Poisonous rhetoric must stop

I read the letters criticizing President Obama for condemning poisonous rhetoric ("Obama's rhetoric is poisonous" and "President also subject to criticism," Readers' Forum, May 7). I do not believe he is trying to stop free speech, but some of what some people say could be inflammatory.

A quote from Samuel "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher on illegal immigration at a Tea Party Express stop in Phoenix was printed in the April 12, issue of Newsweek: "Put a fence in, start shooting." It sounds as if he is advocating hunting in which the target is people.

This is the kind of poisonous rhetoric that needs to stop.

John Dombrowski

London Ridge Court

I am confused by illegal immigrants who scream that their civil rights are denied by the Arizona law requiring them to show proof that they are in this country legally.

Civil rights are constitutionally granted to citizens of this country. Because illegal aliens are not citizens, they have no civil rights.

Lyn Nagel

Holland

I'm tired of hearing how terrible racial profiling is, first of Muslim terrorists, and now of illegal aliens.

If I am trying to find a rabid wolf, I don't need to examine cats, but I might end up checking a dog that looks similar to a wolf. Profiling is an effective, practical way of finding terrorists, illegals, or even wolves with rabies.

The anger of Muslims who are not terrorists and Hispanics who are in the United States legally should be directed at those who commit acts of terror or enter the country illegally. I object to minority set-asides and quotas, but they still occur. This also is profiling.

If the federal government is unwilling or unable to enforce immigration laws, then the states have the right and responsibility to enforce them to protect their citizens. The only amnesty I support is for those illegals who leave voluntarily and can have the option to apply for legal entry in the future.

Joseph E. Pflager

Maumee

It's not often that I am truly angry at a columnist, but Gwynne Dyer's May 5 column is offensive ("Terrorists' aim is to upset infidels").

He claims that "nobody has been killed by terrorists in the United States since 9/11." Has he forgotten the 2009 Arkansas recruiting-office attack or the Fort Hood massacre? Does he mean to suggest that just because alert citizens and dedicated law enforcement personnel thwarted the shoe bomber, the underpants bomber, and the thug who carried out the failed attack in Times Square, we should let down our guard? Or maybe terrorism doesn't matter if Americans are killed in Indonesia, Tanzania, Iraq, or elsewhere.

In any of these cases, Mr. Dyer's assertion makes him a fool or worse. Thomas Jefferson said that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. I'll gladly stand with the founder's wisdom over that of a person who is blind to history and smug about the dangerous world in which we live.

Nick Batt

Holland

In reference to recent letters about religion and atheism and the killing of people, both sides are right. ("Christianity is tolerant, except …," "Atheists behind much slaughter," and "Everyone lacks moral superiority," Readers' Forum, May 5; "Atheists' moral lead is laughable" and "No doubt Hitler was atheistic," Readers' Forum, May 7).

Religion and atheism are fine on their own, but when they merge with government, they become powerful and violent. Our forefathers instituted a separation of religion and state to avoid this problem.

Gene Hagedorn

Oregon

After weeks of front-page articles and editorials lambasting the YMCA of Greater Toledo for alleged fiscal improprieties, The Blade ran a short article inside the second news section saying the state attorney general plans to take no legal action against the YMCA ("State: No action against Y likely," May 6).

How is this fair coverage, when the allegations repeatedly make front-page headlines and the exoneration is buried back by the obituaries?

The real story here is that there is no story, and never was.

Michael Searle

Perrysburg

New York Times reporters and columnists, including Nicholas Kristof, like to point to 2003 revelations by its sister paper, the Boston Globe, for "groundbreaking coverage of abuse by priests," which led to "reforms and by most accounts a significant reduction in abuse" ("At the grass-roots level is a Catholic Church worthy of honor," May 10).

In fact, the groundbreaking stories began in the mid-1980s in the National Catholic Reporter.

Then-freelancer Jason Berry pulled together the stories about a pedophile priest in Louisiana who was moved from parish to parish to the detriment of young Catholic boys. The story went to the Reporter, Mr. Berry said at the time, because he couldn't get anyone else to run it.

His stories were noted by the then-religion writer at the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Eleanor Bergholz. She followed up in Pittsburgh, phoning judges, prosecutors, and clerks of court in counties in the paper's readership area to inquire about cases.

The newspaper went to court to force the release of documents in some cases, which tended to be sealed at the request of church lawyers. The result was a startling expose. Then-Bishop Donald Wuerl began turning accused priests over to prosecutors.

Former Blade reporter Mike Sallah, who uncovered stories of clerical pedophilia in Toledo, told me at the time that Mr. Berry had noted that the Post-Gazette was the only paper to follow up on his reports.

So the fact that the Boston Globe, a New York Times subsidiary, broke the Boston edition of the pedophile-priest story and the hierarchal efforts at coverup is notable, but it is scarcely groundbreaking.

That other, larger venues missed the scandalous stories still emerging at the beginning is sad. That they have shown considerably more vigor since 2003, when the Globe jumped in, is laudable.

But they should be a little less eager to jump to front and center on the glory wagon of self-congratulation. They were a few years late, and by virtue of their dilatoriness, just a smidgen complicit.

Eileen Foley

Lowe Road

As an avid walker, I enjoy using the path around the Lucas County Recreation Center and seeing others walking, jogging, or biking. The ball diamonds are busy every night, and the racquetball and basketball courts are full.

The tennis courts sit empty day after day, with chains and padlocks on the gates. In early spring, these too were full. But now, since a use-fee has been imposed, I have not seen anyone on them.

I heard that a fee is being considered for using the racquetball and basketball courts.

What's next? A tollgate across the path with a coinbox attached?

We are encouraged to get off the couch, get outdoors, and get some exercise, but I guess that is only if you can afford it.

Amy Flack

Brogan Drive