Winston-Salem Journal LTE SA 03/31/12

The rally's agenda

In regard to the story "Religious freedom urged" (March 25), I don't for a minute believe that those who attended and spoke at the "Taking Back Our Freedom" rally Saturday are concerned with religious freedom because they can't offer sectarian prayer in Forsyth County commissioners meetings — they just want the government to show preference to their religion so that they can continue to think that they're better than everyone else.

I will change my mind and join their ranks tomorrow if they form a coalition with Muslims, Jews, Wiccans and atheists and rally to take turns offering prayer in county meetings (with the atheists most likely opting for a moment of silence, which would be their valid choice).

If they're just as concerned about other people's religious freedom as they are their own, then I will admit that I'm wrong. But as long as they push for sectarian prayer in the name of Jesus alone, I think it's pretty clear what their real agenda is.

---

BUDDY OSBORNE

Winston-Salem

Religious freedom?

The Pattie Curran who felt "ambushed" by a multi-media piece of art inspired by recent controversies on birth-control access ("Opera patron unhappy with art," March 16) is the same Pattie Curran who co-organized Winston-Salem's "Rally for Religious Freedom" on March 23 ("Rally scheduled to protest birth control rules," March 21).

In the March 20 Salisbury Post story "Winston-Salem rally to protest contraception mandate," Curran stated, "This is not about the issue of contraception and abortion drug coverage — this is about protecting religious liberty as it is enshrined in the United States Constitution." Really, not about birth control or abortion? Pro-Life Action League and Citizens for a Pro-Life Society are the coordinating anti-abortion groups behind these "religious freedom" rallies.

In Pattie Curran's blog, "A Catholic Life," out on the Internet for anyone to see, she posts photos of herself and others holding signs that say: "I have a say. Cecile Richards does not speak for me. Here comes the Catholic Church." Cecile Richards, the president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America? I really felt ambushed! I could have used a warning upon entering her website.

Curran told the Post, "This rally is intended to draw attention to the injustice of the federal government's ignoring the First Amendment." I'm for protecting freedom of speech, including artistic expression. Never let it be sacrificed.

Don't let false definitions of "religious liberty" camouflage agendas of the religious right. Goddess help us if that were to happen!

---

PATTY GOODRICH

Winston-Salem

Tarheel born

Whether Andrew Jackson was born in North or South Carolina has been a matter of long dispute. All we know for certain is that he was born close enough to the border, down below Charlotte, for both states to claim him as a native son. Most authorities appear to believe South Carolina is the best bet, however.

Is all that about to change now that the border is being moved southward, owing to mistakes made in the original measurements? Is it possible after all that Jackson was irrefutably a Tarheel born, a Tarheel bred and, now that he's gone, a Tarheel dead?

Maybe somebody, somewhere, someday will provide a reasonable explanation as to why Carolina was originally divided in the first place.

---

HUNTER JAMES

Winston-Salem

Approachable Motsinger

I recently attended a reception to meet Elisabeth Motsinger and hear more about why she is running to represent North Carolina's 5th District in Congress. I found her to be incredibly down-to-earth, warm and approachable — quite the opposite of our current representative in Washington.

Her thoughts and vision on the direction we need as a state and as a country are spot on. It is clear that she has a passion for representing the best interests of all people, not just those with deep pockets.

I encourage everyone to go to the polls on May 8 to vote for Elisabeth Motsinger, and againstAmendment One.

---

KEVIN MUNDY

Winston-Salem

Finish the Thought

Briefly complete the sentence below and send it to us at letters@wsjournal.com. We'll print some of the results in a few days. Only signed entries, please, no anonymous ones.

"If 'the marriage amendment' fails …"

Winston-Salem Journal LTE FR 03/30/12

Supporting Curran

Well, now. I, for one, would like to applaud Pattie Curran for taking her sons to see a difficult and provocative work of art about a difficult and provocative subject ("Opera patron unhappy with art," March 16). Why has that not been mentioned? Instead, people choose to castigate a woman who merely asked for information about what she (and her family) would be walking into when they entered the lobby.

