Readers write about custody of a Texas sect's children, US-style democracy, and old, old money in UK universities.
Texas stepped on beliefs in protecting a sect's children
Regarding the May 27 article, "Are sect's beliefs sufficient grounds for taking the kids?": How can the state prosecute the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) based on their religious beliefs? I thought a free citizen could only be prosecuted for breaking a law. They can believe and preach whatever they like. If they marry someone who is under the legal age, then they can be prosecuted. Otherwise, they, like all Americans, can believe whatever they want. This case seems like thought police to me.
Regarding the recent article on state grounds for removing children: The long, sordid, and conflictual history between the rights of parents to rear their children as they see fit and the increasing and usurping rights of the state to intervene in family matters has recently come to a head in Texas.
What every American should worry about is exactly who "the state" is representing. Exactly what kinds of "experts" are going to be telling you how you may and may not rear your children?
If you believe that the state and its self-anointed "experts" are right, support them. If you love your children, however, support parental rights.
The US doesn't exemplify the West
In response to William Mensch Evans's May 27 Opinion piece, "The next president has to promote democracy better": Mr. Evans's points are wise and, I believe, valid. The wording in the final point, however, bothers me. Evans writes, "Finally, we must understand that, given the choice, not all societies interpret democracy as we do in the West." Those last three words, "in the West" might better read "in the United States," which more likely describes the president's intended type of democracy.