Bigotry

I was not downtown during the recent disturbances, but I will take Del. Pat McDonough's word that the groups of young thugs were, in fact, black ("Baltimore and bigotry," May 18). Here is the point I want to make: The fact that they were black had nothing to do with their despicable behavior. In recent coverage of the meth lab bust, did anyone refer to the accused as a group of white drug peddlers? How about Oklahoma City bombers Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, or serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, did their "whiteness" have something to do with their behavior?

Is the American body politic suffering from an autoimmune disease? The "hygiene hypothesis" is the scientific theory that the rise in asthma and other autoimmune maladies stems from the fact that babies are born into environments that are too clean. Our immune systems need to be properly educated by being exposed early to germs, dirt, whatever. When you consider that for most of human evolutionary history, we were born under shady trees or, if we were lucky, in caves or huts, you can understand how unnatural Lysol-soaked hospitals and microbially baby-proofed homes are. The point is that growing up in a sanitary environment might cause our immune systems to freak out about things that under normal circumstances we'd just shrug off. Hence, goes the theory, the explosion in asthma rates in the industrialized world, the rise in peanut and wheat allergies and, quite possibly, the spike in autism rates.

Why have those perpetrating the farce of demanding Barack Obama's birth certificate not been asked to present any facts that would justify their relentless inquiry? Why do we allow unfounded charges to dominate the political conversation? No one, to my knowledge, has publicly challenged the reason behind this specious effort. Given the serious issues facing our country and the president, the time and money spent on this matter is a disgrace. No one can convince me that racism is not at the root of the "birther" movement.

Within an hour of the bomb explosions in Boston I noticed that the word "Muslims" was trending on Twitter ("'Horrific,'" April 16). As an American Muslim who has experienced bigotry first-hand, I was a bit apprehensive as I clicked to view the tweets. To my pleasant surprise, with the exception of maybe Fox News contributor Erik Rush, an overwhelming number of people - Muslim and non-Muslim - were tweeting in defense of Islam and condemning stereotyping and bigotry. America has indeed come a long way since the days after 9/11, and I couldn't be more proud to be an American and a Muslim.

Though I am not a supporter of Del. Pat McDonough, I must say your editorial "Baltimore and bigotry" (May 18) shows the hypocrisy on your part. Why is it relevant that children being harassed at their school because their father is a controversial landlord can have their parent described someone "raised in a Jewish family in Potomac," but the gangs at the Inner Harbor area cannot be described as black? I contend that you think it is acceptable to describe a religious background but not a racial one. And I also contend that you are aiding discrimination.

In the days before and after the Maryland General Assembly considered the same-sex-marriage question, several pundits at The Sun compared the effort to the civil rights struggle over interracial marriage, implying that if you stand for traditional marriage, then bigotry must be involved. As someone who is in an interracial marriage and as the father of mixed-race children, I find this comparison unfair and a bit offensive. Is it really bigotry to recognize as special the traditional family unit that connects children to a mother and a father?

As we get closer to the inevitable repeal of don't ask, don't tell, I have to say that this debate really upsets me to my core. This policy is such a blatant violation of the rights of the dedicated men and women in uniform I can hardly stand it. The time has come for America to practice what it preaches and protect the rights of all its citizens, and the best place to start is with those who have chosen to serve in the armed forces in order to...

Nearly a decade after the events of 9/11, the backlash against Islamic Americans shows signs of worsening. Not even the death of Osama bin Laden earlier this year has had much impact on the growing anxiety of those who can't seem to distinguish between mainstream practitioners of a religion and the relatively small number of extremists who commit acts of terror in its name. This is not a matter of political correctness. Americans are justified in their concerns over violent religious fundamentalists.

I noticed that one of your letter writers took umbrage at Dan Rodricks ' characterization of opposition to marriage equality as an "irrational fear" ("Is half the country gripped by 'irrational fear?" Sept. 14). I don't agree that because half the country hates gay people, that somehow makes it less irrational. How would someone who makes such a dubious claim prefer his motives be described? Irrational hatred? Irrational prejudice? I'd be interested in knowing. When you get down to the crux of the issue, it doesn't really matter what word you use to describe prejudice against gay couples.

