Voice of the People, Jun. 20

Cardinal’s words

When Cardinal Francis George urged parishioners to speak out against the federal contraceptive mandate, he is setting both himself and other Catholics up for a charge of blatant hypocrisy (“Birth control edict stirs Catholics,” News, June 17). What the cardinal is basically saying is that no one, including the government, should be able to tell the church what it can and cannot do. I would agree with this assertion.

However, the history of the Catholic Church and other religious institutions is to consistently dictate to others what they can and cannot do in their private lives. This includes women’s reproductive choices, various gay issues and, of course, what we all do in our bedrooms. The list of personal activities that the church has tried to outlaw is quite long. I would urge the cardinal and other religious people to practice what they preach. If you want to be left alone to do as you see fit, then you must afford others that same right.

— Jeff Clauser, Chicago

Cardinal’s hypocrisy

Cardinal Francis George is correct when he says that “in a democracy, government should not play God.”

I, and many other Catholics, would respond with the flip side of that coin: The church should not play government. The seemingly ceaseless attempts by the Roman Catholic Church to make its particular doctrines (against birth control, same-sex marriage, abortion) the law of the land show the cardinal’s hypocrisy.

His eminence is perfectly happy if the United States government plays God according to the tune chosen by the Vatican.

— Bill Savage, Chicago

Cardinal’s views

Cardinal Francis George is quoted in the June 17 Tribune: “In a democracy, government should not play God.”

Really? The cardinal and other religious leaders have no trouble inflicting their views regarding who can marry and reproductive rights on citizens of the democracy. Perhaps he should confine his views to his flock and refrain from imposing his religious views on the democracy.

In a democracy, God should not be allowed to play with governance.

— Aviva Tauman, Evanston

Religious coercion

According to the Tribune, a speaker at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said, “We protect the freedom of religion because we think it is wrong to coerce belief” (News, June 14). They do? Cardinal Francis George lobbied against the state civil union law by attempting to force his religious beliefs on state legislators and Gov. Pat Quinn. George’s vehement opposition to same-sex marriage is religious coercion. No one can marry in Illinois without first obtaining a state-issued marriage license. That makes marriage a civil right before it can become a religious rite.

Yet George would codify his religious beliefs into Illinois law by denying the civil right of marriage to same-sex couples.

In the name of his religious beliefs, George threatens the civil liberties of members of the gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgender community. He supports discrimination against gay couples when it comes to adopting children, civil unions and marriage equality.

All these things are forms of religious coercion.

— Bob Barth, Chicago

Dereliction of duty

The current debate over same-sex marriage, both nationally and in Illinois, has produced a new and disturbing concept as to how to get laws overturned in court. In the case of same-sex marriage, the president comes out with a statement that his administration will not defend the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. Shortly thereafter, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez say that they think that the Illinois law that defines marriage as an arrangement between one man and one woman is not defensible in court and they will not defend it (Page 1, June 15).

What is occurring is that executive branch officials are trespassing into areas that are reserved for the legislatures and the courts. Carried to its logical extreme, a properly enacted law could be overturned simply by an executive branch official saying that he (or she) will not defend the law if it is challenged in court.

This is clearly no way to enact, and repeal, laws as it defeats the concepts of legislative prerogative, judicial review and due process.

The U.S. Supreme Court is the highest legal body in the United States. It must step in before the situation gets out of hand and rule that any official who does not defend a properly enacted law in court and through any appeal process is guilty of dereliction of duty. The penalty would be the immediate loss of his or her license to practice law. Without Draconian sanctions on attorneys within government who shirk their public duty, America will no longer be a “nation of laws, not men” but will become a “nation of men, not laws.”

— Vance Gregory Jr., Wheaton