Readers Write: Religion should 'render unto Ceasar'; Obamacare debate misses mark
Letters to the Editor for the weekly print issue of April 23, 2012: Several readers argue that protecting religious freedom can't threaten individual rights. Another says the debate over Obamacare ignores the real issue with US health-care – skyrocketing costs.
When faith and politics mix
Regarding the April 2 cover story, "The faith factor": With so much political activity now involving religion, people should reexamine the basis for their beliefs. Read the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke to discover the teachings of Jesus and the fundamentals of Christianity – love, mercy, charity.Skip to next paragraph
Gallery Monitor Political Cartoons
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
There is no model for forcing your beliefs on, or judging, others. And for those mixing taxes and religious liberty, remember: "Render unto Caesar."
Mountain View, Calif.
Everyone says they believe in freedom of religion for all. But in giving some groups freedom of religion do we deprive others of their freedom from religion? For example, groups who believe that abortion should not be legal try to pass laws prohibiting those who believe that abortion should be legal from getting them. That isn't freedom of religion for all.
Severna Park, Md.
The government is not telling the Roman Catholic Church it can't continue its teachings on contraception. Rather it is telling the church that when a religious institution becomes an employer of individuals from the general public, it must comply with the same rules that govern other employers.
In this case, it is the church denying rights, not the government. Employees who subscribe to Catholic teachings on contraception will not avail themselves of those benefits. Those who don't, will.
Health-care debate misses real issue
A lot of energy and emotion surrounds the debate over the health-care law's "individual mandate," as described in the March 26 article "Big stakes as high court weighs health-care law." Medical care, considered a necessity by most people, is expensive, and so is the insurance that covers it. Only a large pool of subscribers can spread the costs. But the law misses the real problem: sky-high health-care costs.
More than 18 percent of US gross domestic product goes to health care. That exceeds spending for all state and local governments and defense combined. Why is nothing being done to actually reduce this cost burden? Insurance just rearranges who pays for it.
David K. McClurkin