Editor, Times-Union: Every year at this time there are articles about churches getting upset when Halloween falls on a Sunday and people celebrate it. Most churches are against celebrating Halloween at all because they feel it is celebrating the devil. If any of them would take the time to find out the true origin of Halloween they would know better. Yes, I know some people do use this day for evil but they use every other day for the same thing. Does this make those days bad? Why condemn a day for children to have fun because a few people choose to celebrate it in a way it was never intended for? Halloween (All Hallows Eve) was a celebration of the end of summer by the Celtics and in northwestern Europe. A time for them to bring their animals in from the fields and to harvest their crops to get ready for winter. Yes, there was a superstition that the spirits of the dead would roam around on that day. That is why they wore masks (costumes) and paraded around making noises to scare those spirits away! This is where dressing up in costume came from. The following day, Nov. 1, marked the new year for the Celtics. Around the fifth century the Catholic church took over this celebration on Nov. 1 and it became "All Hallows Day" where all the Saints of the Catholic church were honored. I took the time and looked up the true origin of Halloween and this is what I found.
Teresa Lechleidner Warsaw via e-mail
Abortion Misconceptions
Editor, Times Union: A recent letter to the editor by Linda Esah regarding John Kerry's statements on abortion had some misconceptions. Her letter included two statements made by Kerry during the last debate and, as usual, he was not honest with voters.
In the first statement Senator Kerry said, "I'm against partial-birth abortion but you've got to have an exception for the life of the mother and the health of the mother under the strictest test of bodily injury to the mother."
First of all, the partial-birth abortion ban has (and always had) an explicit exception to allow the method to be used if it were ever necessary to save the life of a mother.
John Kerry repeatedly voted for "substitute amendments" that would have wiped out the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act and substituted "phony bans" that would have (1) allowed partial-birth abortions with NO restrictions in the fifth and sixth months, which is when the vast majority are performed, AND ALSO (2) allowed partial-birth abortion even in the seventh month and later either for "health" reasons - a term that legally includes mental and emotional "well being" OR, in another approach, allowed abortions after the unborn baby can live outside the womb for any degree whatever of "risk" of serious physical health damage - a standard that a leading practitioner of late-term abortions said would apply to every pregnancy.
In response to a statement by President Bush that Sen. Kerry opposes requiring parental notification for abortion, Kerry replied: "Secondly, with respect to parental notification, I'm not going to require a 16- or 17-year-old kid who's been raped by her father and who's pregnant to have to notify her father. So you've got to have a judicial intervention. And because they didn't have a judicial intervention where she could go somewhere and get help I voted against it. It's never quite as simple as the president wants you to believe."
Kerry's answer completely misrepresented his voting record on parental notification requirements. Kerry has repeatedly voted AGAINST parental notification requirements even though they incorporated provisions, as required by the Supreme Court, to permit any minor to go before a judge to waive parental notification, and/or that simply allowed the minor herself to foreclose notification by informing the abortion provider that she is the victim of rape, incest or sexual abuse.
Kerry's responses to the abortion issue during the debate are additional examples that he is not being upfront with voters regarding his positions.
Dave Koontz Director Kosciusko County Right to Life
via e-mail
Voting Machines
Editor, Times-Union: It is our understanding that the Kosciusko County Election Board is considering replacing the present voting machinery.
We strongly believe that any replacement must incorporate safety features. It is essential that there be a verifiable paper trail and therefore the system can sustain a recount. The replacement also must not be subject to tampering via electronic hacking and the like.
We urge the board to be alert to the "law of unintended consequences" in remedying the present system that has flaws, as demonstrated in the last national election in Florida. In an attempt to correct this, the voting public should not be a victim of a cure that is as bad as or worse than the present ailment.
The above has been endorsed by the Warsaw branch of the American Association of University Women.
Tam Vogel Winona Lake via e-mail
Serving Constituents
Editor, Times-Union: Long ago in the Atwood high school, the class of '39 invited then State Representative Hobart Creighton to the class to speak. Back then, we were all bright and eager to learn. We even had a minister or two to speak to us and our grade would be raised one letter in one subject if we went to church. For shame, corrupting our youth with religious thought. Maybe this could be grounds for some kind of retroactive class action suit, but I stray. Mr. Creighton was asked, "If an issue came up for a vote and your constituents wanted you to vote one way, but you knew a vote the other way would serve the most people - which way would you vote?" Truthfully and conveniently I have forgotten his answer, but we all know the correct answer - or do we?
