Dear Editor: Some years ago, my colleague Louis Bolce and I published an article entitled “Our Secularist Democratic Party,” using survey and poll data documenting the drift toward secularism of the Democratic Party. The trend has only been accelerated in recent years.
Note the speculation of a “theological revolt” or “Catholic Spring” hoped for by Clinton aides John Podesta, Sandy Newman and Jennifer Palmieri. Recall also the Obama Administration’s assault on the Little Sisters of the Poor. Think of what three Clinton-appointed Justices would do. Forget school choice, educational tax credits, any movement on the pro-life front, and basic religious liberty.
Trump has many faults. I don’t believe, however, he would contemplate fomenting a revolt in the Catholic Church. On the other hand, Clinton said religious doctrines must be changed.
GERALD DE MAIO
Dear Editor: I read with great interest John Garvey’s column (Oct. 22).
In the upcoming presidential election, if the victor received a less than majority popular vote, the ability of that victor’s runaway trolley to do harm might be substantially lessened. One wonders how the Congress would act if its members saw that their parties could not deliver the vote. I suspect that one of the results would be that our Congressmen would begin to put more emphasis on the issues of his constituents and less on party issues. I think that such an outcome could only be achieved if there are significant votes for third party and write-in candidates or if the are many who abstain.
When I suggest third party, write-in or abstention from the Presidential vote, some like to point to the Supreme Court. I suggest that they look at Supreme Court appointments from Nixon forward. They will see that from 1968 to present there have been 16 appointments to the Supreme Court. Twelve were made by Republican presidents. That is the party that likes to say that it wants to restore respect for human life. In spite of the appointments, I still expect to be standing in the cold in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 27 for the March for Life.
If we continue to vote for the poor candidates put forth by the major parties we should not be surprised to see this type of thing to continue or even get worse. The only other alternative is third party, write-in or abstention.
Dear Editor: Every life lost to abortion is a crime against humanity. Yet everyday, another 3,500 babies are legally aborted in this country.
The staggering sum of deaths attributable to Roe vs. Wade is fast approaching 59,000,000. That’s roughly one and a half times the population of all of Poland or Spain, or about 10 times the number of deaths authorized by Hitler. It is inconceivable to me how any other election issue can eclipse our American Holocaust.
To vote in a pro-abortion candidate is to sanction the abortion of another 5,600,000 babies over the next election term, with approximately 48,000 of these as partial-birth abortions, based on past statistics.
Dear Editor: While Donald Trump claims to respect the life of the unborn, he does not respect women, Mexicans, immigrants, overweight people, or people with disabilities. He has made this disrespect clear in his words and actions. Can he truly be called a candidate who respects life?
Dear Editor: Some say that Trump’s comments are shallow and he lacks the temperament to be president. Others say “let’s set Hillary’s far-left stand on abortion aside.”
Trump has two specific approaches to advocate for women and children: 1. Don’t kill them before they are born. 2. After birth give them opportunity to work and succeed by among other things, lowering taxes on corporations that create jobs.
Obama is the first president in U.S. history that has not experienced 3 percent economic growth in any year of his term. There are specific reasons for this: 1. EPA regulations by an agency that is neither elected, nor responsible to anyone, shutting down the coal industry in four states; 2. High taxes driving businesses to Ireland.; 3. Cost of Obamacare is a disincentive to hire anyone.
Hillary promises to continue this policy of 1 percent economic growth into the future.
Dear Editor: Donald Trump has said that he has never asked for forgiveness. It’s time for him to start.
He should ask forgiveness from President Barack Obama for his attempt to delegitimize the presidency of our first African-American president by suggesting that he was not born in the United States; then he should ask forgiveness from Hillary Clinton for bearing false witness against her by saying that she had started the birther lies; then he should ask forgiveness from the American people for five years of deception through which he has expressed his contempt for all of us.
And, of course, he should ask forgiveness from God. We Catholics should certainly pray for him, but under no circumstances should we vote for him.
Dear Editor: The presidential election offers a singular problem: both candidates are deplorable. The need to vote one’s conscience is mandatory, and the conscience has to consider what is known of both candidates, not only what is suspected (or prejudiced). The fact is that one of the candidates is a potential disaster, while the other is an actual disaster, and that between crude language and murder one, there is an enormous difference.
The world operates on love (God is love). We learn to love from our mothers. To teach those mothers that they are entitled to discard the fruit of their loves is fatal, not only to the baby but for society and it’s culture.
The hatred under which we are living is the product of wrong choices. One candidate stinks, the other proposes criminal policies. It is my opinion that we have to hold our noses.
Dear Editor: In light of Hillary Clinton’s hostility to the Catholic Church and the open anti-Catholic bigotry, I am moved to speak out.
Wouldn’t one want an honest president? The United States Naval Academy’s honor code is simply not to lie, cheat or steal.
Hillary has lied many times on very grave issues and she has taken large amounts of money from several foreign governments for special considerations. And without a doubt, participated in cheating Bernie Sanders in the rigged Democratic presidential primary race.
Hillary is pro-abortion (even at the third trimester) and recently said, “Religious beliefs against abortion have to be changed.”
The hard e-mail evidence shows the Clinton corruption has no boundaries and Hilary’s disdain for Catholics.
Anne Arundel County, Md.
Dear Editor: Politicians, your first obligation is to God and His Church. If you choose to be a politician is fine but to vote against your church beliefs because of political reasons, you deny your Faith and God for your personal agenda.
I believe we as Catholics are obliged to vote for the person who will support our God’s order that life begins at conception and religious freedom.
We are have faults we are not proud of. I am quite sure Donald Trump is sorry for his. I can see Donald as my only choice because of his commitment to religious freedom and life of the unborn.
Dear Editor: Many of the letters to The Tablet regarding the current presidential candidates focus on a single issue: abortion.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, “Since 1980, the national number (and rate) of abortions has remained relatively stable, with only small (less than or equal to 5%) year-to-year fluctuations.
“However, since 1984, the national abortion ratio (compared to live births) has declined.” Since 1984, there have been 16 years of Republicans holding the office of the Presidency and 16 years of Democrats in the office. This suggests that, rhetoric aside, a Republican Presidency (or Republican control of the U.S. House or Senate) has little impact on the number of abortions nationwide.
In the current Presidential race, we have a man who dismissed his talk by calling it ‘locker room banter.’ This was talk he engaged in at the age of 59. It is talk which I never heard in the locker room at Brooklyn Prep over 55 years ago and which I do not hear at my local YMCA – or anywhere else, for that matter.
FRANCIS X. BOLTON