"Broken Wings," Broken Hearts
I've just finished reading the article "Broken Wings" in the July/August issue of Liberty. Never before, in my 40 years, have I read anything so tragic as what was written regarding female genital mutilation. I cried till I thought my heart would break. I am the mother of an 18-year-old daughter, and this article penetrated my innermost soul as I thought of young girls and women suffering such humiliation, pain, and lifelong tragedy. My prayer is that somewhere, somehow, the God I worship will put an eternal end to such degradation.
Thank you for having the courage to bring such information to the needed attention of your subscribers. I value my Liberty!
PATRICIA P. KOH
via the Internet
This was the hardest article I've had to read in more than 27 years. Although the practice of FGM is sickening, I am proud that you had the courage to make this horrendous procedure known so it can be stopped.
Thank you for your many well-written, practical, truth-filled, relevant articles. Keep up the good work!
BILL TASSIE
Burlington, Michigan
Thank you for this article on FGM. People need to be aware of this unspeakable abomination. However, how is female genital mutilation any different from or more pathetic than the mutilation and subsequent slow and painful death of millions of babies within their mothers' wombs?
How is the torturer and executioner with a medical degree, in our so-called "civilized society," who suctions the child out piece by piece, any different from the individual in northern Kenya who mutilates the genitals of a young girl? And how is the mother, the accomplice to the crime, on the table in the abortionist's office, any different from those mothers in Kenya who hold the sufferer down and force her legs apart?
ERCIE BERWICK
Elmhurst, Illinois
Watched by the Watchtower
The article "The Price of Faith," by Nicholas P. Miller in your July/August issue, misapprehends and therefore misapplies the law of assumption of risk to the Gwendolyn Robbins case. In New York "there can be no assumption of risk unless it is voluntary" (Bard v. Board of Education, 140 N.Y.S. 2d 850, 852 (Sup. Ct. Kings County 1955). Indeed, the general rule is that a "plaintiff's acceptance of a risk is not voluntary if the defendant's tortious conduct has left him no reasonable alternative course of conduct to avert harm to himself or to protect a right or privilege of which the defendant had no right to deprive him" (57 Am. Jur. 2d Negligence ¤ 827 [1989]; see also Restatement [Second] of Torts ¤ 496E [1965]). What Mr. Miller overlooks is the fact that the defendant insurance company's responsibility for its driver's negligence presented Mrs. Robbins with the unenviable choice of violating her religious convictions or suffering debilitating physical injury.
By putting her to such a "choice of evils," the insurance company deprived Mrs. Robbins of any voluntary choice. As Prosser and Keeton succinctly put it, a "plaintiff is not required to surrender a valuable legal right merely because the defendant's conduct has threatened him with harm if the right is exercised" (Prosser and Keeton on Torts 491 [5th ed. 1984]).
In short, Mr. Miller's assumption-of-risk solution to the Robbins case is no solution at all.
DONALD T. RIDLEY, Associate General Counsel
Watchtower Society
Patterson, New York
Hypocrites?
This letter is in regards to the "Tax-Funded Peep Show" piece that ran in the "Iambs and Pentameters" section of your July/August issue. I think that the last paragraph (where the witty insights begin) should read:
"Though according to American jurisprudence, the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment protects movies with content that I disapprove of, nothing in the clause mandates that the government fund them and the cries of 'censorship' that civil libertarians spout when tax money for movies with content that I disapprove of is removed. . . ."
If you think that films which explore some off-center (read immoral by you) sexuality issues by women are "dirty" and "filth," what do you call the all-too-informative movies featured on the high-numbered channels of cable TV?
And color me ironic for giggling at the fact that a magazine which runs a cover story (which was excellent by the way) on female genital mutilation labels a movie about "the joy of sexual pleasure experienced by women in their childhood and early teens" as "dirty."
ADAM C. SLICK
Las Vegas, Nevada
Kudos From Paradise
It was a pleasure to read your insightful and intriguing editorial "Getting Reality Right" in the May/June issue.
As a Seventh-day Adventist and an elected official, it has been a challenge for me to bring my personal and moral commitments on public policy issues and at the same time to avoid an attempt to unite church and state. My moral commitments have called me to be a strong advocate against domestic violence, to be a strong proponent for and supporter of programs to assist those who cannot help themselves, namely, the homeless and hungry, and to be a supporter of efforts to assist the elderly. My strong religious commitments have called me to use the power of government to protect the unfortunate. At the same time, my moral commitments have led me to be a strong opponent of pornography, to be a supporter of tough criminal laws, to be a supporter of traditional marriage, and to be a pro-life legislator.
I appreciate the discussion your periodical has on issues relating to church and state and, while I do not agree with everything you publish, I appreciate the chance to reflect on issues with which I have to deal on a day-to-day basis.
I look forward to receiving future issues of your magazine and wish you well as you continue to promote religious freedom and adherence to our constitutional principles.
DAVID A. PENDLETON
House of Representatives
Honolulu, Hawaii
"Bias on the Bench"
The article in your May/June issue details the clash of two world views. On one side are such groups as the ACLU whose attorney Janice Hart commented, "We can't say judges can never use their values but what we can say is where moral questions are in a state of flux, like with gay and lesbian issues, judges should leave their religious judgments out of those issues and just look at the facts." They fault Judge Moore because they believe that "Judge Moore's faith comes before his duty as a judge."
Judge Moore, in some ways, seems like a modern-day Daniel, in that he bases his life, and work, on God's Word. While the atheists seek Judge Moore's destruction, as they did Daniel's, Judge Moore has calmly resolved to keep God's law posted in his courtroom, as does the U.S. Supreme Court. While others' morals may be in a "state of flux" I suspect that Judge Moore has grounded his morals on God's Word, Jesus Christ.
It is a comfort to know that there are still public servants like Judge Moore who calmly plod along basing their lives on God's Word.
ROBERT S. NAKAMOTO
Burns, Tennessee
Theology Lesson
In "Getting Reality Right" (May/June), editor Clifford Goldstein may wish to take another look at his assertions that there is a "moral God" whose view of "right and wrong" are "embedded in His laws," His "moral absolutes," which allow no room for exceptions.
What does a "moral God" mean? Goldstein appears to mean a God whose actions are in harmony with His own perfect absolute laws. According to the biblical record, are God's actions always in harmony with His own laws? The sixth commandment of the Decalogue commands "no killing," some translations read "no murdering." My dictionary defines murder as killing those who are innocent.
Does God ever give the command to kill the innocent? In 1 Samuel 15:1-3, God commands through His servant Samuel that Saul . . . "slay the infant and suckling. . . ." because of what Amalek did to Israel.
Again, when taking Jericho, in Joshua 6:1-27, God commands Joshua to "utterly destroy all . . . man and woman, young and old" except for Rahab the harlot and those in her house.
Perhaps all Christians, including Mr. Goldstein, should take another look at reality, biblical laws, the God who wrote these laws and commands, and the question of moral absolutes. For the God of the Bible does appear to disregard the sixth commandment, which He wrote with His own finger (Deuteronomy 9:10).
FILLMER HEVENER, ED.D.
Farmville, Virginia
|
TOP LEVEL
Past Issues
Printer-friendly page
Send this page to a friend