Letters to the Editor

Dear Editor:

I feel compelled to respond to the eloquent letter written by Ed Lundberg (December 10) in response to my letter of December 3, because his letter misrepresents the position of my own and, of more concern to me, misrepresents my own attitudes and beliefs.

First, it is paramount to clarify that it was the COURIER, not I, that incorporated the heading “Freedom from Religion” that preceded my letter—a heading I found disturbing when the paper came out, since “Freedom from Religion” (again, the COURIER’s words) was not what I was arguing nor is it what I believe. I am hard pressed to find anything in my letter that would suggest that I believe that we should be free from religion. Rather, my point was that we are Constitutionally free to practice our religion however we wish; the government cannot overlay any one religious belief or agenda upon us. The inclusion of such a heading for my letter was provocative and set me up for criticism of a personal nature, which is what ensued.

Mr. Lundberg quoted a passage from my letter in which I suggested that the editorial in question was using “religion as a weapon to prey upon those who do not have the education or realm of knowledge to understand more than the surface of the editorial’s argument” or, as Mr. Lundberg put it, “religion is for dummies!” a meaning that subverts my words and meaning entirely. Getting past the point that his remark is a terrible thing to say, and certainly not something I would ever say, whether in the privacy of my home or in public, I am puzzled about how and even why Mr. Lundberg could derive this meaning from my words. In the context of my letter, this sentence was referring to the use of the quotations in the editorial, not to those who practice their religion. My point was, and still is, that without a frame of knowledge, NO ONE can judge the value, relevance, or veracity of information being presented to him/her, and when ideas are couched in terms of religious belief, it can become even more difficult.

Mr. Lundberg goes on to suggest that it is “not sufficient for [me] to argue historical and textual context and let it go at that.” In fact, Mr. Lundberg is correct—any argument should be supported and carefully explained. Perhaps omitting further explanation of this point was in error on my part. But it seemed to me that my role was not to present a summary of the political positions of the men quoted by the editorial or to provide an exegesis of their writings. Rather, my hope was to suggest to the newspaper’s readers that these quotations were essentially “sound bytes” derived from sagacious and well-respected historical figures whose eminence might well blind one to the need to understand the source of or motivation for their remarks.

Additionally, I must correct Mr. Lundberg’s assertion that the concept of separation of church and state is “a mid twentieth-century judicial addon.” I refer him to the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, passed in 1786, at the urging of Thomas Jefferson and others. This statute was the culmination of the fight to separate religion from government, preparatory to drafting the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. By extension, Mr. Lundberg’s statement that “the phrase ‘established’ church’ is a technical one” is debunked by the Virginia Statute, which eliminated such churches actually, not technically. I remind him, too, that the First Amendment does not speak of forbidding established churches—since this was already accomplished by the Virginia Statute—but, instead, of forbidding an established religion.

Finally, and in all sincerity, I appreciate very much Mr. Lundberg’s gracious invitation to join him and his family for church services to celebrate the Christmas season. This was a truly kind and generous gesture. However, I am an observant Jew with a strong belief in God and will, instead, be celebrating Hanukkah with my family.
Maggie Seligman
LAKE CARMEl

Church and State

Dear Editor:

Re: Ed Lundberg’s letter in 10 December issue of THE COURIER:

As long as Mr. Lundberg attempts to enlighten the reader, he should exercise some care in his presumptions.

His “Third” point proposes that the concept of “separation and state” is a mid-twentieth century judicial add-on.

In Matthew, chapter 22, verse 21 Jesus said: Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are god’s.

Is this a 20th century add-on?
Lee Greene
PAWlING

Science of Indian Point

Dear Editor:

Michael Slobodien (Dec. 9) blasts the scientific research on radiation from the Indian Point nuclear plant and local cancer risk. He uses name-calling and slogans like “nuclear power is safe and clean” —not facts.

