This page includes my letters relating to religious issues to newspaper editors and others, not all of which were published.
Go Home. Go to Table of contents for all letters
Table of contents for letters re Religion
(In chronological order.):
A mountain even faith can't move (letter) re subservience of women in religions.
Non-Catholic teacher ineligible for job opening at Pius X re state-endorsed religious discrimination in hiring.
Alcoholics Anonymous as a religion
Archbishop offers a refreshing dissent re could religious terrorists go to heaven. Yes, they could, but I might not!
Devil & Vatican re Latin as a second language!
Soccer coach as heretic re dismissal for beliefs.
Subsidized teaching of Catholicism
God Out of Courtroom re ban oath on Bible and remove ref. to God from Constitution.
Deciding for the child re questionable "right" of parents and pastor to replace medical care by irrational religious rites.
Circumspection re circumcision re invalid subsidization of religious superstition, and Rabbi fired.
Abortion as death penalty? Why is the Catholic Church against abortion when it is not, in principle, against killing adults?
No soul exists re purported evidence for soul in near-death experiences.
Coverup in Cornwall re sexual abuse of boys by clergy and others
We need less prayer, not more: (letter) no state official should be urging people to pray; it constitutes state endorsement of religion.
Text of letters
Sent: 8 Apr 98. Not published
To: Letters Editor, The Globe and Mail
Re: Facts & Arguments essay 'A mountain even faith can't move' -- 6 Apr 98
Jennifer Hushion, in her Facts & Arguments essay, laments the fact that the Roman Catholic Church relegates women to a secondary role in society. In particular, only men can be priests or hold positions of sacramental authority. It is only within the past fifty years that other major Christian churches have granted such equality to women. The Jewish Orthodox religion has still not done so.
If one bases Christianity on the Bible only, there is ample support for the inferiority of women (and for slavery). However, if one allows ongoing re-interpretation and some degree of democratic change, then change (progress?) is possible.
If, as in the Roman church, one establishes a religion based on the Bible, additional moral theology, and the belief in Papal infallibility, thereby establishing "absolute truth", then the last thing that one would want would be democratic change. The ideal should be the absolute dictatorship of unchanging theological "truth". From this, why would one
expect or want to have, for example, the equality of women? To do so would be to corrupt this "absolute truth". Why compromise "absolute truth"?For a disturbing (to some) insight, I suggest that she read the book "Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven" by Professor Uta Ranke-Heinemann, a noted Catholic theologian. It accuses the Catholic Church of degrading women and undermining the sexuality of believers, and is supported in historical and theological detail.
I wonder why anyone, especially a woman, would want to be a member of such religions (or any religion, for that matter).
Archbishop offers a refreshing dissent
Letters - Ottawa Citizen - canada.com network: http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/letters/story.asp?id={A1D6A7AD-3987-4550-BE7F-CA11C620FEC5}
Wayne R. Paulson The Ottawa Citizen Tuesday, November 06, 2001, p. A13 on paper
Re: Ask the religion experts, Nov. 3.
The column includes the response of Archbishop Marcel Gervais to the question about the supposed afterlife of the religious terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center.
His statement that their actions could "... justify them in the eyes of God" if the suicide bombers "really believed that what they were doing would be rewarded with a life with Allah" is a refreshing dissent from the platitudes of major political leaders that such actions have nothing to do with a particular religion. It seems reasonable to me that such belief was a major motivator of their suicides, even if they were misinterpretations of the Koran and were contrary to what most Muslims believe.
However, his statement that "God asks us not to kill, and all world religions believe this" seems contradictory. In particular, the Roman Catholic Church is not opposed in principle to the death penalty, at least according to The Catholic Encyclopedia.
Presumably, the Roman Catholic Church views the sanctity of human life as important in relation to abortion but not capital punishment.
Wayne R. Paulson,
Ottawa
© Copyright 2001 The Ottawa Citizen
My version, as sent, was as follows:
To: Letters Editor, Ottawa Citizen
Re: Column "ASK THE RELIGION EXPERTS", Nov. 3, p. L8, by Archbishop Marcel Gervais
Proposed title: All religions are not against killing
Alternative title: Life after death for terrorists?
[About 213 words to follow (1,200 characters, including spaces), from ~~~~ to ~~~~.]
