Paul Hsieh LTE on GOP in Christian Science Monitor

The December 17, 2008 Christian Science Monitor featured an article on the internal debate within the Republican Party entitled, "Young Republicans seek a new kind of party".

I sent them the following LTE in response, which they published in the December 22, 2008 issue:

GOP's 'social conservatism' alienates young Republicans

In regard to the Dec. 17 article, "Young Republicans seek a new kind of party": I voted Republican in 1996, 2000, and 2004, but not in 2008, because I was finally fed up with the ever-increasing influence of the religious right on the Republican Party – especially on issues such as abortion, stem-cell research, and gay marriage.

If the GOP returned to affirming individual rights, limited government, and fiscal responsibility, then I would be glad to support it again.

But as long as they support the toxic "social conservative" agenda of the religious right, then they will continue to alienate many young and independent voters and lose elections. And deservedly so.

Paul Hsieh
Sedalia, Colo.

Read more...

Paul Hsieh LTE on Compassionate Conservatism in WSJ

The November 14, 2008 Wall Street Journal printed my LTE supporting the November 7, 2008 OpEd that former House Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey wrote on the future of the Republican Party.

His piece was: "'Compassionate' Conservatism Was a Mistake"

My LTE (no longer available online) read as follows:

Compassionate Conservatism Is Dead. What's Next?

Dick Armey is right. Americans still want small government. Voters in Colorado rejected three tax measures to provide more social programs "for the children." But they also resoundingly rejected the antiabortion Amendment 48 (which would declare a fertilized egg a legal "person") and defeated pro-life conservative Republicans Marilyn Musgrave and Bob Schaffer.

This indicates that the Republicans would do well by turning away from the divisive "social conservative" agenda favored by the religious right and instead reaffirm limited government, fiscal responsibility and individual rights.

Otherwise, the Republicans will continue to alienate many young and independent voters and continue to lose elections.

Paul Hsieh
Sedalia, Colo.

Read more...

LTE: The Republican Party Has Gone Bankrupt

My following letter to the editor was published in the Denver Post Editorial page of November 15 in response to David Harsanyi's column, "Getting out of the Republican coma."

I would like to add to David Harsanyi's comments about Republicans needing renewed idealism and intellectualism. To put it bluntly, the Republican Party is bankrupt. Their "statism-lite" support of the massive growth in government is a pathetic imitation of the the sacred policies of the left. And their hijacking by the religious right has turned them into "theocrat-lite." There is nothing of the idealism of limited government and individual liberty -- policies they give only lip service to. They deserve the whooping they got; and as an advocate of reason, individual liberty and laissez-faire capitalism, I'm hoping that out of the ashes will emerge a leader who won't let America go down in flames.

Gina Liggett, Denver

Read more...

Paul Hsieh's Letter to the Editor on the Republican Party

In the wake of their massive 2008 electoral defeat, the Republican Party is going through a process of self-examination.

Some Republicans, such as former House Majority leader Dick Armey (now chairman of FreedomWorks) are arguing that the Republicans should turn away from the agenda of the Religious Right, and instead stand for small government and fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Armey states his case in this November 7, 2008 OpEd in the Wall Street Journal, "'Compassionate' Conservatism Was a Mistake".

Other Republicans, such as former Congressman J.C. Watts (at one time the number 4 ranking Republican in the House), argue that the Republican Party needs to cater more to the Religious Right.

Mr. Watts states his case in this November 9, 2008 OpEd in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, "Winning football and winning politics".

I believe that Dick Armey is on the right track and J.C. Watts is on the wrong track. Hence, I was pleased when the November 11, 2008 Las Vegas Review-Journal printed my LTE on this topic (fourth one down the page):

GOP recipe

J.C. Watts is prescribing the exact wrong formula for the Republican Party's problems (Review-Journal, Nov. 9).

I'm an independent voter who supports strong national defense, fiscal responsibility and individual rights (including Second Amendment rights). But I did not vote Republican in 2008 precisely because of their alliance with the Religious Right.

Americans still want small government. In my home "swing" state of Colorado, voters rejected three tax increases to provide more social programs "for the children." But they also resoundingly rejected the anti-abortion Amendment 48 (which would declare a fertilized egg a legal "person") and defeated pro-life conservative Republicans Marilyn Musgrave and Bob Schaffer.

