(Page 5 of 5)
The man Ron Paul!
-- David Cheney
Baker City, Oregon
PLEASE RECONSIDER
Re: A. Wood's letter (under "Question Time") in Reader Mail's
Hating on
Everybody:
A. Wood apparently thinks she has stumbled onto some devastating evidence when she writes, "I read Michael Fumento's article with interest and would like to pose a question: Even if thimerosal itself isn't the cause of autism, what do the majority of children with autism have in common? Like it or not, the answer is vaccines." Perhaps Mrs. Wood would like to reconsider her statement applying both logic and the rules of evidence to it. Yes, the majority of kids with autism have received vaccines. But so have the majority of kids without autism, and since these outnumber those with autism by about 998 to 1 (or 994 to 1 for Autism Spectrum Disorders), one could say that vaccines appear to prevent autism, rather than cause it. Both statements would be classic post hoc fallacies: because something happens or does not happen after kids get vaccinated, it is because they were vaccinated.
On the other hand, we know very well both the infection and the mortality rates for a host of childhood diseases prevented by vaccination, which are orders of magnitude higher than the incidence of autism. Therefore, if we follow Mrs. Woods' reasoning, we would trade the low possibility of something bad happening as a result of vaccination, for the high probability of something much worse by foregoing vaccination. This shows a marked inability to weigh risks and make rational decisions based on the evidence.
But then, her reliance on homeopathic remedies merely confirms
what the first part of her letter suggested--that we are not
dealing here with people interested in objective facts but rather
those seeking after fantasies that correlate with their own
preconceptions. If her son made it through childhood without
contracting measles, rubella, diphtheria, typhoid, whooping cough,
mumps or chicken pox, she should not congratulate herself, but
rather those parents who did vaccinate their children, thereby
reducing greatly the risk faced by her child. She should consider
what her experience would have been if all parents, or even a large
proportion of them, followed her own reckless example.
-- Stuart Koehl
Falls Church, Virginia
WITHOUT A PRAYER
Re: Rev. Lisa Haase's letter (under "Putting Huck to the Test") in
Reader Mail's Hating on
Everybody:
Lisa Haase wrote that Mr. Huckabee's call for a "faith ticket" violates the Constitution. I hope the Rev. Lisa is a better theologian than constitutional scholar. The Constitution refers only to the acts of the government, not to those of private individuals or political parties. If a political party wants to establish an explicitly faith-based ticket or party platform, imposing religious qualifications on its members and candidates, it is free to do so. Of course, its half-life would be shorter than that of some man-made elements, but the fact is they could do so if they wanted -- the Constitution does not protect against stupidity.
Or ignorance, for that matter. Which brings up Rev. Lisa's understanding of American history. She wrote, "I would like to see an article reminding the American people of the true reasons that the Puritans came to America (to escape state religion) and that separation of church and state is NOT a myth." That's wrong on so many counts. First, while it is true that the Puritans came to America to escape state religion, in fact their argument was not with state religion, but with the religion the state had imposed. Once in the New World, the first thing the Puritans did is establish their own state religion, and Massachusetts had an established state church well into the 19th century (as did several other states). The First Amendment does not establish separation of church and state (I defy her to find that term anywhere in the Constitution or in any legal decision prior to the 20th century), but rather narrowly precludes the state from establishing and funding one particular church and requiring citizens to belong to it as a qualification for holding public office.
The First Amendment also allows for the free exercise of
religion, which means, whatever Rev. Lisa thinks, that Mike
Huckabee is free to spout all sorts of nonsense from the pulpit,
and to shape his political campaign and policy positions according
to his own religious beliefs. It is the glory of our system that he
is free to do so, and that Rev. Lisa is free to vote against
him.
-- Stuart Koehl
Falls Church, Virginia
Rev. Haase has it wrong when she claims that "running on a faith ticket" somehow constitutes a breach of the Constitutional provision outlawing a religious test. She, like so many others today, seems to think that the Constitution is somehow a document that governs the actions of the citizens of the United States when in fact it outlines what the government can and cannot do. There can be no religious test instituted by law that bars anyone from seeking public office, but every voter can impose a religious test on the candidates in order to determine whom they will vote for. That is not in any wise a violation of the Constitution.
Further, the popular meaning of the phrase "separation of church
and state" is a myth, since it is nowhere mentioned in the
Constitution. The Constitution simply says the Congress shall make
no law establishing a state religion or make any laws that restrict
the rights of the people to worship (or not) as they choose. It
does not say that religion has no place in the public square, nor
does it say that religion and politics are to be kept strictly
separated. That may be how we want it, and it may even be for the
best, but it is not a part of the Constitution.
-- Eric Edwards
Walnut Cove, North Carolina
A REAL PERSON
Re: Reid Collins's A Dream
Deferred:
Mr. Collins, I thank you for your homely memory of Mr. King,
whose real person often blends too readily into the two-dimensional
legend that has both grown up out of admiration and been
constructed over the years. You remind me that Mr. King was an
actual, gifted person who gave his life for his country as surely
as so many men, most of them young, have done in war. Every year
I'm reminded to thank Mr. King, too, on my own behalf and that of
my children.
-- Don Carlson