|
Amendment injects religion into state law
To the Editor:
My ancestors traveled down the Great Wagon Road from Pennsylvania in the 1750s to be some of the first settlers in the Yadkin Valley of what was to become North Carolina. They defended the rights and the freedoms of free men during the American Revolution. My great-grandfather defended North Carolina during the Civil War and his father before him represented our state in the War of 1812. My father defended the rights of all Americans during World War II. Many of them were civic leaders as well. I have always been proud to be a North Carolinian ... until now.
I grew up in the days of institutionalized discrimination. As a child, I did not know what Jim Crow laws were nor was I even aware of their existence. I did recognize though that my childhood best friend, Paul, could not go to the same school that I attended. I did recognize that because his mother was a Lumbee Indian, he and she were looked down upon by some of our neighbors as being different, not like the rest of us, and not worthy of the same rights as their “betters.” This was the attitude even though Paul’s father was a decorated, disabled U.S. Army officer who was wounded protecting those rights during WWII. I do remember that I was a sophomore in high school before the school I attended was integrated. The rights of the people belong to all of the people, not to only the select few that believe in a certain way. The passing of Amendment One denies these rights to a portion of our population.
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states “…the senators and representatives ... and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers ... shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...” This pretty much sums up that, as an individual, you can have and practice what religious beliefs that you wish without the interference of the government.
The passage in North Carolina of what has been referred to as Amendment One is based purely on the religious interpretation that a marriage can exist only between a man and a woman. This is the inclusion of a religious doctrine into the civil laws of the state of North Carolina. I believe this to be a mistake. The inclusion of this into North Carolina’s state constitution contravenes the federal constitution and the intent of the writers that religious doctrine should not be the standard by which we judge our laws. This is especially true when we view it in the light of the $36,000 that was donated by one Mecklenburg County Baptist church, the many ministers who preached sermons telling their congregations how they should vote, and Franklin Graham performing television ads in favor of the amendment. I have no objection to a person having the personal religious belief that a marriage can be only by a man and a woman. What I do have an objection about is the inclusion of religious doctrine, any religious doctrine, into the civil law. To do so, we blur the lines between government and religion. In the extreme case, this can lead to a theocracy as demonstrated by the government of Iran and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
There were many reasons for the American Revolution, but one especial one was that many of the American colonists were required to support the Church of England even though they did not belong to that denomination or agree with its doctrine or policies. Many of the protestors of this were the Protestant denominations whose descendents are now attempting to force their religious beliefs on the populace as a whole by means of this amendment to the state constitution. This amendment will be overturned. I do not know how long it will be before this happens, but it will surely happen, as injustice can only live for so long before it is reconciled. But, it saddens me to think that my state has taken this step back.
I thought we were better than that. Apparently I was wrong.
Luther Jones
Sylva
Take heart from last week’s vote
To the Editor:
I urge those who are saddened and discouraged by the passage of Amendment One to take heart.
Our state has moved forward. North Carolinians have voted in record numbers to reject bigotry and discrimination. Those numbers were not enough to turn back this latest effort to write off some American citizens as unworthy of equal rights. But love and compassion will overcome hate; knowledge will defeat ignorance; compassion and understanding will prevail. The past is imperfect; the future is up to us.
Now is not the time to lose heart; it is time to act.
It will never be enough for people of good will just to be “not guilty.” In the pursuit of justice, it is always the time to do more.
Marilyn Jody
Sylva
‘Liberals’ should practice what they preach
To the Editor:
If you have listened to TV news or seen the national print media since Tuesday, May 8, you have heard and read some of the most disgraceful, denigrating referrals to the state of North Carolina and North Carolina voters.
Why? Because by an over 60 percent margin, North Carolina voters passed a constitutional amendment that states marriage here is between one man and one woman.
Of course there are people in North Carolina and throughout the nation who disagree with the amendment. On the other hand 31 states, over half of the states in the United States, have also voted for a similar status that marriage is between one man and one woman.
It is obvious that liberals and the far left, including the main stream media, have no tolerance for any person, institution or voter whose positions include that marriage is between one man and one woman. Yet it appears that those disagreeing entities demand that everyone tolerate their same sex marriage position fully.
Liberals and the far left continually throw around the idea that tolerance is a characteristic we all should embrace. This is their perfect opportunity to practice what they preach.
Carol Adams
Glenville
Commends high school musical
To the Editor:
I wish to commend the Smoky Mountain High School Musical Theater Department for a brilliant rendition of Rodgers and Hammerstein’s musical, “South Pacific.”
