Diocese use scapegoat to avoid responsibilities
I was a member of the Sacred Heart Parish in Margaretville, before Rev. James McDevitt was accused of sexual abuse.
At the time, I was angry at the Catholic Church's argument that because the actual church building was owned by a private company, the diocese was not liable for monetary damages for the young victims. I thought it was very underhanded for the diocese to use a scapegoat to avoid its responsibilities.
Then I saw in Tuesday's issue of The Daily Star that the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional for religious employees to sue for discrimination.
This is crazy. An American's right to worship is inalienable; not an institution's responsibility to provide fair treatment in the work place. I thought that distinction would be obvious to our Supreme Court justices.
The article ends by emphasizing an accused priest's lack of legal protection from dismissal. That's hardly the most negative end result. It's already clear that churches participate in these loopholes to avoid the legal ramifications of a priest's criminal actions.
How long will it be before some desk-priest in another county recognizes this court ruling and uses it as an excuse for the next case of sexual abuse by a priest? Does the Supreme Court not see this?
I hope that religious leaders of all stripes will stand up for their constitutional protection in their jobs. They should have it.
Immunity from justice should never be enjoyed by anybody, and any clergyman who isn't willing to be held accountable for his actions, shouldn't be a clergyman in the first place.
So justices, please allow the law to do what it was meant to do.
Christopher Haydu
Downsville
Health care will remain the primary issue
Entitlements, such as a series of defined benefit plans from Social Security to our regular pension, and other health care plans will be the bread and butter of our retirement years.
If you feel this way, I urge you to read Mr. Hubbs' letter of Jan. 14.
He has focused on the USPS and the government's requirement for massive funding from operating earnings to meet its future health care costs.
Mr. Hubbs is wrong on only one count. He states that no other government agency or private business is being faced with such a burden as prefunding its health care future costs. Good accounting practices require it. Unions will require it in order to maintain their power.
Prefunding of actuarial calculated entitlements began with insurance contracts and quickly moved to the Employer Owned Defined Benefit Plans, such as Pension and Health Care.
The early days were good for well-managed plans, and the states and municipalities came on board. They saw these plans as cash-rich plans that could fund early retirements and even attract government assistance when in trouble.
Most businesses could not economically commit to uncontrollable costs and chose to scale back to pay-as-you-go funding.
Look back no further than the late 1980s and you will find billions in unfunded pension liabilities in most of the unionized Fortune 100 companies. The government bailout of GM and the payout to the unions tells it all.
Whichever party is successful in the next election, the solution to the Unfunded Liability in just Pension and Health care will remain the primary issue of the U.S. debt unless the president follows the path of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Robert Moyer
Oneonta
