To the Editors

I just want to say that the article by Anna Nussbaum ("Axioms of Faith," September 14) is fantastic and you should put it up on your Web site, and then let young people know it is there. BRIAN SCANLAN

Wyckoff, N.J.

From the editors: It will be done.

Priceless gift

I have five library-bound volumes of Commonweal for the years 1985-90.

Do you know of any library needing those years? Be glad to donate.

JOHN CALHOUN
New York, N.Y.

Military spending

From your September 14 editorial, "No Voodoo Economics--Yet":

"His priorities, he [President George W. Bush] says [note the sarcasm in "he says"], are spending on the military..."

"He is pressing for money to increase military spending..."

"...to securing the military funds the administration insists [note again the sarcasm] it needs to protect the United States from terrorists and rogue nations."

"Congress will need to steel itself against the administration's single-mindedness on military spending."

"...large increases in military spending led to enormous deficits..."

"If the president...refuses to cut back on increases in military spending...offer him the straitjacket..."

My, what a difference a day makes!

DON LUND
Stoughton, Wisc.

The editors reply:

September 11, 2001 has made a difference, as the opening pages of this issue show. But what kind of difference?

Vice President Dick Cheney's statement on "Meet the Press," Sunday, September 16, that we will need all military systems, including a missile-defense system, simply reinforces our view that Congress will need to scrutinize the Bush administration not only for its appropriation requests but for its battle plans.

Hail, secular ethics

I just read your August 17 editorial on preembryonic stem-cell research ["The Stem-cell Sell"]. I found the tone exaggerated. It illustrates my point about the absolutism of "pro-life" arguments against this research. The questions raised by stem-cell research need balance, insight and respect--not reactive antiabortion rhetoric.

I cannot give much credence to your claim that using a preembryo "the size of a period" for medical research is equivalent to harvesting an unconscious person for his or her organs. Nor can I accept your word that this research will be unproductive.

Your implication that this research may have an "ultimate goal" other than curing illness raises serious concerns about medical technology. Considering our entrancement with technology in all its forms, cloning, "designer children," and "control and standardization of human reproduction" are not inconceivable. For this reason, I wish that you had not addressed this issue in the manner you did.

I guess we'll have to rely upon secular ethicists to wrestle with these questions, while religious spokespersons opt out into hypocritical assertions that "we should not sacrifice the life/dignity of one human...for the benefit of another." This is profoundly true! But where is it being practiced?