 |
 |
|
||||
           |
LETTERS | FEBRUARY 23, 1998 VOL. 151 NO. 8 |
|---|---|---|
Letters
CLASH OF FAITHS
"That was a poor comparison you made between Castro and the
Pope. History proves that faith remains while ideology fades and
dies."
Pope John Paul II and Cuba's Fidel Castro are a harmony of
opposites--the statesman and the politician [Jan. 26]. They have
placed in view for all to see their respective dogmas, which are
in collision. Both claim commitment to social justice in a world
at peace. The Pope relies on engagement and evangelization to
propagate a faith rooted in religion. Castro resorts to
oppression to impose policy derived from the Communist Manifesto.
The American embargo of Cuba is passe. The U.S. should be
sending volunteers to work with the Cubans and help them lead
normal lives. One may agree or not with the Pope's religious
doctrine, but as a world leader he should no more be compared to
Castro than Churchill should be compared to Mussolini.
You described Christianity as "a 2,000-year-old belief in the
eternal power of devotion to the divine and reverence for human
dignity." I have no desire to impugn the motives of numerous
sincere Christians past and present, but what about the
extermination of the Cathars, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the
killings by the conquistadores, the massacre of St. Bartholomew,
the Salem witch trials and General Franco's murderous "crusade"
against an elected government? All were actions by Christians
against either believers in other value systems or, indeed,
other Christians. Isn't this record over those 2,000 years a lot
to answer for?
By meeting with the Pope, Castro showed a greatness comparable
to that of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in meeting with
Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin. It's time the U.S.
government recognized that Castro has shown a more flexible and
mature approach to change than the U.S. has. Invite Cuba's
leader to the White House, and shake hands! SWISS HAVEN IN WARTIME
I was shocked to read your article "Heartless Haven" [Jan. 26],
in which Jews who were inmates of Swiss labor camps during World
War II complained of the treatment they received. Do these
people know that most Swiss families were also separated during
the war? My father-in-law was a soldier, sleeping on straw,
having little to eat and receiving 50 cents a day to send to his
family. There were food shortages, and the women, elderly and
children who were at home worked in field and garden. Are these
former inmates aware of how counterproductive their accusations
are?
The accusation that the Swiss abused Jews during World War
II--when Switzerland was the one European nation that
consistently provided sanctuary for many of them during the
Holocaust years--is false. Stop the accusations! Use your skills
in journalism to expose those who killed or rounded up their own
citizens for the Nazi killing machines. The Swiss are probably
the only ones in Europe who did neither. They just saved lives
of refugees.
I fled to Switzerland as a young Jewish girl and stayed there
from October 1942 to May 1945, living in several refugee camps.
I always had enough to eat; every six weeks we got a three-day
pass to visit relatives and friends. In addition there were free
afternoons when we were allowed to leave the camp. Bear in mind,
those were not normal years; a terrible war was being fought all
over Europe. And after all, we were not citizens of Switzerland!
More than 50 years later, sitting by the fireside, it is very
easy to brood about the past and discover "wrongdoings." One
should stick to the context of those years and to the facts: the
lives of thousands of Jews were saved in Switzerland. Survivors,
please stop complaining. FREE ONLY IN HIS DREAMS
Rod Usher's essay showed the cruel reality of Ramon Sampedro, a
man who was forced to stay in bed for nearly 30 years, paralyzed
from the neck down [Jan. 26]. I remember a TV interview with
Sampedro in which he said he was free only in his dreams, when
he could fly and move, but when he woke up, the nightmare
started. Despite his caring family, Sampedro could not bear his
situation. Perhaps he didn't want to be a burden to his family
any longer. He was absolutely determined to die, but his body
wouldn't let him kill himself. Who could help him achieve his
wishes? Did whoever helped him die commit a crime? Or was this
the only person who had the strength of spirit to stop his
suffering, despite the consequences?
Sampedro's case has been used as the spearhead for the
legalization of homicide in Spain. The person who "helped"
Sampedro in reality committed a homicide, despite the attempt by
those who favor euthanasia to manipulate language. As a
physician and close relative of a quadriplegic, I have had an
experience that is the opposite of Sampedro's. Life cannot be
measured in terms of physical or intellectual capacity, and
suffering, alleviated by human love, has tremendous dignity.
