The President Abroad

Sir:

As an interested reader of TIME, I would like to give Mr. Eisenhower a well-earned pat on the back. His world tour will do more good than any Russian rocket.

BARBARA BOULDEN Ottawa, Ont.

Sir:

Re Pope John's talk with President Eisenhower [Dec. 14]: it is regrettable that the papacy, while concerned with the suppression of the freedom of worship behind the Iron Curtain, overlooks the suppression of the same freedom in many areas of Italy, Spain and South America, where Protestants are denied the right of free worship by the same institution that professes concern for this the most sacred freedom.

JOHN W. SWEETLAND Royal Oak, Mich.

Sir:

Your picture of Ike with the Pope was wonderful. Ike enjoyed a belly laugh. Could one of your ubiquitous reporters learn what the Pope said?

FRANCIS D. TAYLOR Needham, Mass.

P: The Pope and the President had several good laughs, and the best evidence is that this one came when the Pope, about to read his formal address in his newly learned English, prefaced it with the exclamation, "Ora ne senti una bella!" Translation: "This is going to be a beaut!"--ED.

Planned Politics

Sir:

As Americans, we do not want to be dominated by the Pope of Rome; neither do we wish to be controlled by Protestant "popes." I refer to the trend to have a Catholic candidate declare his views, which originated under the guise of patriotism by men whose arguments are based on their own religious convictions.

If it is un-American to accept the Catholic side, it is likewise un-American to accept the Protestant side. In other words, Bishop Pike and cohorts have brought their religious convictions into the political arena. If separation of church and state is to continue, then let our separated brethren apply the same rule to themselves.

(THE REV.) EDWARD ERZEN

Immaculate Heart of Mary Church Las Cruces, N. Mex.

Sir:

Many Americans must have been saddened by President Dwight D. Eisenhower's failure to reaffirm the principle of separation of church and state when faced by the Roman Catholic bishops' statement on birth control. The bishops have tried to impose a tenet of their faith on both Americans and nations receiving aid from the U.S.

LESTER L. KIMBLE Clarksburg, Md.

Sir:

How inconsistent the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church is in its opposition to the limitation of birth by contraceptive means, when we consider that the priesthood itself, male and female, does not obey the divine command to be fruitful and multiply.

WALTER HARK Victoria, B.C.

Sir:

A Catholic President faced with a foreign-aid bill that included an artificial birth-control program would be no different from a Protestant President faced with an analogous religious issue. For example: a Methodist with a bill that would provide drinking facilities for the armed forces; a Christian Scientist, in a public health program; a Quaker, in a defense budget. The President can veto a bill that he does not approve, and yet support the bill should it be passed over his veto.

LAWRENCE J. CURTIN Middletown, R.I.

The Way to God Sir: It is disheartening to see national attention given to the dated--and largely outdated--pronouncement of Sir Julian Huxley at the recent Chicago Darwin commemoration on the bearing of evolution upon religious belief [Dec. 7].

There is virtually nothing in the current understanding of evolution that has not been axiomatic for scientists, philosophers and theologians for nearly half a century.

TIME is correct in directing readers who wish to pursue the bearing of evolution upon theistic belief to the latest and one of the most comprehensive expositions of evolution, by the noted paleontologist and Jesuit, Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man. They may turn thither with all the greater assurance, since the book is commended in a lengthy introduction by none other than Sir Julian Huxley. Even if Sir Julian himself is not able to accept Father Teilhard's positive religious conclusions, others will do well to follow the guidance of this volume, which Sir Julian hails with unmeasured enthusiasm.

HENRY P. VAN DUSEN President

Union Theological Seminary New York City

Sir:

Huxley, as an atheist, has reason for his viewpoint. Father Teilhard, as a "believer," should have been ashamed! "Evolution is the way to God" is merely a hypothesis. The way to God is through faith, which needs no reasoning, no investigation.

SANDI LASCHEVER

Brooklyn

One Man's Meat . . .

Sir: Guess I've read a zillion articles in my 30-year palship with TIME, but the General Foods story in the Dec. 7 issue was positively the tops. Thanks to the authors; give 'em a 20-course dinner with California wines, naturally.

JAMES R. DETH San Jose, Calif.

Sir:

As a nonworking homemaker, I find that cooking from scratch fulfills my creative urges far more effectively than pounding a typewriter all day before coming home to beat one egg. I peel my own potatoes, shuck my own shrimp and mold my own meat balls, and regardless of the findings of the USDA survey, my husband is convinced that I save money by so doing. And if the average American family ever finds out what it is missing flavor-wise by using prepared foods, the revolution will rock Mr. Mortimer right out of his comfortable package.