"The Crucible" = vagina = reproductive rights = persecution: Are the offended letter writers aware that the initiators of the Salem mess were ... female? Back in the day, those ladies did OK with exercising their powers.

Piedmont Opera was being a bit disingenuous about not posting a notice. If Abigail and friends were dancing naked around a bonfire in the production, you can bet your puritan bonnet there would be a sign in the lobby saying there is "nudity in this production." Just as there are now signs about gun shots, smoke effects, strobe lights, disco balls and cigarette smoking. Why not a sign about the contents of an art exhibit?

I, for one, would be content to allow Curran to raise her children as she sees fit. And taking them to something like "The Crucible" (about which one is able to inform oneself in advance — as opposed to coming face to face with a vagina with no warning) is to be commended. She is actually supporting the arts — not just talking about it.

---

DONALD ILKO

Winston-Salem

Inclusive love

In our response to the inclusive love of Jesus Christ, we are required to stand for justice. Therefore, we join increasing numbers of people of faith across this state in morally opposing Amendment One. We are convinced Amendment One would cause great harm to hundreds of thousands of families in North Carolina.

Amendment One harms children by potentially threatening existing child custody and visitation rights designed for the child's best interests and by opening up the possibility that a child could be taken away from a committed, loving parent if something happens to the other parent.

Amendment One compromises protections for women in regard to domestic violence and stalking by its narrow definition of families and couples.

Amendment One interferes with protections for unmarried couples to visit one another in the hospital and make emergency medical decisions.

Amendment One potentially compromises the benefits of unmarried or widowed seniors.

Amendment One would be a rare instance of taking away rights by state constitution rather than granting them.

We urge a vote against Amendment One on May 8.

---

ANA TAMPANNA AND VICKI SCHWARTZ

CO-CHAIRS, PARKWAY UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST OPEN AND AFFIRMING COMMITTEE & MISSION COMMITTEE

Winston-Salem

Interpreting pledge law

A.L. "Buddy" Collins, Winston-Salem/Forsyth County school-board member, has an interesting way of interpreting the law dealing with students reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in his letter "Reciting the pledge" (March 25).

State law says that schools "shall not compel any person to stand, salute the flag, or recite the Pledge of Allegiance."

But Collins says, "I do not believe the legislature would adopt a law allowing a child to be insolent and disrespectful to the pledge," equating sitting in silence with insolence and disrespect. He continues, "I believe the intent of this law merely requires pledge recitation, which has been our policy since 1994."

So the law says that students shall not be required to recite the pledge. Collins interprets that to mean that students shall be required to recite the pledge.

Why is this man on the school board?

---

BILLY C. MEADOWS

Winston-Salem

Teacher raises

The headline of a March 24 story was "Perdue: Teachers need raises." Well, I've got news for Gov. Bev Perdue. Most of us who will be stuck with the bill to pay for those raises haven't had one in four years, either. Maybe if the governor were more concerned about the common, non-public sector worker she'd be running for a second term.

---

BARTON L. TIFFANY

Winston-Salem

Sum It Up

The Sum It Up question from Sunday was: Do you think that Winston-Salem is open to all kinds of art?

* * * * *

Yes, to those of us with a large open perspective but not to those with a small narrow perspective!

---

FRANK SCISM

* * * * *

In a sense yes, but the conservatives might try to censor some things.

---

WILLIAM SAMS

Winston-Salem Journal LTE TH 03/29/12

Using Eve

Billboards in southern India advertising overseas study and job opportunities by using the image of the very attractive, but deceased, American Eve Carson raise the question of what this company, Jubeerich Consultancy, actually does ("Slain student shown in ads," March 22). While indeed this must distress her family, the real story is the legitimacy of the offering, and the very sad part is what may happen to those who respond to the billboards.

---

BETTY WARD

Mocksville

Editor's note: The company in India that erected billboards with the photo of slain UNC Chapel Hill student leader Eve Carson has apologized for the signs and pledged to take them down, according to a report in The Hindu newspaper.