If Republicans reaffirmed the principles of limited government and separation of church and state, then I'd be happy to support them again. But if they stay in bed with the Religious Right, they will continue to alienate many independent voters and lose elections. And deservedly so.

PAUL HSIEH
SEDALIA, CO

Read more...

A Story of Personal Loss Would Be a Devastation Under 48

I came across this compelling story as a Letter to the Editor in a local Colorado newspaper, Ft. Collins: Now. This personal story of a couple's sorrowful situation of an unsuccessful pregnancy would become a courtroom nightmare and a medical crisis for the woman under a law granting personhood to fertilized eggs.

Proposed amendment would limit options for parents

by Lynne Hull

I am writing out of concern about the proposed "life begins" proposal, Amendment 48. It looks simple and straightforward. It is in fact an enormous step back to the puritan past.

Recently a young friend of mine, in her mid 30s, married, building a career, new owner of a townhouse in a good neighborhood, looking forward to starting a family, discovered she was pregnant. At first very excited, but increasingly ill, she went to her doctor, who discovered the fetus was not growing, not thriving, possibly damaged and unlikely to come to full term. My friend was having "an incomplete miscarriage." There was really no chance for the fetus survive, it had stopped developing and had started to miscarry but the process was going very, very slowly.

After a few more weeks of growing illness for my friend and no change in the fetus, her doctor suggested three options: to simply continue to watch and wait (while she continued a slow and inevitable miscarriage for who knew how long), to use a drug which would cause a fairly quick and uncomfortable miscarriage at home (essentially causing contractions), or come in to the hospital for the immediate surgical removal of the fetus. It seemed to both her and her husband that far and away the kindest thing for all of them was the surgery, even though it had been a wanted pregnancy that they were hoping for. They chose to do the minor procedure to free my friend up for an attempt at a healthier pregnancy more likely to result in a healthy baby. Only a few months later, this has happened and my friend and her young husband are looking joyfully forward to a baby next year. She mentioned that it seems to be fairly common among "older" young mothers who have used birth control for several years to lose the first pregnancy.

If Amendment 48 is passed, her experience would have been much different. Not only could she not have been freed of an unhealthy situation, her health could have deteriorated badly, and the fetus could have taken months to die or could have been born badly deformed. Isn't one of the purposes of modern medicine to improve our life and health, not degrade it? Also, if Amendment 48 is passed, she might not have had the time to build her career, afford a house, and mature into a wonderful future mother. Several of the birth control methods she used for that time could become illegal. Young women who find themselves raped, drugged or unexpectedly unprepared will be deprived of the morning after pill, which currently offers them protection.

Why would we want to take our medical and health professions backward in time with this medieval attitude, and endanger the health of our young women?

Read more...

Fabricating Rights for Fertilized Eggs

My letter to the editor in response to this column on Amendment 48 was published in the Grand Junction Sentinel on September 30th:

Amendment 48 would fabricate rights for fertilized eggs

Henrietta Hay is right about the dangers of Amendment 48. By granting the legal rights of persons to fertilized eggs, the measure would not just usher in a ban on abortion but create unimaginable legal chaos. ("On a packed election ballot, Amendment 48 is most dangerous," Sept 25)

However, the basis of abortion rights is not Joe Biden's appeal to disagreements between religious faiths that she cites. Laws ought not be based on religious faith at all. They ought to be based on the objective requirements of human survival and flourishing in society -- namely each person's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

So is an embryo or fetus a person with those rights? Absolutely not. An embryo or fetus is wholly dependent on the woman for its basic life-functions. It goes where she goes, eats what she eats, and breathes what she breathes. It lives as an extension of her body, contained within and dependent on her for its survival. It is only a potential person, not an actual person.

That situation changes radically at birth. The newborn baby exists as a distinct organism, separate from his mother. Although still very needy, he lives his own life. He is a person, and his life must be protected as a matter of right.

So when a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy she does not violate the rights of any person. Instead, she is properly exercising her own rights over her own body in pursuit of her own happiness.

By fabricating rights for fertilized eggs, Amendment 48 would grossly violate the rights of the women of Colorado. Please vote "No."

DIANA HSIEH
Sedalia

Read more...

