Regarding your Feb. 24 article "Border agents feel betrayed by Bush guest-worker plan": US Border Patrol agents aren't the only ones who feel betrayed by President Bush's cheap-worker plan, with a focus on jobs instead of enforcement. Many of the parents of drug addicts wonder why slack enforcement allows tons of drugs to enter our nation; ditto for parents whose children's schools are flooded by illegal-alien students. In the face of massive opposition to practices and policies that have become corrupted and held hostage by special interest groups, the political classes continue serenely on their way to undermine the quality of our lives, not to mention our safety.
Barbara E. Vickroy
It's becoming more evident that the only way to deal with this huge problem is to use military troops to assist the US border patrol. There have been a number of murders of law enforcement officials at or near the border, including Kris Eggle, a park ranger. The military, with its sophisticated detection equipment, could assist the border patrol and, at the same time, receive valuable training. Our country provides troops to protect the borders of Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, and South Korea. Why can't they assist in protecting our borders?
Although the text of your Feb. 23 article "Bomb gives Israel case for the wall" was fairly well-balanced, the headline was not.
Not even the Palestinians dispute that Israel, like any other sovereign nation, has a right to build a protective barrier along its recognized international borders, which in Israel's case are the 1967 borders.
The bomb referred to, however, is not relevant to whether or not Israel has a right to build the planned wall that would appreciably deviate from the 1967 border, and in the process would confiscate approximately one-seventh of occupied West Bank territory.
Donald J. Fritz
Regarding David Sterritt's Feb. 25 review "Gibson's 'Passion' has little but suffering on its mind": I disagree with the notion that there is nothing to learn from Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of the Christ." I have been a church member all my life and I have read and seen numerous films that depict scenes from or about the Passion.
I had little understanding of the tremendous depth of love that Jesus had for me until I viewed this film. Seeing this movie has greatly enhanced my appreciation and awe for what Jesus went through after being betrayed by Judas.
As a Christian, I have grown through viewing this film - hard as it was to witness.
There is no doubt that one should consider if there is much value in taking young children to see "The Passion of the Christ." I concede that the movie has some very graphic and violent scenes, but then again, the Crucifixion was no picnic, and it is good that a serious director finally has chosen not to gloss over the painful facts of the gospel story.
Some have protested that the violence in the film practically obscures the main principles of the story. But I feel that the anger over the movie's harsh portrayal of Jesus' last hours from people who do not take the story seriously is only a ruse to discourage others from seeing the film.
This is one of the first times in which I have observed secularists being so concerned with accuracy in the rendition of the gospel message.
Miguel A. Guanipa
The Monitor welcomes your letters and opinion articles. Because of the volume of mail we receive, we can neither acknowledge nor return unpublished submissions. All submissions are subject to editing. Letters must be signed and include your mailing address and telephone number.
Any letter accepted will appear in print and on www.csmonitor.com .
Mail letters to 'Readers Write,' and opinion articles to Opinion Page, One Norway St., Boston, MA 02115, or fax to 617-450-2317, or e-mail to email@example.com