L. D. RODRIGUEZ Lexington, Ky.

Sir:

Since 1930, I have managed the Boston Cooking School Cook Book, which was written by my husband's aunt, Fannie Merritt Farmer. I have made six revisions in order to keep the book modern. The latest revision, which appeared in October, has many references to convenience foods such as frozen foods and the various mixes. I think it is snobbish to ignore them.

You see why, therefore, I am disturbed by the quotation from my cook book which is in your Dec. 7 issue. No one reading the quotation would know that I begin the part about preparing fish by telling about frozen fish and that I say that "fish bought in markets is usually ready to cook." Furthermore, I do not feel apologetic in telling how to cope with a fresh-caught fish!

Even in Aunt Fannie's day, there were fish fillets and sliced fish.

WILMA LORD PERKINS Rochester, N.Y.

Light & Dark

Sir:

I think Chaliapin's Dec. 14 Nehru cover is one of the most arresting that I have seen on TIME.

I see not only Nehru at a crossroads, but man's regretful realization that love does not conquer all and that an occasional display of naked power is required by all.

JOHN F. WEILER Holbrook, Ariz.

Sir: Once again you have succeeded in painting Nehru and India in the darkest possible colors. You also failed to stress one significant point: India and Nehru are firmly holding on to the principles of freedom that free men all over the world respect. And that is why Nehru and his nation represent the best bet for democracy's survival in Asia today.

MATHEW THARAKAN Milwaukee

Up & Down on the Farm

Sir: Thank you for the series of articles on the farm crisis. I would very much appreciate--along with many other Americans--your pros and cons of why support need be paid at all.

Back in the days when I sold products instead of services, no one guaranteed to take all we could produce, nor does the Government guarantee the automen that all autos they can manufacture will be sold, and the same with steel, etc. Why should the Government tell the farmer that someone will buy all he can grow ?

ROBERT O. KAHSE

Hollywood

Sir: Your article attempts to prove the general by picturing the exceptional--a farmer grossing $1.80 a bu. for wheat; farmers are rapidly leaving American farms and eventually joining labor unions because they go broke farming. The 1960 campaign issue is the issue between the Roman plebs (small farmers) v.

patricians (corporate farmers and misrepresenting journalism).

EARL WILSON Deeds, N.Dak.

Proposals for Panama

Sir:

While I by no means condone the actions of the Panamanians, I must confess to a wry amusement that the U.S. tenure of the Panama Canal Zone is being challenged by the locals [Dec. 7]. The Egyptians, on doing the same not long since, were stoutly supported by the albeit unseen Sixth Fleet. Should the U.K. and France not rush to the aid of the oppressed Panamanians, if only to let John Doe know how it feels?

J. M. BUNGE Bulawayo, Southern Rhodesia

Sir:

Why not solve the canal question by offering to annex Panama to the U.S.? Panama is already thoroughly gringoized. Offer Panama commonwealth status, its inhabitants American citizenship, its industry the American market. In time, along with Puerto Rico, it might be made a state. The two working together could preserve their Spanish heritage.

This move would naturally be unpopular with the nationalist faction, but it would in no way mean a loss of identity with Panama. Anyone worried about that need only visit Texas and be reassured.

JAMES H. BUDD Mexico City

Sir: Why not, with Panama, show the world the truly great meaning of liberty and justice by gracefully, stalwartly allowing the Panamanian flag to be raised in the Canal Zone, with all the dignity and solemnity a flag is worthy of; for is there a governmental treaty that can legally bestow upon a foreign government what rightfully belongs to the people--sovereignty ?

IRMA G. LEIGNADIER Paris

Pique over Peyton Place

Sir:

Re Grace Metalious' blast at me over Return to Peyton Place reported in the Dec. 21 TIME: it is to laugh. I am no Svengali and she's no Trilby. I did not guide her hands across her golden typewriter. And when it comes to riding the gravy train, I'm in the caboose. I have yet to make the picture, which will cost several million dollars. It is a gamble as to if it makes money or not as are all pictures these days. She has her gravy and can eat it already. The paperback rights of Return to Peyton Place were worth $265,000 in the hand to her, plus the not inconsiderable amount 20th Century-Fox and I have paid her for the film rights.

Grace says that we did her "a foul and rotten trick"--this is the kind of trick I wish someone would do to me.

JERRY WALD Los Angeles

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.