The level of talent from a high school in a small town in the mountains of Western North Carolina was insurmountable. From the very first song I was transformed from the auditorium to a broadcast on the Broadway Channel of my Sirius satellite radio. The rendition of music and song was so well done I had to pinch myself, every now and then, to be sure I was in the theater attending a live performance done by gifted high school students. So real was their performance I had to assure my wife several times that the voices were real and not dubbed from a movie sound track or live Broadway show.
In the early 1950s, Kay attended a live production of “South Pacific” in Los Angeles, Calif., with the original cast, so her question was not without merit.
We both thoroughly enjoyed the show, and I told everyone I knew to attend the next performance. I rank it as one of the three top shows I have attended at WCU’s Bardo Center.
Had the famous Sirius Radio Broadway Show host Seth Rudetsky attended this production, I think he would have proclaimed it “amazing.”
Three “bravos” to everyone with a part in the production and nine “bravos” to director Linda Haggard, for a job well done.
Harold Sims
Cullowhee
Retired physician’s view of Harris
To the Editor:
I question if there’s a problem with the current system at MedWest-Harris and MedWest-Haywood hospitals, supervised by Charlotte’s Carolinas HealthCare.
I retired in 2007 after 33 years in Sylva specializing in obstetrics and gynecology and paid little attention to the hospital’s future. Some former patients shared complaints of deteriorating quality, ER problems, the lack of good doctors; they never complained about the business structure established by merging two hospitals.
I wonder what triggered this model? Did local management/boards or physicians’ groups elect to merge – or did Carolinas offer a deal too good to refuse?
The real problem appears to be Harris’ loss of revenue from a drain of patients lost mostly to Asheville doctors, according to Steve Heatherly, Harris’ administrator.
Hospitals do not admit patients: doctors do. Patients aren’t stupid and can judge the quality of care they receive.
Can identifiable causes explain the decline of Sylva’s hospital? Did the “loss of a few doctors” cause the large patient migration? Or is Harris’ deteriorating quality of care the main reason people flee to Asheville? Was the hospital so poorly run that it needed outside help, or were replacement doctors in certain specialties not providing the same quality of care?
The uproar from complaints by a few Sylva physicians appears confined to the business aspect, as if the recently implemented organizational system is the reason patients go to Asheville. Hospitals do compete; doctors also compete in providing quality care. Doctors are the main workhorses, and hospitals play supporting roles. Healthy competition between hospitals and physicians does not lead to a downhill path and death: to the contrary.
To me, the problem seems that the perfect picture doctors and hospitals have drawn is not what they expected to see – and is not perfect. Is there someone or some organization to blame for the ugly picture or for the unfair deals claimed by a few Sylva doctors? These two hospitals have existed in different environments in a geopolitical-business sense and have different doctors’ groups employing different business models.
Perhaps Sylva has the advantage of being located at the intersection of two major highways and experienced an earlier introduction of medical specialties than towns west. Haywood has the handicap of being close to Asheville, the “capital city” of Western North Carolina.
Jackson County’s population and industry can’t support the hospital and number of doctors in Sylva unless patients come from surrounding communities. Actually, many patients Harris claims to have lost are not from Jackson, but are those from other communities who sought medical care here because they found better care – or their community lacked specialists.
As the first board-certified obstetrician/gynecologist west of Asheville, I witnessed how people seek better care. Women in general are smarter, more discerning, and more selective in choosing doctors. Most family medical decisions are made by women, and they don’t mind traveling for “better care.” Sixty-five percent of my patients were not from Jackson, but I doubt I could have attracted so many from different areas unless they thought it better. More than 90 percent came by word-of-mouth referrals.
I think the two hospitals should maintain their separate identities and invest strength and financial resources in areas where they provide the best care: internal medicine, pediatrics, ob/gyn and surgical fields. Harris has taken many missteps wasting its resources with misguided objectives (e.g. purchasing a scarcely used spine table). Harris would benefit from a modern Women’s Center, including a new labor/delivery room with appealing decor, instead of using the ugly, depressing 1970s facility. The year I arrived, about 250 deliveries occurred at Harris; at its peak, close to 900 deliveries happened annually, with many fewer in Waynesville. I believe almost two-thirds of the deliveries were for people outside of Jackson. Obviously women’s and children’s health care can be a successful enterprise for Harris.
In summary, I don’t see a problem with the business structure, since Harris has its own boss and administrative system with the help of Carolinas. Harris should work with Haywood in areas useful for both. The key now is to regain people’s confidence and trust. I kept this message at my office: “Please don’t come to see me unless you have trust in me.” It may take a long time for trust to return, but the two institutions have no option except to try. Don’t underestimate consumers, clients, or patients and their ability to discern the quality of care or their knowledge of health issues.
Jackson residents should be concerned and become actively involved in this effort.
Gwang Soo Han, M.D.
Sylva
|