Each Woman Should Decide

Tom Hall of Louisville published an excellent letter to the editor in the Rocky Mountain News against Colorado's Amendment 48.

Fate of her unborn up to each woman
Tom Hall, Louisville
September 29, 2008

The question of whether the life and future of an unborn child is of more importance than the convenience or privacy of the woman who's carrying it is strictly her private business. She's the one providing it with 24/7 life support; she's the one who will be responsible for the child should it come to be.

As letter writer Rachel Morgan pointed out ("Don't the unborn deserve protection?" Sept. 8), our society has already done great damage to our individual rights by extending pseudo- rights to animals and "the environment."

The only way these pseudo-rights can be implemented is by violating the actual rights of individuals. Extending pseudo-rights to the unborn only extends this tyranny to pregnant women.

The callousness with which some people seek to violate the rights of their fellow citizens is disturbing to me. What's more disturbing is when these people seek to engage the unlimited force of government in their crusades - and the government capitulates.

I encourage everyone who cares about individual rights to join the efforts of the Coalition for Secular Government and soundly defeat Amendment 48 at the polls this election.

Wow, I love that last line!

Read more...

No Arguments for Amendment 48

The Denver Post wrote an Editorial urging voters to vote thumbs down on Colorado's Amendment 48, the "personhood" amendment that would grant all rights to a fertilized egg.

My letter to the editor in support of their editorial was published in yesterday's printed version of the Denver Post. It reads:

I echo The Denver Post's wise editorial calling Amendment 48 "inane" and "mischievous." Advocates provide no rational argument for it, only Bible quotes. In addition to the countless proper reasons to oppose 48, another one is that it would violate the separation of church and state. Let's make 48 a minor footnote in Colorado history by voting "no."

Gina Liggett, Denver

Read more...

More from The Oklahoman

As readers of this blog might recall, The Oklahoman published my letter to the editor against the attempt to ground American politics in Christianity. Then they published five letters in response on August 22nd.

More recently, on August 30th, The Oklahoman published an excellent response to that onslaught by Nick Provenzo of The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism. It reads:

Faith itself is enemy of freedom

The Oklahoman published five letters in Your Views on Aug. 22 criticizing Diana Hsieh (Your Views, Aug. 14) of the Coalition for Secular Government, for arguing that a free society can't be founded upon religious dogma, Judeo-Christian or otherwise. None of these writers objecting to Hsieh's position were able to articulate how mysticism leads to individual freedom beyond their merely asserting it. After all, there were 1,776 years between Christ's birth and the establishment of America as the world's first individual rights republic.

If the Holy Bible is full of ideas that lead to individual freedom, why the long disconnect? Why did other religious thinkers give us the Dark Ages, the divine right of kings and the Inquisition, while the supposedly equally religious American founders gave us the First Amendment? The reality is that faith itself is the enemy of freedom. It takes reason to look at humankind and see beings who require liberty in order to prosper.

We owe the liberty we enjoy today to the champions of reason; we owe our freedom more to a man like Galileo turning his telescope toward the heavens and accurately reporting what he saw (in bold defiance of the faith-based tyrants of his day) than to any religious prophet or savior.

Nicholas Provenzo, Washington, D.C.

Provenzo is chairman of the The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism.

Nick's writings can also be found on his blog, Rule of Reason.

Read more...

Striking a Nerve

My letter to the editor published in The Oklahoman on August 15th must have struck a nerve, as five (!!) letters were printed in response on August 22nd. To refresh your memory, here's my letter:

Thu August 14, 2008
Kern seeking to destroy protective wall

Regarding "Kern vows to fight for morals in government; The legislator's anti-gay remarks drew ire earlier this year" (news story, Aug. 6): State Rep. Sally Kern describes herself as a "cultural warrior for Judeo-Christian values." Such claims should raise alarm bells for patriotic Americans. A free society can't be founded on Judeo-Christian principles. The Bible doesn't uphold capitalism, nor support our individual rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. It demands only that we suffer and sacrifice in obedience to God's will.

Individual rights are based on the objective requirements of human life in society. A person must be free to act on his own rational, independent judgment -- without forcible interference from others -- to survive and flourish. The only proper purpose of government is the protection of individual rights. For a government to do anything else -- including promote religion -- is tyranny. That's why a free society must, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, build "a wall of separation" between church and state.