~~~~~~~~~~~
Archbishop Marcel Gervais answers the question as to the supposed afterlife of the religious terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center.
His statement that their actions could " . . . justify them in the eyes of God . . . " if they " . . . really believed that what they were doing would be rewarded with a life with Allah . . . " is a refreshing dissent from the misleading platitudes of major political leaders that such actions have nothing to do with a particular religion. It seems reasonable to me that such belief was a major motivator of their suicides, even if they were misinterpretations of the Koran, and were contrary to what most Muslims believe.
However, his statement that "God asks us not to kill, and all world religions believe this" seems to me to be contradictory. In particular, the Roman Catholic Church is not opposed in principle to the death penalty, at least according to The Catholic Encyclopedia*. It is of note that when a prisoner is put to death in the USA, the cause of death is listed officially as homicide, at least in some jurisdictions.
Presumably, the Church views the sanctity of human life as important in relation to abortion but not capital punishment.
~~~~~~~~~~~
===========================
* Ref.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XII
Copyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton Company
Online Edition Copyright © 1999 by Kevin Knight
Nihil Obstat, June 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor
Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New Yorkhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12565a.htm
Excerpt:
The infliction of capital punishment is not contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the power of the State to visit upon culprits the penalty of death derives much authority from revelation and from the writings of theologians.
===========================
About the only person I've found lately who agrees with me on this point, except for some terrorism experts who are not listened to enough, is a Roman Catholic archbishop (Ottawa diocese), when I disagree with Pres. Bush and PM Chretien in saying that, yes, Islam did have something to do with the Sep. 11 attack! There appears to be an overwhelming conception on the part of the public that any so-called bad belief cannot be a religious belief. Their thought is that it is not beliefs that are bad; it is people that are bad. I beg to differ. Now, it appears, those terrorists, who, no doubt believe in Allah, can spend eternity in Paradise watching some of their unbelieving victims roast in Hell forever! I probably won't lack for warmth someday, either! When it comes to justice, I would prefer to be judged by the secular American system than by the one next to St. Peter's heavenly gate. Some might call it faith profiling!
It seems to me that, as much as I disagree with most of the tenets of Christianity, I have to agree with the Archbishop that, at the fundamental basis of Christianity, God could save true believers in God or Allah and reward them with an eternity in Heaven, even though they murdered thousands of people as a direct (if partial) consequence of their true** and devoted beliefs. On the other hand, Christianity seems to teach that since I do not believe in God or Allah, I will not only not go to Heaven, but I will end up in God's eternal torture chamber called Hell, as will many (but not all) of those innocent*** victims of their atrocities.
** What does true mean?
It seems that most people, but not a significant faction of Muslims, maintain that the beliefs of the terrorists in the sacredness of Allah and the Koran are not true religious beliefs. Of course, for me, it is a contradiction in terms to think that any religious belief can be true. However, if we at least consider that a belief can be true in the sense that it accords with a religious dogma, let us proceed. The beliefs of the terrorists could be true to most of the teachings of the Koran, including a belief in the statement of Mohammed to 'slay the idolaters' -- even though most Muslims might argue that such scripture is being misinterpreted. The problem is that it is rather hard to argue that this means other than to murder people solely on the basis that they do not believe in Allah. Besides, unlike the Catholic Church, with its Papal Authority, there is no central authority for Islam. There are, in effect, many versions of Islam, some of which, for example, teach in their schools and mosques to millions of people, today, to murder all Jews and Americans****. Such teachings and beliefs are, by definition, religious. It is very presumptuous of anyone such as President Bush to declare that such beliefs are not true. The belief that one should murder all Americans is just as true a belief as one which admonishes one to love thy neighbor. One statement is no less, nor no more, true or false than the other. By definition, all religious beliefs are irrational. Therefore, any such belief is 'true', in that sense. That a particular belief, such as, for example, belief in the literal presence in the worshipper's mouth of the flesh of Jesus in the ceremony of the Eucharist, is not believed by all religious people, such as, for example, Baptists, is no reason to declare that such a belief is not true. In other words, no matter how perverted an irrational belief involving a supernatural God is, is no reason to declare that it is not a religious belief, or to say that such a belief is not true to a religion.
