Letters to the Editor – 7/23/14


Congratulations on the 30th anniversary of the MidWeek family! Lots of great articles in the special issue brought back fond memories of days long gone, especially your publisher Ron Nagasawa’s “Looking Back At 30 Years.”

On a side note, I look forward to MidWeek‘s 50th anniversary since Ron and I have a deal — going back to an email exchange after the 25th anniversary — that he will personally deliver that issue to me wherever I may be: Earth, heaven, hell or purgatory. But hopefully I’ll still be around — I’ll be 99 then.

Seriously, keep up the good work. We all look forward to reading about the “life and times” of Ron, plus all the other great articles.

Clarence Ching

Too much faith?

Thanks to Jay Sakashita for his excellent commentary on “Reasons People Of Faith Fast.” Two of his observations resonated with me.

First, “the lifestyle and practices of those different from us become intolerable and distasteful when we overindulge in our own faith.” Second, “when one indulges in religion to such an extent that one is full of one’s own faith, it becomes easy to dismiss the downtrodden and those who follow a different path.”

I agree. The danger in being so blinded by one’s own faith is the trend in this country toward legislating religion. The orchestrators of this trend seek to compel everyone to live by their religious values. It’s worth mentioning that these same folks see no problem with legislating religion, as long as it’s their religion and not someone else’s. Case in point, the recent Hobby Lobby decision by the Supreme Court ensures that any corporation can decide for its employees what kind of healthcare they can and cannot have, all veiled under a religious objection.

At issue were certain methods of birth control that the Christian owners of Hobby Lobby objected to. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists condemned the Court’s actions because it not only “allows employers to impose their religious views on their female employees’ health care,” but also because it creates barriers to access important healthcare for women that promotes the well-being of women and families.

The Supreme Court apparently is more interested in promoting an agenda. Justice Ginsburg’s dissent questions what would happen if the court’s decision would “extend to employers with religious objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews and Hindus), and vaccinations (Christian Scientists, among others)?” What happens when corporations realize that they can use a religious objection to insinuate themselves into other non-healthcare aspects of our lives?

Becky Ann Yoza
Pearl City