letters

Christian Century, August 1, 2001

Using tax rebates

COMPASSIONATE conservatism indeed! While we need to be good stewards of our resources and should certainly not spend the rebate on ourselves, the editorial "Put the tax cut to work" (June 20-27) never indicates that this rebate cost the American people billions of dollars that could have been used for low-cost housing, healthcare coverage for the millions who do not have it, upgraded public schools, and rehabilitation and treatment programs for all who need them. The example seems wonderful at first blush: 1,000 families pooling their rebate would collect $600,000 for a project of their choice. But the tax cut was $1.35 trillion!

Perhaps a better suggestion is to pool those resources in order to elect candidates that have some concern for the common good. Compassionate conservatism has none.

Donald A. Wells
Massachusetts Bible Study,
Boston, Mass.

May I add to the list of options for tax-refund use a Palestinian nonprofit institution of the individual's choice. Many readers are concerned about our tax dollars going year after year to Israel for military purposes and to help build more settlements. Using a tax refund to support Palestinian needs may help to counter in a minuscule but symbolic way that portion of my tax dollars that has been given against my will to Israel over the years.

Margaret L. Corman
Santa Barbara, Calif.

I like the idea of committing our federal tax rebate checks to our churches or social service agencies. Some of us might even refuse our checks, returning them to pay down the national debt. All of these are reasonable and worthy choices.

But how about committing our federal tax rebate checks to the election campaigns of those who oppose tax cuts for the rich?

Jeffrey S. Spencer
Tolt Congregational United Church
of Christ,
Carnation, Wash.

Anne Tyler ...

HAVING JUST finished reading Anne Tyler's Back When We Were Grownups, I find Gregory Jones's assessment of Tyler's characters astounding. "Perhaps Tyler's characters struggle with such questions [about the meaning of life] because they lack the habits or the practices of forgiveness and repentance," he writes ("Living into our histories," July 4-11).

The novel's main character, Rebecca Davitch, creates, cultivates and repairs human relationships by constantly forgiving the thoughtlessness of three stepdaughters and a centenarian uncle-in-law, even as she makes her way without the husband who died after six years of marriage. If Tyler hasn't portrayed repentance and forgiveness in this character, then my understanding of the English language is weaker than I thought.

Jean L. Hammond
Blacksburg, Va.

Sexual orientation ...

IN THE NEWS item "Can gays change? Studies differ" (June 6-13), Robert L. Spitzer says that "homosexuals can change their orientation," but then goes on to say that most of the former homosexuals studied had "abandoned homosexuality for religious reasons." Abandoning homosexuality is not nearly the same as changing an orientation. Abandoning refers to cessation of practicing an activity, while changing an orientation refers to self-identification and feelings of attraction, as well as behaviors.

If homosexuality is only a behavior, then cessation of the behavior would constitute therapeutic success. But if homosexuality is an orientation (genetically and/or hormonally based), as the "competing study" and an increasingly large body of research substantiate, then true change would be harder if not impossible. Cessation of the behavior would be treating a symptom instead of the cause, and merely produce a kind of psychic castration. To the extent that change therapists create asexuals or failures, their interventions function only to punish these gay and lesbian clients for their nonchangeable orientation.

John P. Rash
Chicago, Ill.

Editorial bias ...

IN "MEDIA BIAS" (April 11), James Wall lambasts the American media for portraying the hundreds of Palestinian fatalities during the current intifada as resulting from Arafat's "failure to stop the `terrorist' acts of his people." Does Wall hold Arafat blameless for what is happening? Either Arafat is in control and managing the attacks by various Palestinian factions or he is not in control and ought not to be approached to speak for his people.

Wall is happy to point out that Ariel Sharon was held indirectly responsible for the tragedy of Sabra and Shatila after the 1983 Lebanon war. I do not read any reminders of Arafat's distinguished career of blowing up Israeli school buses and pushing elderly Jewish passengers off of cruiseships. I am not a supporter of Prime Minister Sharon, but there are no saints in the Middle East.

Wall should stay away from the Middle East. His oversimplifications do not help us think clearly about this intricate and intractable struggle (and we desperately need clear thinking).

Rabbi John S. Friedman
Durham, N.C.