*** What does innocent mean?
Of course, in the Biblical (and probably Koranic) sense, no one is innocent -- it is just that some might be more innocent than others. All have sinned, if for no other reason than that they acquired sin at birth as a sexually transmitted disease -- transmitted down from Adam and Eve, in what is called original sin. It seems that Christianity teaches that people can be 'saved' from that sin and others, by virtue of belief in Jesus-- and by no other means than by such belief. Saved from what? Saved from being sent to hot torture chambers by God.
President Bush and the priests proclaim how terrible it was that these innocent people were murdered, and that we should pray for them. President Bush is a Christian, or is at least religious, by virtue of having used the word 'pray'. It is contrary to Christianity to say that the victims were innocent. In the eyes of the Biblical teachings, none of these victims can be innocent. In fact, if they do not believe in God, they are less innocent than those who do. In particular, many of these victims were less innocent than their murderers, who obviously believed in God (Allah). It follows, therefore, that some of these victims will go to Hell, whereas their murderers could go to Heaven. Perhaps Heaven affords windows whereby the murderers can watch their victims roast in Hell forever. I am not being perverse here in my deductions of the consequences of Christianity (or of its equivalent in Islam). Please correct me if I am wrong in my impression that it teaches that only through belief in Jesus or God (or Allah) can one -- no matter how innocent secular society might think him to be -- can be saved from going to Hell. Otherwise, is Christianity just a feel-good set of maxims? The Archbishop and I seem to agree with each other that the murderers could go to Heaven whereas some of their victims will go to Hell -- amazing as it may seem! But, I will not dispute that any religious belief is amazing, by definition!
**** Teachings
The clear and present danger to civilization posed by religions of all flavors is not just the teachings themselves, such as, for example, kill all Americans and Jews, it is the willingness of people to believe irrational things, and of followers to believe such teachings or any inferences from them, no matter how ridiculous, and to act on them. Martin Luther (Quotes by Luther) and at least one pope (Quote to bury alive) preached virulent hatred of the Jews. Hitler acted upon those beliefs -- with the enthusiastic support of most of the people and most of the churches of Germany. Who are we to be so presumptuous as to declare that Hitler's beliefs were not religiously true?
Title as published: ?
Editorial changes made: ?
Sent: 16 June 98. Published: ?.
To: Letters Editor, Ottawa Citizen
Re: Article "Non-Catholic teacher ineligible for job opening at Pius X" of 13 June"
Proposed title:
Religious discrimination at Pius X
C:\Up\PiusX.doc 16-Jun-98
(About 415 words to follow.)
From the article "Non-Catholic teacher ineligible for job opening at Pius X" of 13 June, it appears that the teacher Jeff Prentice will not be eligible for a full-time teaching position in the jurisdiction of the Ottawa-Carleton Catholic School Board because it requires that he provide certification that he is a practicing Catholic.I find this situation to be totally offensive, on several grounds, the first being religious discrimination. That is not to say that all discrimination is wrong. For example, I would consider it acceptable for a Catholic Church to arbitrarily disqualify anyone as a potential priest, but only if it is not tax-supported, or tax-exempt (not the case, unfortunately). My objection is that I am under the (perhaps false) impression that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms did not allow for religious (or racial, or sex-based) discrimination in employment, at least in tax-supported organizations. Can the provisions of the Ontario Education Act, which appear to allow for such discrimination, override the Charter? If not, can they override Canada's promise to the United Nations as a signatory to the International Bill of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 26? I should hope not!
I also take offense at Ontario's funding of religion-based schools, be they Catholic or of any religion, because this itself is offensively discriminatory. Also offensive is that such schools surely must aim to inculcate religious belief in students. What other purpose would they serve? In other words, they indoctrinate students with ideas that are, by definition, irrational, i.e., religious. We already have enough irrationality, including superstition, in society without adding to it! I am not proposing that such indoctrination be illegal, offensive and as harmful* to society as it may, but only that I not be forced to subsidize and promote it as a taxpayer.
*I do not use the word "harmful" lightly. Should our taxes be subsidizing a Catholic religion that denies employment (of priests) based solely on sexual discrimination? The largest Protestant denomination in North America (Southern Baptist Convention) a week or so ago affirmed, even more strongly than ever, its belief in the basic subservience of women in marriage. The Christian religions have been the chief supporters of the institution of slavery throughout about 17 or 18 centuries and of the inferiority of women, all Biblically justified. Need I quote chapter and verse? Are these the values and traditions that we want to promote in our children, subsidized by our public taxes?
