?
Snowden could be a disgruntled individual who decided to get even with the U.S. over personal problems, possibly work related. His aim is to harm our national security. He should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for breaking the trust we placed in him.
Donald A. Moskowitz