Lauren Rock of Los Angeles dances with dozens of other demonstrators as…
Deeds, not words
Re "Can Occupy Wall Street turn protests into policy changes?," Column, Oct. 12
It seems to me that if the protest leaders pay attention to who in Congress — Democrat or Republican — supported President Obama's jobs bill, they could articulate what stance they might take in the coming election. Obviously, these protesters do not feel that tax cuts for the richest Americans have helped create jobs and healthcare for the rest of us. If those privileged few were really our "job creators," we shouldn't have such unbelievably high unemployment. As Michael Hiltzik points out, Wall Street's profits have been sky high but haven't been reinvested in the U.S. economy.
Hiltzik notes that past "movements" that resulted in true reform had to, at some point, evolve into political action groups. Standing in the street with signs and chatting with television reporters has gotten some great attention, but turning their views on Wall Street into a political strategy and ballot-box statement should be their next action.
Gloria J. Richards
Simi Valley
We recently had the opportunity to tour France's Loire Valley and the palaces at Versailles. It has been chilling to see the parallels to the Wall Street protests: an obscenely rich class totally in control and apparently feeling everything is fine while ignoring the homelessness, hunger and despair of the commoners.
It ended badly, guys.
We are dedicated Republicans and believe in free enterprise, but we get it: There is something very wrong with this picture. Grabbing all you can get just because you can is just wrong.
Wake up, Wall Street. The bells are tolling. And the people might come for thee.
Harry and Jean Pope
Long Beach
When religion and science clash
Re "A false divide," Opinion, Oct. 10
John H. Evans presents a false dichotomy in science — between what he calls direct observations and unobservable abstractions — to legitimize fundamentalist Christians' picking and choosing which parts of science they accept. No such dichotomy exists in science.
In his example, fundamentalists are free to accept that the Earth goes around the sun but reject the Big Bang or evolution because no one was there to see it. This smacks of creationism. In fact, we measure stars racing away from us and species forming drug resistance just as much as we see the Earth going around the sun.
One cannot pick and choose what science can be shoehorned into one's religious beliefs and claim to understand the scientific method.
J. David Archibald
San Diego
The writer is a biology professor emeritus at San Diego State University.
Evans accurately summarized that "on most issues there is very little conflict between religion and science." Conservative Christians believe in science. However, when science and our beliefs collide, Christians have the duty to ask questions. Our scriptures provide answers to the problems of good, evil and the meaning of life.
We should be skeptical of any theory that asks for unquestioning allegiance just because the name of science is stamped on it. "Science" had stated that quasicrystals did not exist. This month an Israeli scientist was given the Nobel Prize for discovering them.
True science's and true Christianity's goal should be the same: the truth. Evans' article is a good example of truth-seeking.
William A. Cowell
Shadow Hills
Evans claims that conservative Protestants "tend to accept scientists' claims that are based on direct observation and common sense and reject those based on what might be called unobservable abstractions." By extension, he classifies evolution as an "unobservable abstraction." Nuts!
Scientists have observed the process of evolution. Anyone with common sense who observes the evidence supporting evolution knows that life on this planet evolved from a single source.
As biologist Richard Dawkins said, anyone who does not believe in evolution is ignorant, stupid or insane — or, I would add, living in a fundamentalist fantasy land.
I will never vote for anyone so classified. If that makes me intolerant, I would suggest that I'm not nearly as intolerant as conservative Protestants who would never vote for an agnostic such as me.
Margaret McCown Liles
Escondido
Born-again candidates
Re "Morality, not theology," Opinion, Oct. 11
Jonah Goldberg, in examining Texas pastor Robert Jeffress' attack on Mitt Romney, enlightens us all with the admission that he himself "might vote for a born-again Christian on the assumption that his professed faith makes it more likely he's a good person."
Goldberg later cites "Republicans as a bigoted and theocratic party for evangelical Christians alone" as among "the worst stereotypes" that Jeffress plays into.
Considering the holier-than-thou track record of politically ambitious born-agains, one might wonder whether membership in that particular club guarantees better "goodness" than the rest of us.
Allan Rabinowitz
Los Angeles
