Bill Glauber's article on the Benedictine Abbey, July 24, is an inspiration to all who are truly interested in a return to objective morality.
We read of men who are living in the peace and contentment that can be found among those who dedicate their lives to their Creator, and seek to live in accordance with the teaching of his son, Jesus Christ.
The lives of these men are in stark contrast to those in the article below, by Susan Baer, who are seeking to obtain the "family values" vote by the concept of "communitarianism" while trying to avoid conflict with those whose practices are totally incompatible with moral principles.
The most absurd and ridiculous attempt is the purported bipartisan coalition, "Character Counts," of a few senators, including Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., whose credentials include purporting to be a Catholic while being a leading proponent of the right to, and public funding of, abortion.
The politicians may be able to change many laws, but one that they cannot change is the principle of contradiction.
While the Democratic Party has the greater number of those who promote their "civil rights" in opposition to objective morality and their spiritual and "civic" obligations, there are more than a few Republicans who are attempting to infect the Republican Party with this virus.
In the last several decades, many have abandoned their faith and their moral principles in a craven attempt to placate those who demand their "right" to be immoral.
It is now time for all to assert the moral fact that no one has a "right" to do wrong, and it is especially important for our church leaders, a number of whom are among the "craven," to lead us to the practice of virtue and away from satiety.
Michael B. Sullivan
In reply to Lucille Sachs' letter (July 27) concerning parking permits for the handicapped:
While I am sure permits are abused by relatives of the handicapped, there are other factors. A lot of permits are given out for such illnesses as heart disease, lung disease, cancer and many chronic illnesses that are not visible to the eye.
On many occasions I have witnessed passersby checking-out a person exiting a car properly parked in handicapped spots. Unless this person is limping, in a wheel chair or on crutches, the looks these angry passersby give are accusatory.
I have heard nasty comments directed at a person parking in a handicapped spot. It always makes a person angry in a mall who cannot get a parking space and then sees someone pulling into a handicapped spot.
Before making derogatory remarks, people should stop and think, is this person suffering from an illness that is not visible?
Stop being envious, just be thankful that you are healthy enough to walk from any parking space you choose and do not have to apply for a handicapped permit.
Linda M. Hess
I add my vote for the name "CFL Steeds." It would suit the present logo better than Colts, because the horse appears to be a mature charger, not a frolicsome youth.
Lois Lilienfeld Weiner
Please explain why my tax dollars are being used to subsidize the private housing of Russian military officers (The Sun, July 8, "Clinton lauds freedom won by Baltic nations").
Which of Maryland's congressional representatives voted for this absurdity?
Gerald L. Mummey
Hunting in the Mojave Desert
Your Votes in Congress section on July 17 inaccurately represented the House vote on Rep. Larry LaRocco's amendment to the California Desert Protection Act, H.R. 518.
The question before the House was whether or not to create a new national park. H.R. 518 would have established a new park in the California desert, the Mojave National Park, which many consider the centerpiece of this bill. The Park Service has determined that the Mojave has outstanding natural qualities justifying its permanent protection as a park.
Representative LaRocco proposed, instead, to downgrade these lands from park status to a lower level "preserve." Historically, preserve status has been used when major conflicts -- such as oil and gas development -- make full park status unworkable.
But the issue here wasn't a sprawling oil field, it was the National Rifle Association's insistence that all public lands be open to hunting.
Since the establishment of the Park Service, virtually every national park has been closed to sport hunting, including Virginia's Shenandoah and Maryland's C&O; Canal.
In 1984, the NRA sued the Park Service to open parks to hunting but lost. Now, it routinely opposes park additions.
Reputable polls show that 75 percent of Californians support establishing the new Mojave Park with no hunting, and the facts about hunting don't add up to denying it park status.
Over the past 30 years, an average of just 26 deer have been shot annually in the Mojave -- more deer are killed on the George Washington Parkway.
H.R. 518 provides for substantial hunting opportunities on the public lands outside the Mojave. Nearly 10 million acres of California's desert will remain open to hunting under this bill.
To characterize the debate as simply pro or con hunting is misleading to the voters of Maryland, who should be proud that some of their representatives had the courage to support the new Mojave National Park.
The writer is director of national parks programs for the Wilderness Society.
Like It or Not, Bentley's a Winner
It was with great interest that I read J. M. Evans' and Wayne D. Albrecht's rebuttals to Barry Rascovar's July 17 column about Helen D. Bentley's gubernatorial campaign. While each presents eloquent case for Bentley's primary rivals, their arguments are eclipsed by two essential facts which neither writer mentions.
First, Bentley continues to hold a commanding lead over both Ellen Sauerbrey and Bill Shepard. The most recent poll had Bentley at 47 percent, with Sauerbrey and Shepard lagging far behind at 14 and 11 percent respectively.
Assuming Bentley's support remains fixed, neither Shepard nor Sauerbrey could possibly win even if one of them managed to attract all of the undecided vote -- an unlikely scenario at best.
Questions of whether Sauerbrey and Shepard would be better GOP nominees are thus necessarily overshadowed by the fact that neither is likely to get the chance.
Second, even if Sauerbrey or Shepard did manage to win the primary, both would likely be easy fodder for Parris Glendening in November.
Bill Shepard, the party's 1990 nominee, attracted only 40.3 percent of the vote against a very unpopular Gov. William Donald Schaefer.
Shepard's supporters hailed his showing as something of a moral victory but failed to realize that he had only attracted the rump Republican vote which any credible statewide GOP nominee will likely get.
The distance between 40.3 percent and 50.1 percent of the November vote is a lot farther than either Shepard or his supporters seem to realize.
While Ellen Sauerbrey has never run for statewide office before, those from her wing of the party who have run in the recent past have been readily trounced.
Linda Chavez, another conservative Republican woman, received only 39 percent of the vote when she ran for the Senate in 1986. Perennial Senate nominee and ultraconservative Alan Keyes garnered just 38 percent of the vote in 1988, and an abysmal 29 percent in 1992.
Given Maryland's moderate traditions, it is unlikely that Sauerbrey could make the necessary inroads into Montgomery and Prince George's counties in order to pull off a November victory.
Helen Bentley will be the GOP's gubernatorial nominee. The only question yet to be answered is whether Republicans will put their differences aside and go for victory in 1994, or choose instead to travel the same well-worn path toward righteous defeat to which they have become accustomed.
Richard J. Cross