Letter to the Editor, Star Banner, October 16, 1999

To the Editor,

When a former president of General Motors held a top level cabinet position in our government, he was asked if what he did was in the best interest of General Motors or in the best interest of the United States? He said what was in the best interest of General Motors also was in the best interest of the United States. .

Concerning the presidential election in 2000, columnist A. James Rudin asks, "Are we electing a president or a high priest?" He says it's clear religion will play a dominant role in the race. Religious issues loom large, such as abortion, public funding of religious schools, religious charities administering welfare funds and services, evolution or creationism, expanded home schooling, mandated prayers in public schools, gays and lesbians, assisted suicide, euthanasia, birth control, population control, religious freedom in the world, and US taking sides in religious wars.

The leaders of worldwide religions have stated clear positions on many of these issues. At one time, those leaders were content to have their followers honor their positions. Now, these leaders want their positions to be the laws of our land and govern all of us.

To answer Rudin, I believe Americans will be electing a president whose actions will be governed by reason, facts, and laws and who will do what is in the best interest of the United States.

We won't be electing a high priest. However, there are some candidates who, for political reasons, have vowed to do what religious leaders want them to do. Those person's decisions would be in the best interest of those persons' religious leaders and may violate the best interests of many citizens of the United States.

What was in the best interest of General Motors was not always in the best interest of the US.

James M. O'Hara