It is always tempting to ignore the bluster and bombast emanating from the vicinity of Patrick L. McDonough, the Baltimore County delegate and radio talk show host who considers himself a man of the people but mostly is a self-promoting bomb-thrower. His is a career built on angry sound bites and finger-pointing, particularly at minority groups, while his actual legislative accomplishments in Annapolis can be contained in a thimble - with room to spare. But his latest bloviation demands attention - if only because ignoring it might suggest it was excusable (which it was not)

I noticed that one of your letter writers took umbrage at Dan Rodricks ' characterization of opposition to marriage equality as an "irrational fear" ("Is half the country gripped by 'irrational fear?" Sept. 14). I don't agree that because half the country hates gay people, that somehow makes it less irrational. How would someone who makes such a dubious claim prefer his motives be described? Irrational hatred? Irrational prejudice? I'd be interested in knowing. When you get down to the crux of the issue, it doesn't really matter what word you use to describe prejudice against gay couples.

I was not downtown during the recent disturbances, but I will take Del. Pat McDonough's word that the groups of young thugs were, in fact, black ("Baltimore and bigotry," May 18). Here is the point I want to make: The fact that they were black had nothing to do with their despicable behavior. In recent coverage of the meth lab bust, did anyone refer to the accused as a group of white drug peddlers? How about Oklahoma City bombers Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, or serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, did their "whiteness" have something to do with their behavior?

I agree with Del Pat McDonough for telling it like it is ("Baltimore and bigotry," May 22). He is the only delegate who has the guts to tell the truth. He was just calling it as it was. You have no right to get on him for that. Delegate McDonough didn't do anything wrong, the mob did. By the way, I didn't need anyone to tell me what color the mob was. I knew just by hearing the 911 tapes. It is amazing to me, when black people do bad things, The Sun will always blame it the other guy. And yes, if the mob was white, The Sun would have been all over it along with the mayor, police, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton.

Though I am not a supporter of Del. Pat McDonough, I must say your editorial "Baltimore and bigotry" (May 18) shows the hypocrisy on your part. Why is it relevant that children being harassed at their school because their father is a controversial landlord can have their parent described someone "raised in a Jewish family in Potomac," but the gangs at the Inner Harbor area cannot be described as black? I contend that you think it is acceptable to describe a religious background but not a racial one. And I also contend that you are aiding discrimination.

Do I want to know whether the mob was black or white ("Baltimore and bigotry," May 18)? You're damn right I do. Race is not irrelevant. City officials have been withholding vital information from the public for years. The inner harbor is not the safe place it use to be. Condemn the crime, not the delegate. R.J. Stryjewski

How sad that Del. Patrick McDonough chooses to use his bully pulpit to frighten tourists away from Baltimore City ("Baltimore and bigotry," May 18) - and how said that the media lets him get away with it by using race-baiting headlines. Yes, a lot of teenagers came down to the harbor just like a hundreds of other people to enjoy the weather, and yes, the police need to be more prepared to handle the few troublemakers who show up. But those of us who live here and enjoy all of the wonderful things the city has to offer would appreciate it if those who want to destroy Baltimore would keep their negativity to themselves.

Regarding the petition drive to suspend the law granting in-state tuition to illegal immigrants: At least the immigrants are trying to better themselves by getting an education that will lead to jobs so they can become self-supporting members of society. The reason people are signing the petition has nothing at all to do with money. It's about bigotry. It's not as if the immigrants will be getting free tuition, after all. They will pay in-state fees. This is just another example of how this country clings to any opportunity to discriminate against a group of people, in this case against Hispanics.

I absolutely refuse to believe that the anti-immigrant crowd makes any distinction between legal and illegal immigrants. How can they tell the difference? Employers certainly make no such distinctions, because otherwise it's hard to see why they wouldn't certify all their fruit and vegetables as picked by U.S. citizens, if only in the interest in their bottom lines. The truth is, illegal immigrants are generally quite clever at remaining undetected. The fact that no one can reasonably claim to be able to tell the difference between those who are here legally and those who are not just by looking is simply an excuse to treat all people of a different skin color or national origin as criminals.

It is always tempting to ignore the bluster and bombast emanating from the vicinity of Patrick L. McDonough, the Baltimore County delegate and radio talk show host who considers himself a man of the people but mostly is a self-promoting bomb-thrower. His is a career built on angry sound bites and finger-pointing, particularly at minority groups, while his actual legislative accomplishments in Annapolis can be contained in a thimble - with room to spare. But his latest bloviation demands attention - if only because ignoring it might suggest it was excusable (which it was not)

The letter written by David M. Zwald contained a number of dubious assertions that merit a response ("No shortage of reasons to oppose same-sex marriage," Jan. 30). To begin with, his comment that passing a marriage equality measure would "usher in an era of depravity" is the type of homophobic rhetoric that the public should denounce and dismiss as pure bigotry and which explains the misinformation he freely dispensed. "Do any dare to tell [our creator] that we are so wise to change his sacred institution?"