Have some faith
Kent Williams: I read your review of The Passion of the Christ today in the March 9 C-VILLE [“The gospel according to Mel,” Film]. While I understand that subjectivity, rather than objectivity, is permissible in writing movie reviews, your article is painfully lacking in references. You make claims, as fact, based only on nebulous “Bible scholars,” while defensively criticizing the validity of the New Testament.
The claims you make are amusing to those who are studied not only in theology, but history. As a journalist, I would think that you would want to back up your (baseless) “truths” with sufficient reference and cross-reference a widely accepted study of historical antiquity, in the least, if not the New Testament [itself].
A skeptical journalist at the Chicago Tribune set out to do just that—to prove, through investigation and cross-examination, that the New Testament was legendary, contradictory and written too far beyond the time of Christ’s life on earth to be considered reliable history. Journalist Lee Strobel recorded his findings in a scientific-oriented book titled The Case for Christ. I challenge you to read it. Humility is liberating.
Leslie Bailey
Earlysville
Religious fervor
One-hundred million Orthodox Christians may not be wrong, but Rich Lowry certainly is [“The passion of the Right,” Right Turn, March 2]. His article reminds me of the book Angela’s Ashes, where Angela doesn’t want to go to the Catholic church, even though her family is starving, because they’ll force their religious beliefs on her in exchange for their “charity.” I’m also reminded how, growing up Southern Baptist, movies were strictly forbidden. Even the “good” movies supported a vile and evil industry chock full of sin. Now it’s O.K. to see a movie made by Mel Gibson, who has played some of the most violent characters on the screen? It’s nice to see some things haven’t changed: Christians are still mostly hypocrites. Bush would have us swallow Christianity or starve, but those of us who follow a different spiritual path shouldn’t be underestimated. They haven’t burned the Constitution—yet.
Donna Smith
Albemarle County
Birth quake
I appreciated Brian Wimer’s report on midwifery in the Commonwealth [“Choice across party lines,” The Week, March 18]. However, I strongly call into question the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ (ACOG) position that “childbirth presents hazards that can only be addressed by a hospital setting.”
Over the past 15 years, more than 25 published studies indicate that for healthy, low-risk women, planned home birth is a safe option. In fact, the American Public Health Association (APHA) adopted a resolution in 2001 to increase access to home birth midwifery.
ACOG, in order to bolster its claim that home birth is not as safe as hospital deliveries, has widely publicized the results of a single study—despite the fact that the study authors admit to several methodological flaws that invalidate the results.
The most significant of these flaws is that the authors may have defined unplanned and unattended births as planned home births. In their discussion, the authors themselves warn that their study should not be used to advise consumers about the safety of planned home birth. Despite this, ACOG has attempted to drive this study into the public consciousness with a misleading press release about the conclusions and no mention of the methodological flaws.
Alternatively, a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), widely referred to as the Farm Study, examined pregnancy outcomes of 1,707 women that birthed at home attended by a group of lay midwives in rural Tennessee. Compared to other low-risk women who birthed during the same time period attended by physicians in hospitals, the home birth group experienced perinatal outcomes (mortality, apgar score, and labor complications) comparable to the physician-attended hospital group. However, the outcomes for the two groups were hardly “on par”—they differed significantly on the rate of intervention during labor. The home birth group was much more likely to deliver without the use of forceps, epidural anesthesia, episiotomies and cesarean section. The results of the Farm Study indicate that, under certain circumstances, home births attended by lay midwives can be accomplished as safely as, and with less intervention than, physician-attended hospital deliveries.
Brynne Potter
Charlottesville
Correction
Last week’s Election Watch incorrectly characterized the voting record of Republican candidate Kenneth Jackson. In fact, he voted in each of three recent elections, according to corrected City records. In responding to C-VILLE’s request for voting records, the City Registrar’s office provided our reporter with the record of a different Kenneth Wayne Jackson, not the candidate.
mailbag@c-ville.com OR
C-VILLE WEEKLY
106 E. Main St.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Letters to the editor should be exclusive to C-VILLE Weekly and may pertain to content that we have published. Letters are not to exceed 400 words and may be edited for clarity and length. We accept letters via post or e-mail. To be published, letters must be signed. Please include a phone number for verification.