Ambushed

Pattie Curran? Hmm. The name rings a bell. Isn't she the mom with the teen sons who got ambushed at the opera by the twiggy thing bent in the shape of a lady-part ("Opera patron unhappy with art," March 16)? But wait. There's a person named Pattie Curran who organized a protest and spoke to the media in opposition to insurance coverage for reproductive health care ("Rally scheduled to protest birth control rules," March 20).

That's the same Pattie Curran. Hmm. But wouldn't that mean she had political objections to the lady-part art, since its title clearly makes it a comment on the current reproductive health-care controversy? Which in turn would mean that she was not completely honest in her argument for placing notification on the art? Hmm. Seems like maybe it was the art that got ambushed.

---

RICK MASHBURN

Winston-Salem

No voter ID

Forsyth County Commissioner Gloria Whisenhunt's statements supporting a voter-identification bill illustrate dangerous views dividing this country ("Board to debate voter-ID law Monday," March 23).

First she avers, "Voting is a special privilege." Voting is not a special privilege; it is a right. All adult citizens have the right to vote without condition, except convicted felons (in some states) and anyone adjudicated incompetent to vote.

To characterize voting as a "privilege" draws a contrast with the non-privileged, consistent with her next statement: "I can't understand why you wouldn't be proud to show an ID." She implies something inherently shameful about those who because of age, disability, poverty or by circumstances of birth lack a birth certificate or cannot proudly possess such ID. ("Men at ease have contempt for misfortune," Job 12:5.)

This is the same worldview that causes travesties of justice such as the Trayvon Martin case. The privileged perceive some people, because of race and/or class, as automatically suspicious, unsavory and unworthy of full membership in society. Contrary to Whisenhunt's last assertion that she cannot "see why this is political," what else is it when her political party seeks to bar an entire class of voters from exercising their constitutional right?

Our country has finally, fitfully and at times violently progressed to a place that all of us, in principle, regardless of race, sex, class, education or any other excuse for exclusion, have the right to choose our leaders. Don't let anyone take it away!

---

AMANDA WARREN

Winston-Salem

Finish the thought

Last Saturday, we asked readers to complete the sentence: "Citizens should only be allowed to use deadly force if ..."

* * * * *

"I will not seek permission from anyone to use deadly force to prevent bodily harm from being inflicted on either my family or myself.

"I shall not seek permission to exercise my endowed rights in using deadly force to repel any threat to my life and liberty, and limb. Be warned that I will not hesitate, if threatened, to exercise any and all of these rights, and use whatever force is necessary to remedy the situation, should it occur."

---

HARVEY PULLIAM JR.

* * * * *

"... when your life or property is threatened."

---

WILLIAM SAMS

* * * * *

"Citizens should only be allowed to use deadly force if they are facing possible mortal danger to themselves or their loved ones. If they fear for their lives or anyone else's with them at that time, they should definitely feel justified in using deadly force.

"Protection of one's self, property and/or family to me is high priority."

---

LOUIS JONES

Winston-Salem Journal LTE WE 03/28/12

Obama's incompetence

Those who missed it should go back and read the March 12 column "Obama vs. Israel: Priority No. 1? Stop Israel" by Charles Krauthammer. In addition to President Obama's terrible economic policies, he has now put this country on a path to World War III. Israel won't wait until after the November elections to hit Iran.

As Krauthammer points out, it is absolutely astounding to me that this president thinks he can change his message almost daily to fit any constituency, betting that they are so stupid as to forget what he has said or done previously.

Is there any way we can make a "citizen's arrest" on this president for such narcissistic incompetence?

---

PETER T. WILSON

Winston-Salem

Reason on birth control

What a crock. This latest kerfuffle over birth control — which those on the Right are dishonestly calling an issue of religious freedom, because that allows them to act like they're claiming the moral high ground — is a great example of hypocrisy.

What I haven't heard anyone say yet about this issue is that if these organizations — not churches, but organizations that serve and hire the general public — want to receive government money, they've got to obey government rules, including laws governing insurance and birth control. If they want to impose their own rules on their employees, they can always reject the money.

