To the Editor:
I would appreciate an opportunity to respond to Mr. Teti’s question. He wanted to know if I ever heard about the separation of church and state. Mr. Teti, I do realize the importance of the separation of church and state. I also do not want my religious convictions mixed with politics. I don’t understand, however, why abortion is typically seen solely as a religious issue. It is not. Protecting the unborn should be instinctive; a natural and logical norm. The abortion issue transcends religion and reaches to the basic moral principles of our society. Your argument as abortion relates to the separation of church and state is flawed. The separation of church and state concept evolved out of the colonist’s fear that the government would establish one true religion that everyone would be forced to follow. The free exercise clause does not mean that moral values must be disregarded in our society. As the Supreme Court explains: “The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws, which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.” If your position on this doctrine were correct, then we must clearly be without any laws governing murder, theft, and perjury, as well as civil remedies for such offenses as libel and slander. Under Teti’s theory, because one could look to the Ten Commandments as a basis for finding this type of conduct offensive, the government has improperly embraced religion. This is not the case. I realize my initial letter may have been somewhat misleading. I called John Kerry a coward Catholic. Maybe I should have been a bit more general and simply called him a moral coward. It was my opinion; John Kerry would have failed to protect human life as President. He would have placed unfit liberal judges to the bench, which would have continued to denigrate our society. I guess I was hoping his Catholic education would have brought a greater sense of morality in his life and politics. Please recognize there have been 32.5 million abortions since 1973. Is that not a moral outrage, worthy of one’s consideration when walking in a voting booth? Finally, in response to Tara Donohue’s letter. I too am against the death penalty. I will continue to send that message to George Bush. I hope he would have a change of heart as per his stance on that issue.
Sincerely, Denis Klein ’92
Leave a Reply