Sent: 18 June 98
Letter to This Morning, CBC Radio 1
Alcoholics Anonymous as a religion
C:\Up\AARelig.doc 18-Jun-98
(About 288 words to follow.)Unfortunately I missed Monday's interview concerning alcoholism; however, I heard comments by listeners yesterday with which I strongly disagree.
One listener stated that Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) is not a religion, but rather is of a spiritual nature, as is claimed by AA and by referring treatment centres (such as Homewood in Guelph). Half of its core values, the Twelve Steps, explicitly invoke "God", "a Power greater than ourselves", or "Him". The only reasonable interpretation is that AA is a religion.
Several court cases in the USA have found that AA is unequivocally a religion and that mandated attendance at AA meetings violates rights of religious freedom under the US Constitutional. One example: On 11 June 1996, the New York Court of Appeals ruled, in Griffin vs.Coughlin that the substance-abuse program then in use by the New York Department of Corrections was unconstitutional because, "after a fair reading of the doctrinal literature of Alcoholics Anonymous, [the 12-step program was found to be] unequivocally religious." When mandated or forced in any way, 12-step participation is a violation of the most fundamental rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.
In my view, AA is a religion that invokes a form of faith healing for what is arguably not a disease. (When you are using faith healing, it is only ever successful if you "cure" an "illness" that is not a disease!) Another listener claimed that AA is an effective method for overcoming alcoholism. Some claim that it is the only method. Research studies find otherwise. Follow-up studies over periods of many months find that the "cure" rate of those who attend AA meetings is no better, and is in some cases poorer than, for those who get either no treatment whatever or a twenty-minute lecture.
Sent: 27-Jan-99
To: Letters Editor, Globe and Mail
C:\Up\666Subject: Devil & Vatican
(About 262 words to follow.)
<<<<
Re "Devil's still on the job, Vatican warns" -- 27 Jan 99.
So, the Vatican, reaffirming its belief in the existence of the Devil, has issued the Roman Ritual text, that includes procedures for exorcism of the Evil One -- but in Latin only, according to Cardinal Estevez. Versions in other languages are to be available soon. He reassures us that an exorcist can use this manual now, as ". the devil understands Latin".
Does anyone find it a bit scary that one of the signs of possession is "speaking unknown languages"? What if the Devil understands only Latin but not, for example, English or French? Does it then follow that an exorcist, in possession of English, not Latin, himself then become suspect of being possessed by the Devil? Who, then, would be appointed to exorcise the exorcist? Where would it ever end? The ominous portents of the Y2K crisis pale in comparison to this linguistic conundrum. (In Latin, the Y2M, or A Y II M crisis, if you please.)
This is truly one more reason why we need a bilingual society, with Latin as a second language -- or should it, I fear, be the first language? What (or who?) possessed me to write this I'm not sure. I suppose this gives you every right to find me a bit suspect. Perhaps I need to phone IX-I-I for help? Failing that, I could always check the Vatican web site. If I sent an e-mail, I would take care to enable the Latin spell checker -- or is it the cast-a-spell checker?
>>>>
Signed: Wayne R. Paulson, Ottawa
PS to Editor: A suggestion for the Morning Smile (sent also under separate e-mail):
Epitaph on the tombstone of a computer hacker:Nobody understood me as a code-breaker, so infernally gifted.
That's why I lie here -- so totally udecipherable and eternally encrypted!
Sent: 6 Feb 99
To: Letters Editor, Globe and Mail
Soccer coach as heretic (or: Heresy today, gone tomorrow!)
(About 345 words to follow.)
Re: British soccer's public execution -- Feb. 5:
So England's national football coach has been fired because of his beliefs or, more precisely, people's perceptions of them. His use of the terms "karma", "another lifetime", and the allusion that people, including those "with disabilities ", might be subject to "What you sow, you have to reap" were considered, even by Prime Minister Tony Blair, to be so offensive that he had to be fired. The coach apparently also believes in touch therapy, reincarnation, and the need by the football team for a "spiritual advisor".
Now, admittedly, these irrational beliefs sound weird to me, being, by definition, superstitious and religious. But, where have I also encountered ideas such as life after death, reap what you sow, and healing by laying on of hands? Could it be the Bible? As to the idea that a disability might be inherited in relation to karma from a previous lifetime, the concepts of original sin from birth and reaping the sins of thy fathers also ring a decidedly Christian bell. As to spiritual advisors, I heard part of an interview yesterday with the spiritual advisor to President Clinton, with prayer breakfast and all.
