June 3, 2004

Logic, not God, keeps this atheist in line

Roger Ballast, who wrote a letter countering science historian Michael Shermer's argument postulating that morality is a function of evolution, is way off base ("Morality a function of evolution? Prove it!" May 13).

Advertisement

My aunt and uncle, lifetime atheists both, have been married almost 50 years and have never cheated on one another; yet we all remember Jim Bakker, don't we? Why did he stray even with God's (supposed) help when my uncle didn't without it? I'm an atheist, too; why don't I rape and steal all the time? It isn't "God" holding me back - it's logic.

The rational person can easily see that trading one's labor peacefully for money is actually easier and more effective in the long run than stealing, and forming mutually beneficial relationships gets one sex more reliably than rape, especially considering that those whom you wish to rape or steal from may be armed and kill you.

On the other hand, if one believes that this life is only a miserable prelude to an eternity of joy paid for by someone else's human sacrifice, why not rape, steal and kill all you want? There was a guy I knew in high school, one of my best friends in fact, who was always an honest guy until he found Jesus - at which point he ripped me off for about $800 and I never saw him again. But since he's been "forgiven," I doubt his conscience ever bothers him about it.

I've also known religious folks who were very nice, moral people, and if believing ancient fairy tales gives them comfort, who am I to say they shouldn't? But believing in religion is not a guarantee of moral behavior, nor does disbelief foster its opposite.

Ballast recommends reading C.S. Lewis, whom I have read, and I concede that he has some interesting arguments; but I suggest that Ballast do a little reading about the Inquisition and the Crusades.

P. Scott Williams
Denver

Evolution undermines sense of accountability

I have been reading the recent letters about morality and where it comes from. The May 26 letter from Christopher Olson, "Anti-evolution letter founded on illogic," prompted me to write in. The reason I do not believe in evolution is that it contradicts the very laws of science that have been proven over and over. The laws of thermodynamics and the law of biogenesis are proof that there are fatal flaws to evolution.

I agree with earlier letter writer Roger Ballast ("Morality a function of evolution? Prove it!" May 13) that we as a society have been influenced in a negative way by the teachings of evolution. The absence of a higher power relieves us of the idea that there is any absolute truth. In turn this allows us as human beings to establish our own morality as we see fit. In today's society we seem to take and believe whatever makes us comfortable.

Evolution is a very comfortable belief for a lot of people because this excuses their behavior and reinforces their wishes that there are no real consequences beyond this Earth for their actions.

I believe in God and I also believe that there are some consequences beyond this Earth for our actions. This does not mean that everyone who believes in God will be perfect or do what is right, but the belief that there is a higher power has a much better chance of making people pause to think about what they do and the consequences of their actions than a belief that we crawled out of the slime and that there is nothing after this life.

So I believe we need people in authority who understand that they will answer to a higher power.

John Higgins
Limon

FasTracks response misreads analysis

Littleton Councilwoman Pat Cronenberger's May 25 response ("FasTracks study not properly characterized") to my article about FasTracks misinterprets the Denver Regional Council of Governments' analysis of FasTracks in several ways.

She suggests FasTracks will significantly improve travel times. In fact, DRCOG found that rush-hour travel speeds in FasTracks corridors will fall from better than 25 mph today to less than 16 mph in 2025 and that FasTracks would add less than 1 mph to 2025 speeds.

Cronenberger correctly says FasTracks will reduce weekday driving by 474,000 miles, but she incorrectly implies this is a lot. DRCOG projects that Denverites will drive 95.5 million miles each weekday in 2025, so 474,000 is, as my article stated, less than 0.5 percent of the total.

She says FasTracks would capture 22 percent of rush-hour trips in its nine corridors. In fact, DRCOG found that FasTracks will carry less than 11 percent more than transit carries without FasTracks. That 11 percent is overwhelmed by DRCOG's projected 63 percent increase in driving.

Cronenberger never addresses my main point, which is that bus-rapid transit can go faster and provide better service than rail transit at a far lower cost and without any new taxes. Why does Cronenberger want to waste billions of taxpayer dollars to get poorer transit service that only takes 0.5 percent of cars off the road?

A vote for FasTracks is a vote for high taxes, congestion and gridlock. A vote against it is a vote for low-cost transportation solutions that will truly reduce congestion and air pollution.

Randal O'Toole
Center for the American Dream
Independence Institute
Golden

Kerry's flexibility is a sign of a good leader

I have been reading a lot lately in the newspaper and on TV news about Sen. John Kerry's apparent "flip-flopping" on the Iraq war. Well, as many of you know, Congress was asked to vote on going to war in Iraq based on the imminent threat of Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction and being a terrorist threat. As the war went on, there was no evidence of WMD and no evidence to prove that Iraq had a role in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Kerry did anything that a true American leader would do and that is to weigh the evidence and make a decision based on the facts. He was given evidence that Iraq possibly had WMD and he wanted to end that threat.