Not only that, but if insurance companies offer free birth control, no one with religious objections has to accept it. They have their religious freedom.

But as these objectors try to stop insurance companies from offering free birth control — or any birth control, actually — they're taking freedom away from those who would choose to use it. If they really believe in religious freedom, they're on the wrong side of the fence.

What really motivates them? Is it a desire to impose their will on other people, or is it simply another opportunity to work against a president they despise?

Once again President Obama has made a reasonable decision, meeting his opposition halfway, and, as usual, the Right has reacted in a hysterical fashion.

---

REBECCA MINOR

Winston-Salem

Imposing their views

Marriage does not need protection, and it is already dead. Observe the large number of single-parent families, the children born out of wedlock and the single-person households or cohabiting households. Will these facts change one iota if Amendment One passes? Will our married lives be any better if it passes? Those who are in terrible married relationships now will still be in terrible relationships if it passes. As Kinky Friedman said when running for office in Texas, "Gay people should have the same opportunity to be miserable as the rest of us."

People expect all the benefits, tax breaks and protections that our governments give to married couples, but none of those more than 1,000 provisions have anything to do with a religious marriage. All are for the benefit of a couple who have signed a contract to live together, or for the protection of the children. If a religious group does not want to marry a gay couple, it will never be required to do so.

Boston's Cardinal Richard Cushing, when discussing the removal of the ban on contraceptives in the 1960s, declared, "Catholics do not need the support of civil law to be faithful to their own religious convictions, and they do not seek to impose by law their moral views on others of society." Too many religious people forget that not everyone believes as they do, and they are trying to impose their religious views on others through state laws.

Vote no on Amendment One.

---

TAMMIE POLITYKA

Denton

An older liberal

In response to the letter "Seeing the forest" (March 21):

The Journal prints letters with both conservative and liberal views. As a 65-year-old, I prefer the liberal. So the statement about "middle-aged and older people who have more conservative views" doesn't apply to me, unless 65 isn't considered to be "older" anymore.

Hurray!

---

WANDA BIGELOW

Kernersville

For Motsinger

Of all the coverage of this year's upcoming election, the only campaign that really excites me is Elisabeth Motsinger's run for Congress. North Carolina couldn't ask for a better representative.

Elisabeth has the political experience that other Democratic candidates lack. Having been a member of the Winston Salem/Forsyth County School Board, she has a long record of effecting positive change.

As a North Carolinian, I have been waiting for years for a representative I could believe in — who actually represented me . That person is Elisabeth Motsinger. Get out on May 8 and vote Motsinger in the primary — then do the same in November!

---

ERIN CARMOLA

Winston-Salem

Winston-Salem Journal LTE TU 03/27/12

Irrationality of bigotry

I enjoyed the March 20 letter "Obama's difference." The writer's use of big ears was a creative and humorous way to underline the irrationality of bigotry.

The writer suggests that it is fair for "normal-eared" people not to vote for "big-eared" people if they don't want to. I fully agree. My quibble is with the last sentence, the "normal-eared" people's reason for not voting for a "big-eared" president: "They [big-eared presidents] just can't do the job." What such a normal-eared person should say is, "I don't like people with big ears, and so I won't vote for one for president."

Bigotry makes people look ignorant. Lying makes them look evil.

---

DOROTHY MATHEWS

Rural Hall

Letting animals suffer

When will it end? I'm referring not just to the number of reprehensible local abuse cases, but also to the inadequate handling of the cases by our judicial system.

Last year a woman starved two dogs on her back porch, and she was given a suspended sentence. Now there's Judge Patrice Hinnant, who gave Renan Carter a fine and just three days in jail (to be scheduled at a convenient time) after starving his horses ("Man convicted of horse neglect," March 8).

Stokes County District Attorney Ricky Bowman dropped all charges against an alleged puppy mill operator where more than 150 dogs were seized due to the report of cramped quarters and unsanitary conditions ("Animal cruelty charges dropped," March 9). In the Stokes County case, the agreement prohibits the owners from operating a similar operation for two years.

