I appreciated Katie Strickland’s column (“Religious
right uses morality only when convenient,” Aug. 28) and her
ability to articulate her views. As an alumnus, I often read the
Daily Bruin and enjoy the Viewpoint articles. I appreciate her
willingness to address important issues.
In regard to the aforementioned column, I want to encourage her
to dig a little deeper in her research. In commenting on President
Bush’s support of in vitro fertilization, Strickland failed
to mention that one of Bush’s primary motives for supporting
this method is that it would use embryos that are not being used.
In fact, Strickland’s use of his support for in vitro
fertilization was actually painted in a negative light to show what
she believed to be hypocrisy.
Instead, most informed readers will know that Bush is on record
on many occasions making the very point that she criticized him
for. Bush actively promotes those who believe that we must not
leave embryos frozen. For example, at his press conference on stem
cell research on May 24, 2005, Bush had Lori Maze, the director of
Snowflakes Frozen Embryo Adoption program, in attendance because of
his commitment to seeing all embryos adopted and none left in
stasis.
Strickland also asked why no war is being waged on
“regular” birth control pills. I recognize that this is
an important difference of opinion for many people, but most
Christians believe that life begins at conception. Therefore, there
is a huge difference between preventing conception and terminating
an embryo after conception. I would encourage her to take a look at
Chuck Colson’s “How Now Shall We Live?” to get a
better understanding of a traditional Christian worldview. It might
help those who are unfamiliar with Christian ideas on birth control
to at least appreciate and understand the logic behind the rhetoric
of the “religious right.”
It is on this last point that I would also like to encourage her
most. I would guess that Strickland has a strong desire for those
people who do not share her viewpoints to give her a hearing. I
know I do.
As a person who does not share her views, I want to sound back
to her that the use of some of the more rhetorical hot buttons,
like “religious right,” is a huge turn-off.
When I see this type of rhetoric, it generally comes across to
me as someone “preaching to the choir,” but not
entering seriously into the public square for a debate based on the
merits of one’s argument.
Many who criticize conservative voters have a tendency to paint
them all in the light of Pat Robertson or whomever is the current
hot-button conservative of the day. Few will acknowledge some of
the more thoughtful thinkers as our representatives ““ George
Will and Colson come to mind.
I regularly try to stay on top of what people across the
religious and political spectrum are saying. That is why I stayed
with her in her article, because once we get past the rhetoric, we
realize that the stuff that she’s talking about really does
matter.
Alderman is a 1994 alumnus.