Share This Page

Ferlo's sleight of hand

| Saturday, July 13, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

State Sen. Jim Ferlo's letter “Dems, GOP both harming U.S.” (July 7) attempts the progressive sleight of hand, promoting liberal causes célèbres while at the same time denouncing the “erosion of our rights.”

What is the sleight of hand?

Ferlo is bound to progressivism, and nothing is more important than progressivism. The telltale sign is his statement about the “fight for freedom of religion and of ‘non-religion.'” While the Founding Fathers did not endorse a particular religion, they did endorse the notion of God in a Judeo-Christian sense. As such, rights come from Providence, and the concomitant responsibilities associated with those rights come from God as well, all bound together in the natural law.

Some people falsely believe natural law is “a Catholic thing,” but many non-Catholics — even non-Christians — believe in the natural law.

Look no further than ancient Hellenistic philosophy. The majority of Founders were not Catholic, yet they believed in natural law. Progressivism, as seen in both Democrat and Republican parties, has wrested the origin of rights and responsibilities away from Providence so that they now emanate from government.

Ferlo's argument for the availability of abortion and “spend(ing) less time thinking about sexual acts between consenting adults” places him squarely on the progressive side of the Democratic Party.

If Ferlo were in Congress, he would squarely support abortion, same-sex marriage and stomping with the big foot of the federal government upon our rights given to us by Providence.

Sen. Ferlo, stop the charade.

The Rev. James

Holland

West Deer

The writer is the administrator of the Transfiguration Parish in Russellton.

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.