Stokes County Manager Rick Morris stated, "… we're going to be taking steps to make sure this doesn't happen again." I'd like to know specifically what steps he will take because as it is currently reported, the owners can have another grand opening in two years without having any better idea or incentive as to how to properly care for animals.

How sad that in the greatest country in the world, in the 21st century, that either the laws intended to protect helpless animals are inadequate or those entrusted to enforce these laws are not very enthusiastic about this aspect of their job.

---

LESLIE MORRIS

Walkertown

Editor's note: Rick Morris is no relation to the letter writer.

Defeating discrimination

Amendment One is about more than same-sex marriage; it also prohibits the recognition of any sort of domestic legal union outside of the bonds of heterosexual marriage. It has the potential to impact domestic-violence protection for unmarried couples, child custody and visitation, end-of-life directives and domestic-partnership benefits for public employees.

The process of stripping people of their rights is part of a history that this country should be making strides to forget, not relive. In state after state across this country, the rights of a minority have been left up to a vote by the majority.

Like skilled magicians, supporters of this amendment will seek to take the focus off of the real issue at hand and instead seek to paint homosexuals as boogiemen who threaten traditional marriage.

The vote on May 8 isn't about gay and straight; it's about discrimination and equality, love and hate, hope and despair. We must stand together and defeat discrimination. It will always be wrong to enshrine the denial of basic human rights into state law.

Equality is always right, love will always win and hope will never be silent.

---

PAUL RAKER III

Kernersville

Prejudice against Christians

Despite this secular culture's contempt of Christians and specifically the church — after all, just look at all those hypocrites who attend — there are countless Christians who strive to follow Christ in words and deeds. Yes indeed, clergy corruption and pedophiles are front-page news — as if they are typical of the majority of Christian souls. The prejudice and bias against Christians is remarkable, and I suggest is in proportion to the moral decay of our society — which should be obvious to everyone.

Christians, like everyone else, are fallible human beings who aspire to be consistent with their values, beliefs and lifestyles. Some are better than others. What I think is fair to say is that most Christians, when we truly comprehend the breath and depth of Christ's love as well as his incredible answer to the greatest commandment, must admit our inadequate response.

Most Christians are both humbled and grateful. Following Christ is our greatest challenge and to embody his love among fellow human beings. Whatever side of the church you stand on, how well do you practice what you preach? That is my question as well.

---

PETER C. VENABLE

Winston-Salem

Winston-Salem Journal LTE MO 03/26/12

Sins of their parents

I empathize with these young people who are brought here illegally by their parents and their plight. However, unfortunately, children sometimes must bear the sins of their parents and forefathers. Many examples could be cited, but that's another subject.

It is a difficult situation for these people as well as for our government and its laws on becoming an American citizen. When those laws are broken, there's a price to pay. They are not treated as American citizens because they are not American citizens.

The children who come here with their parents and the ones born after they are here should also be illegal rather than automatically becoming American citizens. Perhaps that would deter or discourage them from illegal immigration.

What about the parents of these young people? Are they legal now? As harsh as it may seem, perhaps whole families should be deported and required to apply for legal status. Everyone is entitled to seek a better life, but it must be done legally. Something drastic must be done since our borders and everything else have failed.

---

VELMAR FAISON

Winston-Salem

Immigration thoughts

The writer of the letter "On Alberto" (March 21) is against the children of illegal immigrants staying in America because, he says, they would be benefitting from their parents' crime. He uses the analogy: Suppose a man robs a bank and gives the money to his child. Should the child get to keep it? He answers no.

But if his analogy plays out, then what he advocates is not only that the child mustn't benefit from the crime by keeping the money, he must also be punished, just as the children of illegal immigration must be punished by being made to leave the country. According to the letter writer's logic, the child must go to prison with his father.

I don't think that would be fair to the thief's child, nor is deportation fair to the children of illegal immigrants.

Contrary to what the writer claims, some illegal acts have , historically, benefitted us. Almost 60 years ago, Rosa Parks refused to sit in the back of the bus — which she was legally required to do — and spurred the Civil Rights Movement. The walls of segregation came tumbling down, and, yes, the children of conscientious objectors certainly benefitted from it. Our whole country benefitted from it.

