Letters to the Editor for May 19, 2009

Isn’t everyone created equal?

I am opposed to the new club for homosexuals at the high school. I’m a strong Catholic, and I believe what my church teaches. Homosexual behavior is wrong. Simple as that. Therefore, nothing that’s said will change my belief in this matter. It’s wrong to lead these teens down this path. I am in full agreement with Linda Opperman on her stand about the club. I oppose it. That’s my opinion. I'm tired of hearing how “intolerable” and “rejecting” this town is to homosexuals. Because the only “intolerance” I'm hearing is towards people like me, who don’t support homosexuality.

Isn't everyone created equal? So why do I have to have their beliefs shoved down my throat, yet it’s discriminating for me to voice my opinion against their sexuality? It’s not my fault if they’re offended that I don’t go out of my way to make them feel more secure about themselves. And it’s not like everyone in school is going around saying “if you’re gay, you can’t talk to me,” so quit treating them like they are.

I have nothing against these people. I have a friend who is a homosexual. Does that make me feel any hatred towards that person? No, it doesn’t whatsoever. But just because that person is a homosexual, doesn’t mean I’m going to treat them like a celebrity, either. I’m sorry if I treat everyone equally.

And in response to those that feel that teens are an “at risk” group of people for suicide because they don’t feel “welcome”: There are counselors for that. And to those who think the homosexual teens need “a safe haven” to feel welcome and understood . . . that’s also called counseling. It can help.

But honestly, in Baker there are no kids sitting around with nobody to talk to because they’re gay. So as Linda Opperman said, “How many of you will make a stand for truth and righteousness?” I know it’s wrong, and I think everyone knows exactly where I stand on this. So now it’s up to the rest of you to help steer these kids back on the right path.     

Ruthie Boyd

Baker City

Don’t become a ‘subject’ of the U.S.

To the editor:

Stating that the issue of control is a hot topic is somewhat of a cliche, but when writing about it it’s usually the most appropriate thing to say. People have often made the fallacious argument that other countries that enact strict gun control laws have less crime. Others say that the opposite is true for the same reason.

The truth is that both are correct. The laws of various countries are not usually passed because of real statistical data. Instead, public perception and strong emotion often monopolize the political arena.  At times, one incident can spark a bill that becomes more controversial than a shooting incident itself. The problem with comparing our country to others is that every law passed in various countries is culturally based. Gun control in Japan, for example, is a reflection of the old feudal system, also making it a “police state de facto,” regardless of the claim that it is a democracy.  England’s culture is based on self-control, and guns only being a privilege to the “landed gentry”; hence, there are more gun restrictions.

Yet there is one commonality among those countries: lack of civil liberties. As a norm, these countries don’t require warrants for searches. In England, people are subjects, not citizens. Yet in America, our gun culture is a reflection of the final check and balance of the government: our right to revolt with arms. In this context, gun laws should be compared with culture, not the perception of public safety.

Laws have statistically been proven ineffective. Our gun culture reflects civil liberty, and if taken away, we risk becoming a “police state” or “subjects” instead of citizens. We are the final check and balance against a tyranny.      

Jason Smith

Baker City

Club backers leave aside logic

To the editor:

Recent letters to the editor regarding the “gay” club at BHS reflect some problems with logical reasoning. Political correctness, unfortunately, often requires a suspension of critical thinking skills.

Here are a few of the general statements that have appeared, and an explanation as to the logical inconsistencies therein.

1. “We must be tolerant.” Yes and no: carried to its logical extreme, this philosophy of moral relativism simply leads to anarchy. There are limits to what we should tolerate, because there are absolute “rights” and “wrongs.” For instance, if we must accept homosexual relationships as “normal,” then why are we not required to also accept pedophilia as a valid “lifestyle?” It makes sense that we respect and tolerate persons, but we are not required to unequivocally approve their actions or behaviors. Additionally, we do not need religion to determine the wrongness of homosexuality (as well as other behaviors) — we can discern this fact from the natural law.

2. “Only God can judge.” Certainly, only God can judge what is in our minds and hearts; there are no mind-readers among us. However, God has given us the faculty to determine right from wrong, and we therefore have the responsibility to judge behaviors — we are to “hate the sin, love the sinner.” Every society understands this principle. Otherwise, we would not have laws, and we would not hold people accountable to those laws. People — or at least their actions — are judged in courts of law on a daily basis!

3. “We need a club for students who think they are homosexual so that they will not feel alienated.” Wrong again. Do we also need a club for students who smoke and feel alienated by their non-smoking friends? Of course not: we do not want to encourage unhealthy behavior. And since homosexuality is an unhealthy lifestyle, it should not be encouraged or even condoned. Clear thinking is the antidote to the fuzzy emotionalism of the “feel-good” mentality embraced by moral relativism.       

Jay Boyd

Baker City

More to the settlement story

To the editor:

As one of the parties involved in the lawsuit described in your May 6 article, I felt a response was required to correct some misinformation provided to you.

First, as stated, the lawsuit was settled. The allegations against me and the Hospital were just that, nothing more. Had the case gone to trial, it would have been pointed out that thousands of surgical deaths occur each year in the United States in the absence of fault of anyone. There are risks to surgery and anesthesia acknowledged in an Informed Consent exchange between the patient and the health care providers. The more health problems a patient may have, the greater the risks. Events can transpire during a procedure whether or not that procedure is routine. Such efforts can be beyond the control of the health care providers despite their best efforts. That is what happened here according to the testimony of doctors who performed the surgery.

I was the sole anesthesia provider at St. Elizabeth for almost 10 years and have a long list of supportive patients and physicians from hundreds of procedures during those years. Had the case proceeded to trial, some of those people undoubtedly would have testified on my behalf.

I have retired from anesthesia/nursing services. I did not retire due to this lawsuit or any Nursing Board investigation. I have had an approximately 30-year career in this field and my wife and I decided to retire and change direction toward an entrepreneurial opportunity we are passionate about.

I hope my actions and words have made clear my thankfulness and humility for being able to care for my patients over the past 10 years. It has been privilege to serve you. I thank the supportive physicians, physician assistants, nursing staff, pharmacists and former patients for stepping forward in my defense. Had the case proceeded to trial, the facts revealed would have been far different than the allegations made.

My wife and I plan to continue to live in Baker City. I will wave or honk from the car when I see you because I am not on call anymore. Good health to you all.      

David E. Loper

Baker City