| Democracy and Universal Healthcare Letter |
|
| Alpena News. Alpena, MI. Response from Mr. Eastwood to 7-5-08 Letter Included |
|
|
| Importance of Varried Sources for News |
|
| Alpena News. Alpena, MI 6-6-08 |
|
|
| Communism and Healthcare |
|
| Alpena News. Alpena, MI. 7-5-08, Letter from Charles Morgan included |
|
|
| Mixed Martial Arts & Sports Brutality |
|
| Alpena News. Alpena, MI 5-17-08 |
|
|
7/3/2009 http://www.thealpenanews.com/page/content.detail/id/505899.html Nowhere in Mr. Galloway's (6/26) letter does he mention
economics, regulation, or government in describing "Conservative foundations." Whereas religion is obviously important
to him, and myself, in shaping the values we hold and decisions we make, it has no place in a government that must serve and
protect all its peoples, regardless of religion. A government built upon a "Conservative foundation" does not tax
for programs the People do not want; does not regulate how the People engage in personal or civil commerce; does not dictate
through religious tenant what laws shall be made concerning the People's behavior or choices. By using the scripture of the
nation's dominant religion as the basis for Law, Galloway follows a theocratic path down which Saudi Arabia and Iran -both
based in Sharia, Islamic Law- have lead. This is the corruption of religion in government, the abrogation of the church-state
separation, and is not the traditional "foundation" of Conservative government. Founding father Thomas Jefferson,
wanting the government to stay out of most everything the People do (a conservative value) said, "I am for freedom of
religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another" (Thomas Jefferson to
Elbridge Gerry, 1799). Let our respective religions guide our personal moral compass, Mr. Galloway, but let us not impose
them upon others through Law nor use them as leverage for political gain. Robert Gandy
|
5/29/2009 http://www.thealpenanews.com/page/content.detail/id/505543.html Let me elaborate on the "anarchy" Mr. Knudson
(5/22) thinks I'm driving our country towards: In that great, frightening future, I can make a promise before God and government
to be forever faithful to whomever I love, and my newly forged family can enjoy federal protection of 1,138 statutes that
the unmarried cannot. What a disastrous, terrible thing. I shudder at the chaos in the streets when we choose to have children
or adopt. I tremble at the pandemonium that will ensue when one of us is hospitalized, and gets welcomed visits by the other.
It will be a fearful day when my lawfully wedded spouse passes away, and I, alone and grieving, am left to sort out their
affairs with the survivors of our loving family. Mr.
Knudson is welcomed to stand firm in his faith in opposing my way of life, and I will respect him and his church for not allowing
me to get married there; my church will. I will defend to the death the right for Mr. Knudson to believe and worship how he
chooses, but neither he, nor anyone else, has the right to impose those beliefs on me. If he thinks it's "anarchy,"
then so be it, and I hope in that feral future, his family and mine can enjoy equal protection under the law. Our political system should be focused around issues, not my party
vs. your party. It's about the well being of our country for future generations, not a team sport. If it's not obvious both
of the parties are bought and paid for, then you haven't been paying close enough attention. Vote issues, not affiliations.
Do your homework; don't just believe what one network or another spoon feeds you. Who cares how an ethnicity votes? How do
you vote? Robert Gandy |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