Slobodien works for Entergy, which operates Indian Point. Naturally, he will be biased against any study that suggests nuclear plants—the source of his income—are harming humans.

Slobodien is a physicist, not a health researcher. He has never published a journal article on cancer near nuclear plants. I and my colleagues at the Radiation and Public Health Project have published 25.

Slobodien assumes exposures to low doses of radiation are safe. This assumption has often been made in the past, only to be proven wrong by scientific studies. For example:

- Doctors used to give pregnant women X-rays to their abdomens. When studies by Oxford University and others showed these X-rays raised the risk of the child developing cancer, the practice was stopped.

- For years, federal officials denied that atomic bomb fallout harmed Americans. But a 1997 study by the National Cancer Institute concluded that fallout caused up to 212,000 Americans to develop thyroid cancer.

- Officials also denied nuclear weapons workers were at risk for cancer. In 2000, the U.S. Energy Department produced a report admitting these workers were at greater risk, based on dozens of studies, and began a program of compensating workers with cancer.

Radiation is dangerous, even at low doses. Indian Point, like all reactors, has been producing these poisons and releasing them into the air since 1962. Thyroid cancer is known to be sensitive to radiation exposure. And thyroid cancer rates in counties near Indian Point are very high.

These are facts - facts published in medical journals. While more research is needed, these facts should be taken very seriously, especially in a society besieged by cancer.

Understanding health risks of Indian Point should be based on evidence, not slogans. Our people, and their health, deserve nothing less.
Joseph J. Mangano
Executive Director of the Radiation
and Public Health Program
OcEAN CItY, NJ

Public Hearing on Fabric Covered Structures

Dear Editor:

Fabric-covered structures have been prohibited in the Town of Southeast since August 10 when the Town Board adopted a law to amend the zoning code. Only such structures that had an existing permit or certificate of occupancy may remain. After receiving numerous complaints, the Town Board heard comments at their work session on November 5. A public hearing on fabric-covered structures is scheduled for Thursday, December 17, at 7:30 PM at the Civic Center in Town Hall at 1360 Route 22. All interested persons should attend this important hearing.
Bradley D. Schwartz
SOUtHEAst

Thanks to George’s Restaurant

Dear Editor:

I would like to express the thanks of our community and my appreciation to Gus and Karen Pourakis owners of George’s Restaurant in Carmel, New York. On Thanksgiving Day, George, Karen, and the staff at George’s prepared a bountiful Thanksgiving dinner for many of the senior citizens in our community.

Our seniors are always cheerfully greeted upon entering George’s Place and served a traditional Thanksgiving Dinner with all the trimmings.

Also, thanks to all those who volunteered to drive our seniors to George’s Place: Bill Dowling, Don McDonnell, Kevin Murray, Hon. James F. Reitz, Bill Shuckin, John Thomas, and Steve Westerville.
Mike McDonough
Carmel Rotary & Knights of Columbus
CHAIRMAN

Cold War Vets

Dear Editor:

Just a note of thanks on your informative article “Cold War Vets to Receive Reduction on Property Tax” (Dec. 3).

Had I not read the article in the COURIER, I know for a fact I would have missed out.

But thanks to all at the COURIER, I got the paperwork turned in. All I have to do now is to see what reduction I will receive.

Thanks again for all your work in getting our paper out weekly. Have a great holiday.
Tom Kelsch
LAKE CARMEl

Life–Line

Dear Editor:

Today I called to have my subscription to The PUtNAM COUNtY COURIER transferred from Patterson, NY, to my Florida address. I spend my winters in Florida and THE COURIER is my life line to Putnam County.

Thank you for bringing it back to us. I was born in Putnam County almost 70 years ago. I use THE COURIER for my genealogy from the library; the old issues have provided me with much information on my family and also with important details about events in our lives such as our 25th, 40th, and 50th anniversaries and birth announcements.

Again, I thank you. Keep up the good work.
Dorothy Finney
PAttERsON