Now that the war isn't going as well as we thought, Kerry is speaking up that we need to get out of Iraq and develop a broad coalition of countries from the U.N. to start rebuilding the country.

Kerry realized that in ugly situations like war, things change. We can't stick to strategies that aren't working just because changing might look weak to some. This isn't "flip-flopping" - it's using common sense that our leaders make mistakes and they can change their minds.

The sign of a good leader is the ability to change a strategy when a strategy isn't working. It's better than taking our country further and further into a losing situation.

David C. Hancock
Centennial

It's post-war activity that besmirches Kerry

There should be no argument that John Kerry's battle wounds deserve the medals he was awarded. It is what he did after being released from duty that brought dishonor to the nation. He joined forces with the people who were bringing comfort to the enemy during a time of war.

It didn't satisfy him to just be a dissenting voice in a crowd. He had to raise his profile by rubbing shoulders with the likes of Ted Kennedy and Jane Fonda. Every speech he made was gleefully listened to or read by North Vietnamese leaders who knew that America would eventually tire of the goal set before them.

Then, to make matters worse, he pretended to toss his medals over the gate onto the Capitol lawn with a few other former soldiers. To me, this is a sign of an immoral character . . . an unseen motive that would foreshadow his self-centered political ambitions.

Today, he proudly displays the medals he pretended to toss away. He proudly uses his Vietnam service to prove his qualification to be commander in chief. This was the war he hated. This was the war he once said he was ashamed to have been a part of.

I see in this another testimony to his wavering and "flip-flopping" style. He seems unsure of where he really stands. I think he is quite sure of where he stands, but unable to be honest with the American people and expose himself as too liberal.

Doug Leek
Arvada

Rules for surviving confrontations simple

Let me get this straight: The Childs family uses the Denver Police Department as a free baby-sitting, conflict resolution and taxi service for their son (not to mention father figure). One day, things go too far, and a cop (using the training and procedures given to him by the city of Denver) kills their knife-wielding son. Now, they get $1 million? ("Childs family, city reach deal," May 26.)

For a long time, the Denver police have been ravaged by the minority community, the press and the left. To all of the DPD opponents I have this to say: Cops shoot people who are armed and dangerous. Cops defend you and me and themselves.

If you don't want to get shot by a cop, follow these simple rules: 1. Do not wave knives, guns or other weapons at them or others (Paul Childs, Ismael Mena, etc.) 2. Do not try to run them over with your car (Jeff Truax).

Pretty simple, if you ask me, but I am just an undereducated, overprivileged, law-abiding citizen from the suburbs who has never been oppressed or held back by "the man." Perhaps I just don't get it . . .

John McAdam
Denver

Iraq likely to be even more unstable in end

A few interesting observations can be made on the subject of Iraq, the "war" and the present situation there with its potential future ramifications.

• After turning Iraq into what it was originally invaded for (a nest of terrorists), the Bush administration has scored another first: it got the Sunnis and the Shiites to work together. (My enemy's enemy is my friend as they say . . .)

• Bush keeps claiming that it is America's mission to bring freedom to the world (evidently at the point of a bayonet). He is actually advocating a whole new order in which the whole world is free to share his values, embrace his policies and follow his leadership. This curious concept of freedom is actually seen by the world at large (including many U.S. allies) as global dictatorship.

• What will happen down the line, in six months or a year, after hundreds more U.S. lives have been lost, additional billions of dollars spent and we see that Iraq is more unstable then ever?

Henri E. Stetter
Steamboat Springs

The right thing to do

Nicholas Kristof's complaints about Bush and Kerry embracing a ruinous Israeli policy (May 27) are fallacious. He claims that Ariel Sharon has knocked the legs out from under Palestinian moderates. But where are the moderates?

Wasn't it Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority that recently hailed the killings at point-blank range of an eight-months-pregnant Jewish woman and her four little children as the work of heroes? Bush and Kerry support Israel because it is the right thing to do. Until the Palestinians stop killing Jews, Sharon has a duty to defend against terrorists just as our president would.

Arthur F. Shenkin
Greenwood Village

Smoker shakedown

If Colorado would use the $100 million a year they get from the tobacco settlement for what it was intended, then Citizens for a Healthier Colorado wouldn't have to shake down the poor smokers for their agenda ("Coalition pushes boost in tobacco taxes," May 18). I guess the billions of dollars the tobacco companies are paying isn't enough, so now let's go after the smokers.

Enough already.

Jerry Williams
Denver

Copyright 2004, Rocky Mountain News. All Rights Reserved.