And for all those repeating that worn, clichéd, meaningless question, "What part of 'illegal' do you not understand?" I understand that if we pass the DREAM Act, we won't have to worry about their being illegal. Problem solved.

---

JAMES T. FULLER

Winston-Salem

God the rock

Many Americans, from the president to the pauper, have opinions like the wind that drift around with no stability or source of authority.

What authority did our Founders use to claim a higher law above all sovereigns and nations? They declared "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" as their authority, which their law book — Blackstone's Commentary on the Laws of England — acknowledged as the Bible's Holy Scriptures to be the highest universal authority.

Is there evil? Then there must be good, which necessitates a moral law to differentiate between the two, so that we know right from wrong. If there is a moral law, then there must be a moral lawgiver — God, our Creator. But, if there is no lawgiver, there is no moral law and therefore no right or wrong or evil.

Our nation's opinions drift in the wind over the definition of marriage. What is wrong with our Creator's definition, which meets the physical design to reproduce the next generation? All the endearing attributes are there as well. The eyes of the woman look deep into the man, communicating I will bear and raise our children; I will go wherever you go and be by your side, faithful to you, until death do us part . The man as well, looks in love, steadfast, with the resolve of steel, to provide and protect his family and be faithful to his wife until death does them part.

---

E.A. TIMM

Walnut Cove

Winston-Salem Journal LTE SU 03/25/12

No fan of Cal

Why does the Journal print Cal Thomas' columns? To fulfill a fair and balanced approach? To give liberals still another conservative clown to laugh at? To hold him up as a model of how wretched and pitiful is the conservative media? Has he finally been elevated to the pinnacle of commentators speaking for the GOP now that Glenn Beck is in media limbo and Rush Limbaugh surely is on his way to media hell?

Thomas writes, "Democrats have managed to divert our (the GOP's) attention" ("Outmaneuvered GOP needs rhetorical focus," March 14). Well, finally he sees what's been before his eyes for some time, but the Democrats have managed this? How? No, the Republicans are pretty capable of diverting themselves.

"Instead of debating President Obama's dreadful record on just about everything, Democrats have managed to get Republicans talking about sex and morality." What? When haven't they talked about sex and morality? The truth is they have nothing else to debate since Obama's record on just about everything clearly is reversing George Bush's dreadful record — on just about everything.

Limbaugh's misogyny is well-known, as are his rants that liberals should take responsibility for their actions. He should do the same, but never does. Still, his freedom of speech remains intact. He can say anything he wants, he just can't say it on these public airways. If we the people chastise his sponsors, if they listen and pull their sponsorship, that's all of us exercising our freedom of speech.

---

PAUL LUNDRIGAN

Southmont

Reciting the pledge

John Railey's March 18 column, "Law should make Pledge mandatory," is spot on.

The new statute approved by the legislature requires two things. The first: All schools recite the pledge each day. The second: No child should be compelled to recite the pledge.

First Amendment objections to recitation of the pledge in school have been honored since the Supreme Court so ruled in 1946. Most authorities agree that First Amendment rights of minor children are rights exercisable not by the child but by the parent. Therefore, does the statute create a new right exercisable by the student or does it merely endorse the longstanding law?

I do not believe the legislature would adopt a law allowing a child to be insolent and disrespectful to the pledge. Too many Americans serving under our flag have died defending our freedoms. I believe the intent of this law merely requires pledge recitation, which has been our policy since 1994.

The policy the school board should adopt is simple. When a child refuses to recite the pledge, the school will honor the request. However, by the end of the day that child's parent will be contacted. The parent will be requested to sign a First Amendment waiver.

Like Railey's father, my father was a World War II veteran. I know how he would have reacted to such a request. I have no doubt the next day I would stand for the pledge as I am sure it would be painful for me to sit down.

---

A.L. "BUDDY" COLLINS

MEMBER, WINSTON-SALEM/FORSYTH COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

Kernersville

Sum It Up

Do you think that Winston-Salem is open to all kinds of art?