Kern and her fellow culture warriors seek to destroy that protective wall, thereby paving the way for a repressive theocracy. In the name of freedom, they must be opposed at every step.

Diana Hsieh, Sedalia, Colo.

Hsieh is founder of the Coalition for Secular Government, which supports homosexual rights and opposes restrictions on abortion, tax exemptions for churches and government-sanctioned faith-based initiatives.

Here are the five replies:

Foundation of our freedom

Diana Hseih (Your Views, Aug. 14) displays her ignorance of the Bible, U.S. history and current world events. What country not founded on biblical values has ever been free? The rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness don't come from government but from our Creator. The "wall of separation" between church and state that Thomas Jefferson referred to in an 1802 letter to a Baptist church is intended to protect the free exercise of religion from government interference.

Christians founded this nation and Christians established the principles of individual liberty, limited government, and societal tolerance (within limits) that permit Hsieh to live without interference from others today. If Hseih thinks she'd be better off in a non-Christian nation, she's free to travel to places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, China or North Korea to see how women, minorities and gays are treated where other worldviews dominate.

Will and Cindy Wright, Oklahoma City

Tyranny anyone?

Diana Hsieh (Your Views, Aug. 14) says that a free society can't be founded on Judeo-Christian principles. David Barton of Wallbuilders Inc. has done extensive research on America's founding and the men involved. He says that out of all Founding Fathers, only about a dozen weren't Christians. Hsieh says a free society "must, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, build 'a wall of separation' between church and state." The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Jefferson also said that the Bible is a good book and every student should study it. He founded the University of Virginia and felt that the Bible should be part of the mandatory curriculum in the state university.

Hsieh says for government to "promote" religion is tyranny. Daniel Webster said that whatever makes men good Christians makes them good citizens. Is this tyranny?

Kay Simpson, Oklahoma City

Name those principles

Diana Hseih (Your Views, Aug. 14) makes the absurd statement that a free society "can't be founded on Judeo-Christian principles." If this great country wasn't founded on Judeo-Christian principles, would Hseih please identify the principles on which it was founded? Would she kindly point to a country that has more freedom than our free and happy land?

I'm a firm believer in the adage that if ain't broke, don't fix it. That's how it was until the Supreme Court discovered that the Constitution says our kids may not pray in our schools. Taxes, speed limits, declaring war and all those sorts of things are the business of government. Morality and religion are the province of our churches, and the government should not but does mess with them.

Hseih is wrong when she says this great nation is in danger of becoming a theocracy like the Muslim countries. The real danger is that the government might make us into a godless nation like Communist Russia was. That would evidently suit Hseih just fine.

Joe Freeh, Oklahoma City

A firm belief

Diana Hsieh (Your Views, Aug. 14) is misguided. The "wall of separation" that Thomas Jefferson spoke about in the letter to the Danbury Baptist congregation was referring to the fact that Congress is not to institute a state religion, such as England, Germany and Italy, nor is Congress to interfere with our right to practice our religion, whether it's Christianity on my part or atheism on yours. One of the definitions of faith is a firm belief in something for which there's no proof. Can you prove to me that what you believe happened that caused the beginning of the world is any more correct than mine?

Our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. The Founding Fathers understood that rights (such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) come with responsibilities. The order in which they put these was important -- after all you can't have liberty without life and you can't have the pursuit of happiness without the freedom to pursue it.

Douglas Thompson, Oklahoma City

Thompson is serving his country in Iraq.

Historical ignorance

Diana Hsieh (Your Views, Aug. 14) shows her historical ignorance of Thomas Jefferson's famous "separation of church and state" phrase. In Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists dated Jan. 1, 1802, he assured them that they didn't need to be afraid of the government interfering with their free exercise of religion. Jefferson believed that God, not the government, was the author and source of our rights and that the government was to be prohibited from intruding on those rights.

The "wall" of the Danbury Baptist letter was not to limit public religious activities; instead it was to limit the power of government involvement in religious expression. The Congressional Record documents the months of debates of the 90 Founding Fathers who structured the First Amendment during which not one (Jefferson included!) ever mentioned the phrase "separation of church and state." Wouldn't you think that if this had been their intent for the First Amendment, at least one of those 90 men would have mentioned that phrase? None did.