When a sane person like Sampedro decides to die of his own free
will, it is wrong for society to force him to continue his
miserable life. We should accept his decision, and our
politicians should legalize voluntary euthanasia. BASHING BIBI
In the article about how reviling Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu has become common in Israel [Jan. 19], your writer
skillfully outlined impossible obstacles and pitfalls that would
have swallowed up a lesser leader. By your account, Foreign
Minister David Levy's exit from the governing coalition had
nothing to do with his own colossal ego, pomposity and
diplomatic ineptness and had only to do with "Netanyahu's
overbearing conduct." Bibi has survived by being a "skilled and
savvy winner...swift, smart and able." Yet with incredible
aplomb your writer concluded that he has "thus far proved to be
none of those things." Bashing Bibi is less a "national pastime
in Israel" than a pastime of media biased against the Israeli
center and right groups that elected him.
Bashing Bibi has become popular in every corner of the global
village. But serious politicians here and elsewhere are not
amused. Is not the powerful, single-minded Netanyahu the best
choice for the hopeful but hopelessly splintered Israelis, and
likewise for the hopelessly divided but hopeful Arabs? The two
sides will never agree on a reasonable and stable border. GOOD FEELINGS ABOUT IRAN
When I read the essay by Iran's President Mohammed Khatami [Jan.
19], the first thing I thought of was the slap I received,
simply for possessing a copy of TIME, from the special
interrogator in a political prison in Tehran. I finally had to
escape from my beloved homeland and settle in Europe. Despite
Khatami's hints that there should be freedom of thought, if you
want to speak about freedom nowadays in Iran, you are accused of
being a corrupt person. Khatami's remarks bring hope not only to
the people who voted for him but also to Iranians like me, who
love God, human beings and Iran. We want to return home and try
for peace, freedom and improvement. Now I have good feelings
about the future. MACHINES AREN'T ALL BAD
Japanese reader Sachiko Himeno wrote to TIME describing how, in
order to spare the environment, she lived in a machine-free
world, washing her laundry by hand and doing without a TV, air
conditioner, stereo and vacuum cleaner [Jan. 26]. I, however, am
surrounded by the machines that help destroy our environment.
But as a single parent living with a seven-year-old son in a
one-room apartment, I find that appliances help me a lot. I am a
nurse who works long hours. I don't have time to do my laundry
by hand. I prepare meals in advance, freeze them and use the
microwave to heat them. I know many machines can be harmful to
the environment, but they make raising a child and working for a
living much easier. They save money and make me happy. We can't
go back to the Stone Age. A BLOODLESS ECONOMY IN ASIA
Your report on economic turmoil in Asia reflected some of the
problems we must deal with that are side effects of the
so-called economic development of the region [Jan. 26]. For
quite some time, the Indonesian government aggressively
encouraged anything that would boost exports and thus increase
the nation's income. It established rules that let companies do
business more effectively. This would have been an enormous jolt
to Indonesia's economic engine if theories matched reality. But
we grew too many businesses. They were like cockroaches and
rats, and now it is very hard to get rid of them. They became
part of the system. The people who ran these businesses would do
anything (even sell out their nation) to preserve the position
that enabled them to suck the blood out of our already bloodless
economy. Only a miracle can solve Indonesia's problems. We are
too scared to change and afraid to sacrifice our comfort for the
benefit of the country.
My grandmother used to tell me stories of how she survived the
air raids during World War II. She just stayed put and ducked
until the air raid was over. I thought her very brave. My mother
told me about the communist uprising of the '60s. She said she
stayed inside the house until the violence was over. And I
thought her very brave. Today I am experiencing the Indonesian
economic crisis. Looking back at the stories told by my
grandmother and mother, I wonder if the solution is to duck and
stay put.
A NEW PLACE TO CHAT YAHOO!.CHAT Our cyberspace newsmagazine TIME Online is breaking new ground. We have teamed up with Yahoo! to do a series of live online interviews about the latest news events. Now, in addition to reading special reports from TIME correspondents around the world and up-to-the-minute analysis of breaking news, wired readers can ask questions and have discussions with distinguished guests. Check out this service at time.com
|
||
time-webmaster@pathfinder.com |
||