Last Updated: Friday - 09/24/2010
Week of November 11, 2001
WCR Letters to the Editor
Putting oneself in harm's way
All those who needlessly choose to put themselves in harm's way or choose to have sexual intercourse regardless of their unwanted babies which they then choose to have killed, can have the resulting costs for injuries, illness and abortions covered by our Alberta Health Care - at least for as long as there are apathetic people who can be bilked out of their money to pay for the foolishness of others.
Yes, sex sells, provides countless jobs and has become a make-work project to pick up the pieces of broken hearts and broken people.
That is bad enough but the resultant diseases and abortions are straining our health care system, using up the precious time of doctors and nurses, and delaying treatment for cancer patients, heart patients and other bona fide health problems.
In order to keep our health care system functional and affordable, it is the responsibility of good government to legislate against unnecessary risky behaviour, put teeth in such laws and aggressively promote, via the media, safe sensible lifestyles or even have an individual's AHC disqualified until they do.
But government has not done this and our AHC has been in financial trouble for some time. Now they have the audacity to suggest, "Let's charge everyone user fees."
Just as auto insurance companies increase premiums for high-risk drivers, AHC or a private insurance company could increase premiums for high-risk living.
Why should Albertans pay for someone else's abortion? Couples don't have to choose abortion - having a baby is perfectly normal.
Every responsible person should be prepared to welcome a baby before they choose to have sex. It is a misuse of funds to pay for abortions from our AHC. When this is stopped, premiums could be reduced and sanity prevail once more.
Does God bless us while neglecting others?
I have a comment/query that perhaps Father Ron Rolheiser could deal with, as he did with the subject matter of his Oct. 8 article ("Why doesn't God make things easier?").
Every time I'm in the company of family members saying grace - and especially at Thanksgiving Day dinner - I must endure guilt-tainted bewilderment at the entire theological concept/psyche behind the (perhaps most) entrenched social, indeed global, institution of giving thanks to God for our food.
With all due sincere respect, I (mostly a social-conservative Christian) cannot but reluctantly find that by saying grace - because of the bitter reality of earthly starvation - we, the well-fed, are in effect assuming/concluding that our Creator has found one portion of this planet's populace worthy of nourishment while allowing another to starve.
My perplexed musing is not simply a matter of "Why does God allow bad things to happen to good people?"; rather, my query is, Why do so many fortunate people believe that God would bless "us" while neglecting "them"?
Thus, the following sarcasm-saturated poem is dedicated to all of the countless - that is, those tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of people - human beings worldwide with nothing for which to be thankful this Thanksgiving Day.
Pass me the holiday turkey, peas
and the delicious stuffing flanked
by buttered potatoes with gravy
because I've said grace with plenty ease
for the good food received I thanked
the Lord, since he found me worthy.
It seems that unlike the many of those
in the unlucky African nation
I have been found by God deserving
to not have to endure the awful woes
and the stomach-wrenching starvation
suffered by those with no dinner serving.
Therefore, hand over to me the corn,
the cranberry sauce and fresh bread
since for my grub I've praised the Lord,
and I need not hear about those born
whose meal I've been granted instead
of them getting a crumb of the hoard.
Frank Sterle, Jr.
White Rock, B.C.
An opportunity for creative discussion
e: "The Stories of 17 Who Challenged the Church" (WCR Oct. 1, Letters, Oct. 22).
If Alex Nay believes that I have made a significant leap in thought process by quoting the author of Faithful Dissenters, Robert McClory, then so also must McClory have made a similar leap.
McClory writes (p. 2) "To dissent from legitimate authority is to stand apart, to place oneself in opposition to established norms, regulations and decrees."
At the bottom of the same page McClory raises a number of rhetorical questions when he continues: "Is it possible that a long-accepted tradition or an interpretation of Sacred Scripture may be erroneously expressing God's design, or does the Church's stamp of approval guarantee the truth? Does the obligation (of obedience) to legitimate Church authority always take precedence over innovative response (in certain situations or is there room for exception)?"
The words in parentheses were omitted to avoid a direct reference and to save space. I don't believe they change the meaning of the statements made.
I quote all this to reply to Mr. Nay by saying that a rhetorical question, raised by the author and repeated by myself does not imply a rejection of the Church's teachings so much as it provides an opportunity to open up the matter for creative discussion.
I would call it a teaching device, but I thank Mr. Nay for giving me the opportunity to reflect on his point.
Ecumenism in the schools
It is heartening to read Bishop Fred Henry quoted as saying "Commitment to ecumenism is not an option but an essential part of the fabric of Catholicism" ("Calgary builds on ecumenical pact, "WCR, Oct. 15).
The article goes on to say, "In particular, priority must be given to education, both of adults and school children."
I cannot speak for my urban board colleagues but I can state that many rural school board trustees would be delighted to work with Bishop Henry and representatives of other Christian denominations to help bring an ecumenical dimension to the education of the children entrusted to us.
In the past, in my experience, dialogue on this topic has not been encouraged. I am pleased, therefore, that the possibility now exists and I await an early opportunity to be involved.
Sturgeon School Division
Religion not to blame for Sept. 11 tragedy
Since the Sept. 11 tragedy a common theme has been that religion is the source of terrorism. That is a misguided concept of religion.
We all worship the same God in our own language; religion is intrinsically good. It is those who misinterpret and violate their own religious principles who are evil.
We should all, religion notwithstanding, examine our own personal actions of hatred and intolerance. Look in the mirror people!