Jay McCurry, Edmond

(I'm surprised that the newspaper didn't correct the misspelling of my name in many of those letters, but perhaps they didn't notice that "Hseih" is not the same as "Hsieh".) I know that some supporters of the Coalition for Secular Government wrote good responses to those letters. I hope that the newspaper is willing print one or two of them.

Read more...

Against the Christian Warriors

I'm pleased to report that my letter to the editor on the evils of entangling government and religion was published in The Oklahoman today. The letter was in response to this article: Kern vows to fight for morals in government. It reads:

Thu August 14, 2008
Kern seeking to destroy protective wall

Regarding "Kern vows to fight for morals in government; The legislator's anti-gay remarks drew ire earlier this year" (news story, Aug. 6): State Rep. Sally Kern describes herself as a "cultural warrior for Judeo-Christian values." Such claims should raise alarm bells for patriotic Americans. A free society can't be founded on Judeo-Christian principles. The Bible doesn't uphold capitalism, nor support our individual rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. It demands only that we suffer and sacrifice in obedience to God's will.

Individual rights are based on the objective requirements of human life in society. A person must be free to act on his own rational, independent judgment -- without forcible interference from others -- to survive and flourish. The only proper purpose of government is the protection of individual rights. For a government to do anything else -- including promote religion -- is tyranny. That's why a free society must, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, build "a wall of separation" between church and state.

Kern and her fellow culture warriors seek to destroy that protective wall, thereby paving the way for a repressive theocracy. In the name of freedom, they must be opposed at every step.

Diana Hsieh, Sedalia, Colo.

Hsieh is founder of the Coalition for Secular Government, which supports homosexual rights and opposes restrictions on abortion, tax exemptions for churches and government-sanctioned faith-based initiatives.

The description of the Coalition -- written by the newspaper -- isn't fully accurate. As stated in our mission, the Coalition doesn't support homosexual rights: it opposes government discrimination against homosexuals. (That's a fine distinction, I know.) More importantly, the Coalition doesn't oppose tax exemptions for churches, but rather opposes any special exemptions from the tax laws governing all non-profits for churches.

In any case, I'm delighted that they printed it.

Read more...

LTE: Separation of Church and State Versus Amendment 48

On June 19th, the Vail Daily published my letter to the editor opposing the proposed "Definition of a Person" Amendment (a.k.a. Amendment 48) to the Colorado constitution.

Re: "Protect reproductive rights"

Thank you for your editorial opposing the proposed "personhood amendment" to the Colorado constitution.

Unfortunately, some people in Colorado are eager to impose their religious dogmas on others -- by whatever means necessary. They demand that everyone submit to their values, including people who disagree with their dubious interpretations of scripture, deny the morality of blind obedience to divine commands, and reject faith in God as irrational superstition -- as I do.

By any rational standard, that demand for submission is morally wrong.

These theocrats reject the very principle protecting their own freedom to worship: the separation of church and state. Under that principle, each person practices whatever faith he chooses, including none at all -- as a matter of right. He may live as he sees fit, according to his own values, without forcible interference from others. So if opposed to abortion, he can refuse any involvement with the procedure.

The proposed "personhood amendment" embodies the opposite principle: government entanglement with religion, particularly the enforcement of Biblical law. Adopting that principle would subject matters of private conscience to government meddling. Everyone who wishes to live in a free country should vigorously oppose it.

Diana Hsieh, Sedalia

Read more...

LTE: Embryos Are Not Persons

The Denver Post printed my letter to the editor on Colorado's proposed "Definition of a Person" Amendment (a.k.a. Amendment 48) on June 8th.

As printed, it reads:

I'm disheartened that the "personhood" amendment has gathered the signatures required to appear on the ballot. A woman's fundamental right to control her own body, including her right to terminate or sustain a pregnancy, should not depend on majority vote. This would violate that right in spades, based on the fantasy that an embryo is equal to an infant. It would force a woman to provide life support to any fertilized egg -- even at the risk of her life and health and even if ruinous to her goals and dreams. It would make actual persons -- any woman capable of bearing children, plus her husband or boyfriend -- slaves to merely potential persons. That kind of moral evil has no place in a modern society; it deserves to be soundly defeated at the polls in November.

Diana Hsieh, Sedalia

Read more...