Is it not ironic that the Prime Minister of a country whose head of state is also the head of its official Christian church is so critical of beliefs that are essentially Christian?
The coach did not go to the even weirder extreme of expressing a belief that is dogma for many Christians, namely, that in communion ceremonies, people eat the flesh and drink the blood of a quasi-human god, not just symbolically, but literally. They, who hold beliefs that are even weirder than those of the coach, have already cast their stones in righteousness!
I had hoped, apparently in vain, that we had learned some lessons from the Inquisitions and the Salem witch trials and that we would not tolerate tests for heresy in a modern society. However, the recent reassertion by the Church of its belief in demonic possession and exorcism offers me scant hope.
Sent: 19 Feb 99. Published: ?.
To: Letters Editor, Ottawa Citizen
Subsidized teaching of Catholicism
C:\Up\SepSch 19-Feb-99
(About 296 words to follow.)
In her letter "How could non-Catholics teach students Catholicism?" (18 Feb 99, pg D5), Sara Imbleau defends the position that teachers in Catholic separate schools must be Catholic. Her reasoning is logical in that such an education involves a total atmosphere for the inculcation of belief (indoctrination) in the faith and practices of that Church. It would not be sufficient for that purpose to involve religion as only an add-on subject.
The more valid the argument in favor of the above position, the more powerful is the argument that such separate schools should receive no support from public taxation. I find it totally offensive that taxes support religious indoctrination and discrimination in hiring.
I am under the (apparently false) impression that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms forbids religious (or racial, or sex-based) discrimination in employment, at least in tax-supported organizations. Can the Ontario Education Act, which appears to allow for such discrimination, override the Charter? Can they override Canada's pledge to the United Nations as a signatory to the International Bill of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 26? They appear to.
I am not proposing that such indoctrination be illegal, as harmful to society as it may be, but only that taxpayers not be forced to subsidize it.
Should our taxes be subsidizing a religion that denies employment (of priests) based solely on sexual discrimination? The largest Protestant denomination in North America (Southern Baptist Convention) a few months ago reaffirmed its belief in the subservience of women in marriage. The Christian religions have been the chief supporters of the institution of slavery throughout about 17 centuries and of the inferiority of women, all Biblically justified. Are these the values that we want to promote in our children, subsidized by taxes?
Sent: 2 Mar 99. Published: ?.
To: Letters Editor, Ottawa Citizen
C:\Up\GodOut 2-Mar-99
(About 199 words to follow.)
I fully agree with the submission to the federal Justice Department by Brosi Nutting, chief judge of the Saskatchewan provincial court, that the oath on the Bible should be abolished. (1 March, p. A3.)
There is an irony and a paradox in the tradition of swearing an oath on the Bible to tell the truth. By making such an oath and believing it, one is affirming one's belief in the irrational (belief in God), by definition. By making such an oath, but not believing it, one is lying. By being honest and rational by refusing to make such an oath, one might be subject to some suspicion. However, if a court is to depend on the most rational and honest answers, surely it should put more trust in one who refuses to make such an oath rather than in one who takes the oath.
It is also time that the reference to a Supreme Being in the preamble to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be removed. Otherwise, how can all Canadians feel united under the Charter? Freedom from religious belief is just as important as freedom of belief, especially when that belief is expressed by the State.
Sent: 24-Mar-99
Letter to the Editor, Globe and Mail
(About 259 words to follow.)
The medical ethicist Arthur Schafer presents an excellent case for why the State should have intervened to require approved medical treatment for Tyrell Dueck, despite the wishes of he and his parents to seek alternative nutrition therapy and prayer for his cancer. ("Who decides for the child?", 23 Mar 99, p. A17).
Another way to view the situation is to consider the following two propositions. First: what science cannot tell us Man cannot know. I have the impression that most people do not believe this simple but profound proposition. It states that what we cannot determine through science, imperfect as it is, we cannot claim to know. One may claim to believe or to experience, but not to know as truth.
Second: the State should intervene to prevent a person from adopting a course of action that the person believes will lead to enhanced or longer life, but that the State knows will lead to death.
