A Non-responsive Church/State

There seems to be little, if any, separation between Church and State when it comes to answering direct questions concerning essential issues, such as doctrinal application or our constitution, respectively. I attempted to contact both Congressman Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland's 6th District, and Archbishop Edwin O'Brien of the Baltimore Archdiocese on the 18th of November, on two separate matters, both of which constitute essential policy. Congressman Bartlett's office was was originally contacted by phone, followed by a website e-mail. The Archbishop was contacted by e-mail, and then a personal mail. I have yet to receive a responsive answer to either.

Congressman Bartlett: (I left this e-mail through his website. December 2 at 8:38pm)

"I left a message at your Washington Office over two weeks ago as to why you had not spoken out on the TSA violations of our 4th amendment. Your staffer was unable to tell me where your position was on this critical issue. He also told me that I would be receiving a letter explaining... your position. I am still waiting! Do you support the 4th amendment of our constitution?"

(Summary of phone conversation posted on Facebook November 18th.)

"I called Congressman Bartlett's office to see what his position is on the TSA affront to our 4th amendment. His staffer said, "The Congressman will have to get back to me in a letter." A letter??? I don't need no stinking letter. I need someone to protect the constitution!!!!"

December 7th, 2010
Dear Archbishop O’Brien: (Follow-up letter to the e-mail)

"I sent you an e-mail on November 18th, under the subject of Election Supplement. It addresses my concerns with the presentation of candidate views in the Catholic Review’s, Decision 2010, Special Voter Guide insert. I have not received a reply.

As my party prepares for the next election cycle, my concern as to the political motivations of the diocese’s newspaper continues to fester. The Church preaches the truth on essential issues, and John Paul II the Great admonished the laity to become political. But, when we do, we are ignored and marginalized by the very Church that encouraged us to go forth and defend the essential matters of faith and morals.

It is difficult to defend a Church that preaches one thing, yet does nothing to direct the faithful, while at the same time, only contributes more to the tidal wave of media hype for politicians who promote state funded abortion, state funding of embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage.

I guess you may not have seen my earlier e-mail. Be that what it may, I just needed to have a clear conscience, as I move forward making comments about the sincerity of the Baltimore Archdiocese."

(Original e-mail expressing my election concern.)
Archbishop O’Brien: Nov. 18th, 2010

I attended the dedication of the new chapel at St....

This November, I was on the ballot as the Lieutenant Governor, along with Eric Knowles for Governor under the Constitution Party of Maryland. Our party’s chairman, Mike Dawson requested that the Maryland Catholic Conference resurvey all the candidates before the general election, because the earlier primary survey was only done for the Democrat and Republican candidates. The Catholic Conference agreed. Thank you!

I was not however, appreciative of how the results were presented to the faithful: The Catholic Review’s Election Supplement. This supplement was given to all Catholic churches in the Baltimore Archdiocese just before the general election. The Catholic Church identifies defense of human Life, opposition to Stem Cell Research, and support of marriage, as being essential issues. The Election Supplement though, did not state in simple prose, that the only ballot access candidate to agree with the Church’s position on these three issues was Eric Knowles. Each candidate’s answers were presented in a line, and it was necessary to decode the “A, D, or blank space”, with the questions which were printed earlier in the supplement. Not one sentence in this eight page special insert stated this pure distinction of ballot access candidates on these non-negotiable issues. This inability to simply state a candidate’s positions was not an issue however, when it came to each of the two major party governor candidates. Both had a record in opposition with the Church’s teaching, yet both were provided a full page of print along with photos. What a deal? This had to be about $2,000.00 worth of print exposure.

To promote these non-negotiable principles, and fail to clearly and simply state each candidate’s position of these issues, while at the same time aiding and abetting those who have positions directly opposite of Holy Mother Church, is pure, in your face, dereliction of duty.

Respectfully,

Mike Hargadon

Write your air carrier TODAY!

Please take a minute to convey your concern regarding our passing of our 4th amendment to be secure in our person.

"Dear Southwest:

Southwest has been our airline of choice in flying from BWI to Nashville, Indianapolis, and Chicago. Most, if not, all of our trips have been for family gatherings. My wife and I are concerned about the enhanced security measures at many airports. We have several trips planned, but we have no intention of going through nude imaging or intensive secondary screening. Please, insist on some decency for us and your other customers!"

THEIR RESPONSE:

Dear Michael,

Thank you for taking the time to contact us. We appreciate the opportunity to address your concerns regarding the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).

It's important to explain that the implementation of imaging technology is solely determined by the TSA and not by the airline. The TSA has a responsibility to ensure the security of the traveling public. However, they also recognize that there is a delicate balance between privacy and security; therefore, imaging technology is optional for all passengers. Please visit the TSA’s web site for more information (including locations where imaging technology is currently being used) regarding this screening method.

Again, we appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts. Should your future plans require air travel, we hope we will merit your consideration.

Sincerely,

Edna, Southwest Airlines

[Jefferson to S.W.]

Dear Edna:

Thank you for responding to my progeny's concern.

There is nothing "delicate" about attracting attention to the fact that a person values his or her 4th amendment, by shouting, "Opt-out! We have an Opt-out!", and then proceeding to examine a person's crotch and buttocks. What is '"optional, the nude photo, or the feeling-up of a person's privates? How about neither?

Maybe if enough people stop flying, Southwest will tell these "blue shirts" to back off. Until then, I'll suggest, that all who value individual liberty hold tight to what is remaining of, "being secure in one's person...."

Thomas Jefferson