Walter Conner of Hightstown and Mark Byrne of Allentown
To the editor:
The Messenger-Press, Princeton Packet and Windsor Hights-Herald ran an editorial on Nov. 9 entitled, “Governor right to contradict pope’s edict.” The editorial uses very defamatory and discriminatory language to attack Pope Benedict’s recent comments to the “Catholic Pharmacists Congress.”
This editorial was truly repulsive and went beyond the pale by attacking a religious figure’s comments to his religious constituency. Indicating that a religious figure should not be participating in a moral/ethical debate is the epitome of narrow mindedness. Additionally, the editorial’s acute sense for the obvious insults its readers’ intelligence: “The Roman Catholic Church may be obliged to follow Pope Benedict’s pronouncements regarding contraception — but the rest of the world, including New Jersey, is not.”
Wow, how’s that for an ingenious statement?
Suppose a prominent Muslim or Jewish religious leader gave a speech to members of his religious group regarding a moral/ethical issue. You could be reasonably sure that a fair number of newspaper editors might not agree with the moral/ethical arguments put forth by the religious leader. If a newspaper were to attack the same Muslim or Jewish leader as encouraging “religious or philosophical obstructionism” or being “narrow-minded,” there would probably be a well deserved uproar (think back to what happened when a Danish cartoon yielded a firestorm in the Muslim world). These descriptions were used in the editorial as a way of describing the Pope’s comments. Attacking and discriminating against a religious leader’s moral or ethical views gives off the stench of religious intolerance and bigotry.
For the record, we strongly disagree with the newspaper’s argument in the editorial (i.e., that the recent state law forbidding a pharmacist’s freedom of conscience is a “rational step” and a good piece of legislation). We believe pharmacists should, on an individual basis, have the right to a conscientious objection when dispensing certain medications for people who are not sick (i.e., the morning after pill). Debating this legislation on its merits is a debate worth having, but insulting and bashing a religious figure is not the right way to go about the debate.
We encourage the newspaper to retract its religious-bashing and idiotic language, and issue an apology. If the newspaper cannot bring itself to do this, then it is encouraging bigotry and intolerance.
Walter Conner,
Hightstown, and
Mark Byrne,
Allentown