To not believe the first proposition is to believe in magic, miracles, or supernatural effects or beings, one form of which is to believe that prayer can lead to a cure that is more than just psychosomatic. Note that even magicians do not believe in magic, nor do they like to be called magicians for that reason.
In a society that has a law against an informed adult attempting to commit suicide, it is odd (but not surprising to me) that so many people object to the State intervening to prevent a misguided boy from doing so, when everyone wants him to live.
Sent: 16 Apr 99
Letter to Editor, Globe and Mail
C:\Up\Circum1 16-Apr-99
Circumspection re circumcision (Or, .Let's cut health-care costs instead of cutting . . . !)
Re Rabbi wins lawsuit against synagogue (National News, page A7 -- April 15)
(About 206 words to follow.)
An apparent contributing factor in the firing of Rabbi Ben David by his synagogue in St. Catherines was his refusal to sanction the circumcision of a board member's grandson in time (2 days) after birth, instead of the religiously prescribed 8 days, so that Ontario health-insurance coverage would apply.
I an appalled that public tax money would cover circumcision, or that parents could even force this operation upon a baby. Except in rare instances, this procedure is neither medically necessary nor beneficial. In general, any surgery poses a risk. Why ask the Rabbi for permission? Would he be consulted as to the timing of a heart-bypass operation? Because it is primarily a religious ritual. Another name for the procedure is male genital mutilation. It is akin to female genital mutilation, and shares with it its origins in religious superstition and barbarity, and a sad history of painful deaths.The National Health Service of Britain is enlightened enough not to cover circumcision as a valid medical procedure. Nor does it support female genital mutilation.
I am appalled that our system supports at least one of these barbaric, medically contra-indicated, religious rituals. Those who complain that we are short of tax money for health care, please take note.
Signed: Wayne R. Paulson, Ottawa
>>>>>>>>>>
(Note to editor. In case there is some delicacy about associating or equating the words "religion" and "superstition", they mean essentially the same thing: irrational belief, with ritual. Check any dictionary or Catholic encyclopedia.)
Sent: 3 May 99
Letter to Editor, Ottawa Citizen C:\Up\FHeal
Re: Letter to Editor "Church has compiled massive evidence that faith heals", by Lyle R. Young, Toronto, Christian Science Committee on Publication, Page A17, 2 May 99.
(About 296 words to follow.)
In his letter of May 2, Lyle Young cites Christian Science documents to contend that Christian faith healing is effective.
According to Stephen Barrett*, MD, no systematic, medically supervised study of the outcome of Christian Science healing has ever been performed. However, one study suggests that devout Christian Scientists, who rarely consult doctors, pay a high price for avoiding medical care. This study, by William F. Simpson, Ph.D., assistant professor of mathematics and computer science at Emporia State University, compared alumni records from Principia College, a Christian Science school in Elsah, Illinois, with records from the University of Kansas in Lawrence, Kansas. The findings were published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Even though Christian Science tenets forbid the use of alcohol and tobacco, the death rates among those who had graduated from Principia between 1934 and 1948 were higher than those of their University of Kansas counterparts -- 26.2% vs. 20.9% in men, and 11.3% vs. 9.9% in women. A subsequent study comparing the mortality of Christian Scientists and Seventh-day Adventists (who also are admonished to abstain from cigarettes and alcohol) found even greater differences.
Rita and Douglas Swan, whose 16-month-old son Matthew died of meningitis under the care of Christian Science practitioners in 1977, are not surprised by these statistics. She founded CHILD, Inc., PO Box 2604, Sioux
City, IA 51106, to work for legal reforms to protect children from inappropriate treatment by faith healers. They cite 140 cases of children who died in this manner.
No well-designed study has ever demonstrated that religious beliefs or prayer benefit health. In fact there is evidence and good reason to believe that Christian beliefs are detrimental to mental health, as set out by Wendell W. Watters**, MD, Professor Emeritus in Psychiatry, McMaster University, Hamilton.
Signed: Wayne R. Paulson, Ottawa
>>>>>>>>>
* Stephen Barrett, MD, is the operator of the web site Quackwatch, Your Guide to Health Fraud, Quackery, and Intelligent Decisions, atwww.quackwatch.com/index.html.
