Letters

Faith, God and the Oval Office

"Bush's relationship with his God should be a private matter, not one that dictates national and international policy." BOB FINGERMAN New York City

In "The Faith Factor" Nancy Gibbs explored the issue of religion and politics and the faith of George W. Bush [June 21]. As a lifelong Christian, I am appalled that the President can get away with calling himself a Christian. Bush may see the pre-emptive use of force as acceptable, but Jesus said those who live by the sword will die by it. Jesus taught us to love our enemies, pray modestly in private and value humility. Those teachings seem contrary to Bush's worldview. ADAM FRANKLYN ROGOYSKI Pflugerville, Texas

God and religion are the very foundation of this country. God should never be taken out of civic life. America is suffering enough as it is; God needs to be a part of what we do. ERIKA BODA Cleveland, Ohio

Bush has made clear that he believes freedom is God's gift to all mankind and that God obliges the U.S. (and Bush himself) to spread it to countries where it is denied. That belief has transformed our President from a foolishly sanctimonious do-gooder at home to a militarily aggressive crusader abroad. For that, he and his band of zealots should be exorcised from American political power. LEONARD SULLIVAN JR., U.S. ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, 1974-76 Bethesda, Md.

I am an average middle-class American, and I love that the President openly expresses his faith. I am thrilled that he is relying on a universal moral compass, not one of his own making, as some Presidents have done. I am sure there are millions of people who think exactly the way I do. RICH JONES West Chester, Pa.

There is no place for religion in the Oval Office, especially in the 21st century. The authors of the U.S. Constitution knew firsthand that religion intertwined with government causes alienation among people, not understanding. As our Founding Fathers intended, however, there will always be room for religious faith in a President's heart. ANNIE OVERBOE Villa Park, Ill.

The President can be as devout as he wants to be. I just don't want him shoving his devotion down my throat. HERMAN KOLENDER New York City

No one should question Bush's faith. The President has held on to his beliefs through tough times when many people would have had doubts. The controversy over whether religious faith should drive decisions in the White House shows how much our nation has changed. Without the convictions of our forefathers, this wonderful nation of ours might not even exist. Keep up the good work, Mr. President! RACHEL ANDERSON Chanhassen, Minn.

First and foremost, I want my president to be qualified to perform the extremely complex tasks associated with the job. Religious devotion should not be a precondition for or an impediment to the presidency. It is irresponsible to vote for a candidate solely because he or she represents the mirror image of one's religious beliefs. That does not make someone qualified to be President. PAULA ECKELS Wilmington, Mass.

The basic problem in the world today is that there is too much religion and not enough common sense. RICHARD G. HARMS Issaquah, Wash.

It is frightening to see this great democracy moving inexorably toward becoming a theocracy. The constant talk about God and faith by Bush and other politicians has the practical effect of leading the electorate to rely more on religious morality than on reason. JAVIER REGALADO Huntington Beach, Calif.

Unfit for the Sacrament?

As a devout Roman Catholic, I am deeply troubled by the declaration of some American Catholic bishops that pro-life politicians who vote against church teachings on abortion should be denied Communion [June 21]. The conservative political undercurrent is painfully obvious. Taking Communion is a highly personal and profound experience. To politicize it for any reason and deny it to the faithful is shameful. GEORGE NESSMAN Walnut Creek, Calif.

It is unfortunate that many Catholics believe they can be true to the faith and still be pro-choice. It is refreshing that at least some bishops are calling on Catholics to live out their faith the way it should be instead of succumbing to the secular world. Catholics who support abortion are Catholics in name only. RICHARD AUSTIN Denison, Texas

It is no less sinful to send a 20-year-old soldier off to fight in a war than to support abortion. It is hypocritical for any of us, bishops or lay people, to think the soul of an unborn is more important than any other soul. If Communion can be denied those who have decided to support a woman's right to choose abortion, then, using the same logic, Communion should also be denied those who support the war in Iraq--a war Pope John Paul II has criticized. BARRY ESTILL Romeo, Mich.

Strong Medicine

"Surviving Cancer" [June 21], your report on new therapies for patients, does a disservice to the many people with cancer who are weighing treatment options. The argument that "old-fashioned" chemotherapy and radiation treatments "were far too toxic for most patients to endure" belies the fact that many cancer patients do tolerate the very unpleasant side effects of chemotherapy and go on to live longer, cancer-free lives. While advances in cancer treatment bring hope to all patients, the new, targeted treatments work in only 10% to 30% of patients, as your story pointed out. At least for now, that leaves 70% of us having to rely on the current standard of care: old-fashioned chemotherapy and radiation treatments. LUCIE BRYAR Nashua, N.H.

