Rebuttal misses the point
In the Oct. 1 issue, Oren Spiegler wrote in to state his opinion on how blind religion fervor can be dangerous and misused. In the Oct. 8 issue, Suzanne Chirumbole responds by … proselytizing about abortion. This is why we have such a massive divide in this country: one person writes in, states an opinion, supports it with examples – and another person responds by completely missing the point and talking about something else.
There was nothing, absolutely nothing in what Oren Spiegler said that gave the impression he was pro-choice. Nothing. Nonetheless, the response to his letter was filled with criticism about the sanctity of the unborn fetus. It was as if she was driven by a religious fervor that blinded her to the point of the original editorial. The point was religious fanaticism and how religion can be dangerous when misused. Ironically, both writers proved the point quite well.
Matt Stokes
Bethel Park