Letters
Public has the right to voice opposition I am writing in response to Chey Tor’s article about the nomination of John Ashcroft for United States Attorney General ("Rage over cabinet nominee useless,” Viewpoint, Jan. 26). First of all, I would like to make clear that I am an adamant opponent to Ashcroft’s nomination. I am fearful of having a man that conservative in such an important position in the U.S. government. But that is not why I was compelled to write a response. What bothered me most was how Tor stated that opponents of Ashcroft “are wasting their time and resources” in voicing their opinions. True, the concerted voices of many different advocacy groups probably won’t convince the Senate to deny him confirmation. But that does not mean that they should just passively accept it and “move on to the next battle mode.” I hate to sound preachy, but one of the few redeeming factors of our nation is our freedom of speech. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe that Tor is a proponent for the end of the First Amendment. But to withhold their protesting voices would be to submit to the American government without letting them know that they still have to acknowledge the voice of the people. A silent populace would only equate to a consenting public. The large outcry that arose out of Ashcroft’s nomination forces Ashcroft to be cautious in his actions and sensitive to his critics. We are all carefully watching him, and he needs to know that.
Anthony TJ Lee Third-year Asian American studies
Religious beliefs should not infringe on rights
Jamie Padilla argues in the letter “Support of abortion abroad infringes on rights,” (Viewpoint, Jan. 29), that religious freedoms are being eroded when Americans of certain religious backgrounds are forced to support programs they find repugnant, like abortion. Could someone please notify me which United States religion has its rights infringed upon because of family planning? In the religion I have followed throughout my life we have read the Bible. In my studies I never once read a passage referring to family planning as an infringement on my freedom. I can still do whatever I want to within my own beliefs whether the U.S. government is funding overseas family planning facilities or not. A significant number of Americans believe that family planning is an important outreach program. In fact, a majority of Americans believe that even abortion should be legal (at least in some cases). Bush’s decision could not be any more extreme or right wing. Because of his decision to stop funding family planning organizations abroad that provide women with the option of having an abortion, the rest of the modern world will have to foot the bill to prevent the spread of disease and slow a population explosion that could endanger the global food supply. I wonder if Jamie Padilla thought of these people throughout the rest of the world when writing to the Daily Bruin. People, especially women, in some less developed countries may not be able to get treatments and education necessary to stop the spread of disease. Tax payers throughout Europe will have to pay more to support the now underfunded family planning programs. Now supposing someone in Padilla’s religion said that “abortion is bad,” does that mean everyone else in the world does not have the freedom to decide for themselves?
Jason Wise Third-year Political Science Member of the Bruin Democrats
advertise
contact us
top of page