Letters 8/6/08

‘Rights’ opponents present incorrect interpretation of law 

 Regarding the recent reporting on the Human Rights Ordinance in the July 30 issue of The Citizen we were struck that repeated major points of the opposition to the ordinance were things that cannot and will not happen.

In the articles, fears were explicitly and repeatedly stated that mosques would have to accept a gay imam and that Catholic churches would be forced to perform gay marriages. These fears are totally unfounded for two reasons: one reason is in the ordinance itself and the other is in the U.S. Constitution. To build a case against the ordinance on these grounds is to be either grossly misinformed or to be intentionally duplicitous. We personally hope our neighbors are merely misinformed and will note the following:

Reason #1.  The ordinance itself explicitly exempts religious organizations, including churches and mosques, from complying with the ordinance.  So no mosque will be forced to hire imams they don’t want, and no religious body will be forced to perform weddings against their religious teaching.  (Besides the ordinance does not address marriage at all, only the rights to employment, housing, and access to public accommodations, again, applying only to the public sector, not to religious organizations.)

Reason #2.  The U.S. Constitution in the first amendment protects freedom of religion.  Through over two centuries of legal precedent a line has been established to keep the government out of the houses of worship. Unless the whole legal foundation of our society collapses, interference in the internal affairs of churches and mosques just won’t happen. Fears of such interference may be valid in some countries, but not in the United States.

We are Baptist Christians, and Baptists served our country in its early years by engaging in the political struggle to get freedom of religion into our constitution. Even today there is a Baptist lobby in Washington called the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs that works solely on the issues of religious liberty for all people of all faiths (or no faith).  We are well versed on this issue along with the long history of constitutional law. 

We have no problem with a vigorous debate about this or any other political issues.  But we need to argue the real issues not fantasy issues born out of fears that mislead and confuse. 

 Rev. Daniel and Rev. Sharon Buttry 

Hamtramck

There are more pressing issues than “Rights’ law

I would like to thank The Citizen, and more importantly, the author of last week’s letter responding to my comments and opinions from the July 23 issue of this newspaper.

Wow! I couldn’t have asked for a better display to base my observations and opinions on. The writer not only misquoted my words, but went even further by making assumptions of me, even though he’s never met me.

As I stated in previous letters, I believe the Hamtramck “Human Rights’ initiative is frivolous. I use that word because it is needless and unnecessary to adopt an ordinance if state and federal laws are already intact.

The author of last week’s letter argues that the state and federal laws don’t cover a wide range as the Hamtramck law does. He argued that the Hamtramck law provides protection for “societal classes.”

Well, thank you for enlightening me to the fact that pregnant Muslims, homosexual apartment renters and people with no toes or fingers have been declared “societal classes.”

He further finds it “safe to assume” that I would not be a member of a group or have a physical disability that could benefit from such an ordinance.

It seems to me the writer is, as in the case of City Councilmember Scott Klein, concerned with his own pet project. It’s this arrogant finger-pointing that I believe would resound in the Hamtramck initiative. It would become nothing more than “he said, she said” scenario. The ordinance would clog the court system.

Although I don’t agree with the letter writer’s opinions or assumptions, I do welcome and accept them.

I will also go on to say I admire both Mr. Klein’s and Mr. Richard Spark’s drive and determination. Perhaps they could bother better serve the community by dealing with more pressing concerns than trying to paint themselves as conquering heroes to the underlings in the community. 

 Just a thought.  

Paul D. Garza

 Hamtramck

Don’t let ‘far-right’ group tell us what to do          

I was surprised to learn that opponents of Hamtramck’s human rights ordinance brought in the Thomas More Law Center from Ann Arbor to attack our ordinance.

Thomas More is the same organization that has filed countless lawsuits against public school districts nationwide, insisting that biblical creationism belongs in the science classrooms of our public schools. They have also argued, time and again, that “non-Christians” are provided preferential treatment in America.

Opponents of Hamtramck’s “Human Rights” ordinance should know better than to allow a representative of this far-right organization to take a megaphone and denounce members of our community as “perverts.” Hamtramck deserves better than the divisive rhetoric of finger-wagging outsiders who only seek to sow the seeds of division.

We need to stay united by voting in favor of our human rights. 

 Gregory Manore  

Hamtramck