Published: Tuesday, March 6, 2012,
In her letter "The Catholic cult" (VND, Feb. 22), Norma Bronder talks about religion rearing "its ugly head," but what's really rearing its ugly head is her anti-Catholic bigotry when she refers to the bishops as "pointy-hatted vestiges of the Middle Ages."
Just who is dictating to whom• The Catholic Church has no power whatsoever to coerce anyone to follow its teachings. On the other hand, the Obama administration has the force and power of the government to coerce his supposedly enlightened views on the entire country and to dictate what an individual's insurance can and cannot cover.
And while Ms. Bronder refers to the "fables" of religion, her evolved opinion ignores the fable of the benefits of contraception. Has widespread contraception been a boon to women• Widespread divorce, exploitation of women through pornography, abortion, broken homes, single mothers — these are all the fruits of the sexual revolution enabled by the empty promises of readily available contraception.
It gives the illusion that we are able to do what we want without consequence, much as deficit spending does in the economic world. The end result in both cases is the human and societal wreckage that we see today.
If Bronder wants us to "evolve as a species," I suggest she drop her hatred of Catholicism and actually learn why the church opposes contraception.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.