The Editor: I find it somewhat disturbing to read and hear that there is more discussion and concern about how much money Canadians should be investing in military matters, while at the same time it seems that at least some of our political leaders do not have any ideas or proposals of why Canadians should not be investing in having Canada establish a Department of Peace. This would be an organization that Canadians could take pride in supporting.
Is there really a foreseeable danger of Canada being attacked by an outside military force? If so, then Canadians should be made aware of who these invaders might be. Is it the Chinese or the Russians or some other country, or possibly a secret terrorist force within Canada?
It seems quite obvious that the people who invest in the manufacture and sale of weapons of war do not do so for their own entertainment. They do so by trying to make Canadians and our political leaders believe that they need a substantial military force to protect themselves against any force that we may consider as an enemy.
The word “enemy” is far too harsh a word to describe those people or a country or an organization with whom we may have disagreements.
It costs far less to settle disagreements through negotiations rather than trying to settle differences through military force. — Leo Kurtenbach, Saskatoon
The Editor: I read Marie-Louise Ternier-Gommers article (PM, May 31) with great concern. Can she really leave God’s live presence in the eucharist?
I’m deeply sad to hear about the decision to close the Prairie Messenger. The Messenger is a great quality source of information. Where can I find a comparable source of Catholic News?
A loyal subscriber. — R.M. Godard, St. Claude, Man.
The Editor: Father Rolheiser is correct when he says that those who are pro-life must be consistent in all areas of morality. However, although he was likely inspired to write this article (June 14 PM) through his American experience where abortion issues are foremost for most Christians, he ignored the elephant in the room.
Can one be pro-life if one votes for a person or party that supports the continued killing of innocent people . . . namely, unborn children? Can one justify support for political persons and parties who support the killing of innocent people for the enhancement of social programs that may end poverty? I think not.
If one can vote to kill the unborn to end poverty, then one should be able to vote to kill old people to save government-run health care . . . or vote to kill poor people to end poverty.
To be consistently pro-life, a person should support a wide range of issues, but one can never be pro-life if they cast their vote for someone or some party that supports the killing of innocent people.
I would like to know how Rolheiser votes. — Tom Schuck , Weyburn, Sask.