** Wendell W. Waters, MD, is author of the following:
(1) Church-Going, Stress, and Marital Happiness, a rebuttal for a recent Statistics Canada 'study', Humanist in Canada magazine, Spring 1999, No. 128 (Vol. 32, #1).
(2) Book, "Deadly Doctrine -- Health, Illness, and Christian God-Talk", 'Caution -- Christianity may be hazardous to your health!', Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY, 1992.
The following is a letter that I sent to the Ottawa Citizen. It was published on 9 July 00, p. A15, with the following editorial changes:
a. In the first line, the "e" in "Andre" was given back its acute accent.
b."preborn", although stated as such in Dr. Lafrance’s letter, was changed to "pre-born".
c. The Catholic Encyclopedia was changed to The Catholic Encyclopedia.
d. The footnotes were not included, nor did I intend them to be. They were only there for the benefit of the Letters Editor because many people, including Catholics, believe (wrongly) that the Catholic Church is opposed to the death penalty.
e. The title was changed to "Leap of logic".
C:\My Documents\Up\OCCapPun.rtf 6-Jul-00
To: Letters Editor, Ottawa Citizen
Re: Letter "Death penalty", 6 July 00, p. A13, by W. Andre Lafrance, MD, Ottawa
Abortion as death penalty?
(About 150 words to follow, from ~~~~ to ~~~~.)
~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. W. Andre Lafrance argues that those who oppose the death penalty for criminals should, if they are logical, also oppose abortion, on the basis that it is equivalent to or worse than a death penalty for a "preborn human." ("Death penalty", July 6).
A major opponent of abortion is the Roman Catholic Church, many of whose Bishops and followers oppose the death penalty. The Church, however, is not opposed in principle to the death penalty, at least according to The Catholic Encyclopedia*.
If there is a leap of logic in equating abortion with capital punishment, there appears to be another one in condemning one practice but not the other, unless one assumes that a "preborn human" is not a "human being."
Could two logical wrongs make a right? Could three?
Presumably, the Church views the sanctity of human life as important in relation to abortion but not capital punishment.
~~~~~~~~~~~
* Ref.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XII
Copyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton Company
Online Edition Copyright © 1999 by Kevin Knight
Nihil Obstat, June 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor
Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New Yorkhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12565a.htm
Excerpt:
"The infliction of capital punishment is not contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the power of the State to visit upon culprits the penalty of death derives much authority from revelation and from the writings of theologians."
You are free to publish any or all of the above, including my name and city.
Signed, Wayne R. Paulson, Ottawa
Title as published: "No soul exists"
Editorial changes made: None
Sent: 31 Oct 00. Published: 9 Nov 00.
To: Letters Editor, Ottawa Citizen
Re: Letter "The spirit has no mass" by the Rev. Cathie Mann, Ottawa, Oct. 31, 2000, p. A15
Proposed title: Mass of the soul
(About 141 words to follow, from ~~~~ to ~~~~ .)
~~~~~
In her letter (The spirit has no mass, Oct. 31), the Rev. Cathie Mann responds to the article "The soul survives after brain dies" (Oct. 27). She quotes the late L. Ron Hubbard of the Church of Scientology to the effect that man is a spiritual being and that the spirit has "no mass, no wavelength, and no energy."
Might I modestly propose that one additional property of the soul, as spoken of here, is that it does not exist!
In the scientific method, there is a principle of parsimony by which the simpler of two possible explanations is preferred. Neuroscientists had already proposed general explanations for near-death experiences, based on chemical effects of known neurotransmitters in the brain.
Although such findings do not rule out the existence of a soul, they also do not rule out the existence of unicorns.
~~~~~
You are free to publish any or all of the above, edited as you wish, and to quote my name and city.
Coverup in Cornwall Dateline: Tuesday, January 09, 2001. Published in Straight Goods: http://goods.perfectvision.ca/ViewLetter.cfm?REF=125, Home: http://www.straightgoods.com/
This is to inform you of an ongoing story entitled "Project Truth" by the Ontario Provincial Police, investigating allegations of sexual abuse of boys over many years by Roman Catholic clergy and others in Cornwall, Ontario. Several charges have been laid, however, it appears that progress has been slow. There are fears of a cover-up at high levels. MPP Gary Guzzo (PC) has written several letters to Premier Harris and to the Attorney General of Ontario pointedly questioning the apparent lack of progress.
