Letters to the Editor

Submit a letter to the editor electronically | For our letter writing policy, click here

A call to defend our Church and not violate the tenets of our faith

President Barack Obama is not a foolish man, but he does a good imitation of one. In his next four years, it wouldn’t surprise me if he offered French fries with his political arsenic.

The greater tragedy that I see in this country is that we as a people don’t produce or provide many people of credible opposition to Obama and his suspicious agenda. Everybody running is rather shallow.

The Republican Party hopefuls are more a coward than timid Christians, and the Democrats represent apocalypse now.

I was all set in my mind to vote for the president until he revealed his campaign to circumvent “religious freedom” and impose his dictatorial intrusion upon “religious freedom,” especially targeting the Catholic Church.

I am not a passive Christian, nor am I a timid Christian, and I feel no obligation to vote for Obama merely because he is black.

It is insulting to me as a practicing Catholic whose conscience is formed through the teaching of “Mother Church” to demand that I violate the tenets of my faith and comply with his mandates.

President Obama is a shrewd man who knows that he can use “lukewarm Christians” who have convinced themselves that a lie is a truth, and wrong is right, to follow him as the Pied Piper.

- Kirth N. Roach | Holy Angels Church, Discalced Carmelite Community of the Resurrection, Indianapolis

HHS issue is between government and all religious organizations, reader says

Now that some of the dust has settled on the Obama administration’s health care dictate issue with religious organizations, some things come into much clearer focus.

Under the new rule, which the administration stresses is an “accommodation” and not a compromise, non-profit religious organizations can opt out and not directly provide birth control, et al. However, the insurers they hire to cover their employees cannot opt out.

Private organizations of any type that self-insure will be required to offer coverage for birth control and morning-after pills.

Health insurance is not free, and this means the costs for such care for any organization, such as birth control and the morning-after pill, will be borne by all employees because insurers are not going to offer this coverage for free. You could be accused of logical thought processes if you think this accommodation is not different from the original decision.

This issue is not solely between the administration and Catholics in America. It is between the government and any religious organization.

If the federal government can compel any religious organization to provide free coverage for birth control and the morning-after pill, what is contained in the U.S. Constitution that will prevent said government from compulsory coverage for abortions? And it may not stop there. Use your imagination.

I do not believe that any of the above has anything to do with controlling health care costs, and everything to do with government control over the entire health care exchange between patients and providers.

This is way serious.

- Greg Harter | Columbus