Even though I was born and raised in Utah, I must confess some degree of amazement at the letters to the editor of Dec. 10.
One writer wonders why those who recently expressed concern about LDS disciplinary actions don't simply leave the church. The writer does not seem to consider freedom of expression to be an important right in a "democratic" organization (as former president Joseph F. Smith once described the LDS Church). Perhaps by extension this writer would suggest that those who do not agree with certain federal government policies should renounce their citizenship and move elsewhere.On the other hand, this same page has two letters decrying in the strongest terms the recent Brady bill and other proposed restrictions on gun ownership.
Set aside for the moment the well-known fact that the Second Amendment protects state militias, not unrestricted personal firearm ownership. Ignore also for the moment the somber statistics that guns purchased for "protection" are many times more likely to harm the owner, or to be taken by juveniles for gang violence, or to be stolen and enter the pool of weapons available to criminals. I'll further grant that not all of those in Utah who consider freedom of expression to be unimportant also consider the ownership of deadly weaponry to be an unalienable right.
But even so, isn't this a rather distorted set of values for a community where most citizens presumably espouse democracy and peace-loving Christian beliefs?
David H. Bailey
San Jose, Calif.