The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Man's Search for Meaning

2.15.02 @ 12:02AM

(Page 3 of 3)

SAFETY IN WEAKNESS
Thanks for Reid Collins's common sense article "What Would Have Worked." Unfortunately, Americans don't have much regard for common sense any more, thus the author's solution will be roundly ignored, if not laughed at. Today's Americans have joined their English-speaking brethren around the world in holding to the ridiculous principle, "The more helpless we are the safer we are."
-- Keith Collins
Cody, WY

MUSTANG SILLY
Mr. Shiflett may need some remedial geography lessons, and perhaps history lessons as well. In "Check, Please" he says: "Enron, as most readers know, was a Texas-based house of ill repute, much like the Mustang Ranch in nearby Nevada but without meaningful state oversight or lasting financial stability." While his simile is colorful, and conveys a certain meaning, it is quite wrong in geographical terms and perhaps a bit misleading in historical terms.

Geographically, few would consider Houston, Texas, and Reno, Nevada nearby.

Historically, the Mustang Ranch has been closed since 1999 when the Federal Government (IRS) took it over in an income tax case.
-- Warren Stewart

Dave Shiflett replies: As a former westerner, I can assure readers that anything within 3-4 states is thought of as in the neighborhood.

RENO EVIL
"'At least I have a track record of proving that it doesn't affect my work ability,' she said," according to Washington Prowler.

I've long wondered: What, exactly, is her work ability? To look the other way? Seriously, I can't think of a lasting positive thing Janet Reno did in the eight years she "served" as attorney general. Can you?
-- William M. Macfadyen
Santa Barbara, CA

MARRY ME
I enjoyed the wit of Messrs. Mason and Felder in their article "The Pope and Jewish Lawyers," but I must throw some cold water on the spirit of their argument. First, I would say that I have not read the Pope's edict regarding the lawyers use of their profession for "an end that is contrary to justice, like divorce," therefore, I would not even try to interpret or characterize the Pope's statements, but we should all be aware of the cost of divorce.

Weddings, though ritualistic by nature, are replete with meaning and substance. Should anyone take casually vows made before God and man with the caveat "What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder"? The responsibility of marriage is upon the man and woman, there is no question, but spiritual leaders have both an interest and a biblical mandate to shepherd the flock. The Bible declares that God hates divorce (Mal. 2:16), I believe, because He knows the high cost it imposes on humanity. In my opinion, it is from there that all pastors, as voiced by the Pope, have, in fact, a vested interest in "marriage and divorce."...

The blight of divorce spoils all it touches. I would be the first to agree that there are some instances which there really is no alternative, but in reality that is not what we are talking about here. The casual approach to marriage and divorce has waged a high toll, however. It can be seen in the ruined lives of men, women, and their children. We should all be concerned, including the lawyers.
-- Brian Prunty

I'm not a Catholic, but I don't think the Pope's proclamation represents any kind of breach between Church and the State. He did exactly what the Church is supposed to do, set a standard and apply church discipline to those who don't follow the rules. The state is not involved at all. If the state wants divorce available, it can certainly have it without the participation of the faithful.
-- Hunter Baker
Jonesboro, GA

"We pride ourselves on having a separation between church and state. Even in countries that do not have this absolute prohibition, governments -- outside of totalitarian states -- do not attempt to pass laws that affect church practices. Yet this is exactly what the Pope now attempts. He attempts to affect the business of the state by a declaration of church law."

Nice try, but you've got it backwards. The Pope is pronouncing on an institution whose origins are prior to the State (Genesis 2:24). The covenant between husband and wife before God precedes the establishment of any and all governments. The Mosaic marriage laws in Deuteronomy are religious, not secular. The pronouncements by Jesus in Matthew 5:31, Mark 10:3-9, and Luke 16:18 forbid divorce for virtually any reason, and claim that to marry a divorced person constitutes adultery. Therefore, the Pope is, as always, telling us to do what we are commanded by God to do. The Church yields jurisdiction to the State only those aspects of a broken marriage -- property distribution and child custody and care -- which properly fall to the State. He takes that "What God hath joined together let no man put asunder" stuff very seriously.

Unfortunately, a lot of Catholics also don't understand this about the Catholic Church. We don't get a vote on this stuff. We're an orthodox religion and the Pope is defending the teachings he inherited. That's his job. The Pope will never cede to the State on matters such as divorce, contraception, abortion, and extra-marital relations (whether hetero- or homosexual). We're free to ignore him, but he's not out of line. The Church's position is that the State has no business undermining traditional Judaeo-Christian morality.

By the way, all priests are born into married families, most are heterosexual, and all hear more about marriages in the confessional than most of us would ever care to hear. They get all the complaints and none of the good stuff.
-- Dennis DiMuzio
Cincinnati, OH

I'm a Jackie Mason fan, but "The Pope and Jewish Lawyers" was not funny. Criticizing religious beliefs never is.

And criticizing a defense of marriage on a "conservative" site just doesn't make sense. The jury is still out on "The Prowler".
-- W.R. Watts
Crockett, VA

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Bill Clinton, Business, Religion, Abortion, Law, Conservatism, Oil