I saw a news item on this topic on the 11 pm CTV News (CJOH, Ch. 13, Ottawa) on either Thursday or Friday, Jan 4 or 5, which alerted me to the Project Truth Web site listed below. I have no personal connection with this story, however, I thought that it might make an interesting one for Straight Goods to pursue, particularly in light of the following information copied from that site:
"With the exception of the Ottawa Sun, Ontario's print media has been strangely silent on Guzzo's courageous and bold interjections. Not a boo from the Ottawa Citizen, the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star or The National Post. Strange indeed from a media which delights in political intrigue.
Since Gary Guzzo's interjection into the Cornwall affair became public, Project Truth has spread the word that Cornwall is caught in the grips of McCarthyism..."
Extracts from Project Truth 2:
Is It Possible?
"A pedophile clan" involving clergy and other prominent "pillars of the community" in Cornwall, Ontario, CANADA.
"Listen To Me"
In February of 1992, a former altar boy, David Silmser, contacted officials in the Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall asking for an apology. David claimed a local parish priest, Father Charles MacDonald, had sexually abused him. The apology was not forthcoming.
In December of 1992, this same David turned to the Cornwall Police Services for help. David disclosed his claims.
Denial or Cover-Up?
Since early in this story there was talk of covert meetings between prominent citizens and clergy, regarding "cover-up" of the allegations. Many citizens believe that the investigation by the Solicitor General of Ontario and by the Ontario Provincial Police, referred to as "Project Truth," initiated in 1997, is more of an effort to bury the "truth" as opposed to shedding light on the truth. Earlier investigations (more than one since 1992) exonerated police of any wrongdoing and concluded that no charges were warranted.
Allegations of a "pedophile clan" or a.k.a. "the clan" first came to light-years ago when Constable Perry Dunlop asserted that such a clan was operating within the Church and within the City of Cornwall and surrounding area. Skeptics laughed and rebuttals from community leaders denounced the allegations, and chastised the community for participating in such rumour. To date, there are challenges that "Project Truth" investigator's have been dragging their feet for one reason or another. (Do not forget, David first approached the diocese in 1992 and then was interviewed by police only in 1993.)
I guess it is up to each of us to determine how we feel about it. In the order of 940 people have been interviewed in the Ontario Provincial Police investigation, more than 70 charges have been laid against more than twelve men for sex offences against at least 25 victims. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has conducted its own investigative report into the allegations and has interviewed people claiming to have direct evidence against "The Clan;" people that were never interviewed by the police (1999). At least one of the individuals interviewed by the C.B.C. claims that he is hiding-out in the United States because he fears that he will be murdered; "I know too much," he says, " if they charge me I'll bring everyone down."
Charged to date are Roman Catholic Priests, two Lawyers with high profiles in the Roman Catholic Church.
1-Jacques Leduc will face trial after a preliminary hearing determined enough evidence exists to warrant a trial and;
2-the other, Malcolm MacDonald (see obituary in Cornwall Standard-Freeholder dated December 28, 1999) committed suicide in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Both of the aforementioned had directly designed the David/Roman Catholic Diocese "hush-money," settlement, mentioned on page one. Charged also has been a Brother who had previously taught in a local Roman Catholic school, a doctor, several local businessmen and a local coroner, (the coroner passed away in his home in December 1999 while awaiting his trial date to be rendered the same week of his death.)
On 18 September 1998, Gary Guzzo (a sitting member of Ontario's Progressive Conservative Provincial Government) sent a letter marked "Private and Confidential" to Premier Mike Harris. Therein, Guzzo advises the Premier that contrary to what he (Harris) might be told by his Attorney General and Solicitor General, the Project Truth investigation is not progressing as it should and has not followed up on "volumes of information" turned over to the Attorney General and Solicitor General by Perry Dunlop.
Mr. Guzzo again put pen to paper on 23 February 1999, this time telling the Premier that since his previous communication he (Guzzo) has had the occasion to spend ten days in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. He writes:
"I want you to understand how embarrassing it is for me to attempt to answer the pointed questions of a retired police officer with regard to this issue..."
There is much additional information on the site, including letters to editors, archives, pictures and contacts.
Wayne Paulson Ottawa, Ontario
Related addresses:
Go home. Go to Table of contents for all letters. Go to Table of contents for letters re Religion
You can e-mail me at waynerp@sympatico.ca