Abuse by Any Other Name

Your article "Redefining Torture" described efforts by the Bush Administration to reshape the U.S. stance on the torture of prisoners during interrogation [June 21]. It amazes me that American journalists are almost as shocked over the continuing disclosures of torture as Claude Rains was over the gambling at Humphrey Bogart's joint in Casablanca back in the halcyon days of American idealism. It's obvious that what went on in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo was not the result of the actions of a few bad apples of inferior rank but a calculated policy formed in the upper reaches of the Bush Administration. How did we sink so low? Liberals and conservatives alike shudder to contemplate this betrayal of American values. HAL BARWOOD San Anselmo, Calif.

Have we sunk to the level of those we are fighting--those who we say are using immoral methods? I am an American living in Canada, and I never thought I would see the day when U.S. government agencies would write memos attempting to justify actions that Americans would condemn if perpetrated by others. There was outrage during the Korean War when the North Koreans were accused of brainwashing American prisoners. Similar activities were decried in other wars. Now, the U.S. is carrying out equally repulsive actions. RICHARD ANDERSEN Victoria, B.C.

Words can't begin to express how disgusted and ashamed I am by revelations of prisoner abuse. But it is even more saddening to hear the pathetic excuse that terrorists don't play by the rules, so we don't have to either. Is that the standard we're adopting? The greatest nation in the world is going to follow the behavior of the scum of the earth? We will win the war on terrorism. How we choose to win it will determine whether we are still the greatest nation. We are better than this, America. JENNY WATSON Shipman, Va.

Hail and Farewell

Hugh Sidey's "The Gipper's Final Flight" was a lovely tribute to Ronald Reagan [June 21]. It was warm, human and touching and gently reminded us that Reagan's family members are real people who love, feel loss and mourn, but will keep on living. Sidey's words were a fitting benediction for a man who was more than the sum of his public personas throughout the years. MICHELE CHALMERS Cary, N.C.

After the media's lengthy criticism and praise of President Reagan's political life, watching the family's sunset burial service put things into perspective for me. When Reagan's children got up to speak, they didn't talk about Reagan the President or Reagan the politician but about Reagan the husband, the father and the grandfather. Watching Nancy Reagan receive the flag from the coffin and break down crying, and then seeing her children console her, reminded me that she was mourning the loss not of a President, Governor or actor but of her husband of more than 50 years. I hope we don't lose sight of the fact that, despite any objections to Reagan's presidency, we can have sympathy for his family and friends as they cope with his death. GERONIMO MULHOLLAND Fort Myers, Fla.

Commemorative Currency

Your notebook item "Reagan Bills? Not Yet" [June 21], reported on ways congressional Republicans are exploring to honor the late President. Your illustration with a picture of Ronald Reagan on the $10 bill made me recoil physically. On second thought, however, it is probably fitting to commemorate his life with his picture on money, considering the era of greed he presided over. It's much more appropriate than naming an airport after him, which only added insult to the injury he did when he fired striking air-traffic controllers. JOYCE D. MEYER Champaign, Ill.

Most of the men whose portraits adorn today's U.S. paper money either were founders of the nation or helped preserve the Union. Their achievements didn't last just a lifetime; they will last forever. Since Reagan left the presidency, an airport and an aircraft carrier have been named after him. The Postal Service has announced it will issue a commemorative Reagan stamp next year. While his warm smile lent popularity to his economic-recovery programs and many Americans praised his moral leadership, Congress should approach with caution a change to our legal tender. Let time and history judge whether Reagan should be given the final honor of appearing on U.S. currency. ANTHONY MIRANTE Philadelphia

The best thing would be for Reagan's face to appear on the $1,000 bill. That way, the people for whom he and the Republican Party worked so hard can see his face whenever they want--and the rest of us won't have to. BENJAMIN FOX Boston

Express Screening

"Fast-Tracking Flyers" [June 21] reported that the Transportation Security Administration is launching a trial program that will allow approved airline passengers to get through security checkpoints more quickly. Although this might speed up the check-in process, I am opposed to any federal identification card that allows the holder special privileges. Just think: after months of inconvenience, we are being told that it is possible to walk freely into an air terminal and board a plane. For that privilege, all we have to do is register in a national database, pay an annual fee and have an extensive background check that will invade our privacy. That sounds to me a bit like the special treatment totalitarian governments provided to their elite. No, thanks. I prefer to stand in the common line and maintain my right to privacy. I am wary that it may become a privilege that will be taken away by a government agency. JAMES CUNNINGHAM Houston