Letter writer no theologian, either

Bradley MacDonald brought up a few good points in his letter "Sasha: no theologian" [(e)Mail, July 3], about her article on Raëlian love. Though her column is intended, I suppose, to be flippant and irreverent, it is also puerile and mindless.

This said, Mr. MacDonald has himself made simplistic and ill-informed remarks about atheism and agnosticism: he implies that the first involves stupidity because atheists fail to rationalize God's existence, and the second, cowardice. Surely, the fact that people do not believe in God or doubt God's existence does not mean they are stupid and cowardly; rather, the contrary. Many brilliant men and women have not believed in God, and others including saints and mystics have believed in God without necessarily rationalizing God's existence.

In fact, both have felt, rightly, that the existence of God cannot be rationalized. Through their rational, naturalistic arguments, philosophers such as Hume (an agnostic) and Kant have forced Christianity to adopt a belief in God on the basis of faith alone; rational arguments for God's existence became invalid. I would urge Mr. MacDonald to investigate this history before he labels atheists and agnostics witless and stupid (lest he be so judged).

Frederick J. Tatlow

A little reply to Bradley MacDonald's letter to the editor in the July 3 edition of the Mirror. First of all, I really like Sasha's columns. They provide a humourous look at sex in our society. You go, girl!

Now I'd like to deal with Mr. MacDonald's comments. So the talking snake, the fruit, Adam and Eve are all just metaphors? Does this mean that the rest of the bible (both old and new testament) is also just a collection of stories with metaphors? If so, please ask your fellow worshippers to stop taking it so literally and thereby stop the persecution of homosexuals.

I don't know about you, but I've been studying math and science since I've been in school and God has yet to show his (or her) face in any equation that I've encountered. So pardon me if I choose not to rationalize Its existence.

François Laforge

Westmount debate dumb

I didn't intent to write about the Westmount march thing, but I've read too many stupid letters from both ends of the political spectrum to stay out of the fray [see (e)Mail, June 19, June 26 and July 3].

Nobody is addressing the obvious question: what was that march supposed to accomplish? Anything at all? It seems to me that the intent was a silent finger-pointing, a way of saying to the wealthy, "You are to blame for my problems." That's just plain childish. To the people who marched: I can understand your need for action, but how about useful action?

Try getting more education. Try government training programs. Try campaigning for less tax on small businesses (which create the most new jobs). Try something positive. You'll gain nothing by harassing those more fortunate (or perhaps just more resourceful) than yourself.

Vivian Unger

Patients before profits

Re: "A nation in their back pocket" [June 26]: Philip Preville lifted the curtain on an important issue--the outrageous monopoly enjoyed by pharmaceutical companies that the mainstream media has paid little attention to, in spite of nationwide lobbying efforts by grassroots health activists spearheaded by the Canadian Health Coalition.

While the Quebec government closes hospitals, the cost of drugs reimbursed by the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec rose 11 per cent annually from 1990 to 1995. The Quebec drug insurance scheme is a disguised subsidy to the pharmaceutical industry.

While the federal Liberals reneged on their promise to overturn C-91--the Drug Patent Law--Jean Chrétien made vague promises during the election campaign about creating a national pharmacare plan. Chrétien's own National Health Forum states that we can't afford a national drug care program. In fact, without an overhaul of this corporate welfare scheme, a Canada-wide pharmacare plan would bankrupt our health care system.

It's hard to believe that the federal Liberals once opposed NAFTA. Liberal MPs now abdicate any semblance of national sovereignty and kneel before the corporate altar while spouting gibberish that they are powerless as a result of international trade agreements. Their subservience to the corporate agenda is matched by their Reform, Bloc and Conservative counterparts.

Access to medication should be considered a basic right. Our governments should be putting patients before profits.

David Alper

Correction

In the photograph on last week's Dog bites page, the dancers pictured were incorrectly identified. The dancers were in fact from Tropicalissimo Productions; the male dancer pictured was Salsero Néné, owner of Tropicalissimo. The Mirror regrets the error.