Imposing religion on others
I found the opinion piece, “Religious bigotry on display” (Emilie Kao, T&D, Oct. 19) deeply disturbing.
Kao states “When a high-ranking official challenges a citizen’s ability to serve simply because of her religious identity, beliefs or affiliations, it demonstrates that anti-religious bigotry is acceptable.” Identity, beliefs and affiliations, however, are not at issue in this case. What is at issue is the nomination of an individual who apparently would have no problem imposing her personal religious beliefs on the rest of us.
Few Americans endorse outright economic and social discrimination (let alone genocide) of people because of their religion; our Constitution, after all, guarantees freedom of religion. A similarly small proportion of the U.S. population endorses discrimination based on race, gender, country of origin or sexual orientation.
Unfortunately, though, some religionists feel they have the right to impose their religious beliefs on the population at large. Such impositions include opposition to legal abortion, refusal to provide commercial services to those whose beliefs disagree with theirs, denial of medical insurance that covers birth control to their employees and insistence on teaching creationism (thinly disguised as “intelligent design”) in the public schools.
The concern many of us have regarding Amy Coney Barrett’s suitability for a seat on the Supreme Court arises not from her religion, but from her apparent willingness, even eagerness, to impose her personal religious beliefs (which appear to be quite extreme) on the U.S. population at large. While Barrett has been evasive regarding her position on Roe vs. Wade, she appears to support returning to the individual states the ability to enact legislation prohibiting abortion, and possibly allowing prosecution of women who have abortions, medical providers who perform abortions and even those who help women travel to other states or countries where abortion is legal. What might her views be on the teaching of evolution? On access to birth control?
Those of us who oppose Barrett’s nomination do so not because of her religion, but because of her apparent willingness to subjugate common sense and human rights to religious dogma.
Morgan E. Stewart, Orangeburg
I read the fine article written by Bradley Harris regarding the District 39 Senate candidates' debate held on Oct. 8 at the Premiere in Orangeburg.
In the article it was reported that I stated that I would not support legislation regulating the use of RU-486, or mifepristone, for the purposes of inducing an abortion. I was quoted correctly, but in my mind I was confusing the use of RU-486 with that of the “Morning after Pill,” which is an entirely different thing.
RU-486 is a two-part treatment that causes a woman’s body to reject an unborn child in a most violent fashion and can be used during the first 63 days of a pregnancy. I will not go into the procedure here but would rather have readers Google the term on their own time. This is a true form of abortion that is just as effective as a surgeon's knife. Both methods lead to the same result -- the end of a human being’s life.
The “Morning after Pill,” referred to as an ECP ( Emergency Contraceptive Pill) is used the morning after by women to halt the progression of a pregnancy in its earliest stages by disrupting ovulation or fertilization of an egg.
For the record, I do support legislation regulating the use of RU-486.
Tom Connor, state Senate candidate, District 39