Every Saturday when I read the paper, I swear to myself that I will not read Sue Lani Madsen’s article. She rarely, if ever, provides solutions to the issues she writes about. And frankly her article about the Women’s March really offended me.
Imagine my surprise to read she teaches an ethics class with an “established syllabus” and a textbook from the 1980s. That sure explains everything about her beliefs. The irony made me laugh.
Madsen does not feel the government should force a florist to sell to a couple she does not believe should be able to marry. It goes against the florist’s religious beliefs. However, Madsen agrees the government should interfere in a woman’s individual reproductive rights. So can we infer that Madsen wants government involvement when she agrees with the issue?
I’m sure there are more updated ethics textbooks that could be used. Perhaps Madsen likes staying in the 1980s. Maybe offering some solutions in her articles would help, though I doubt it.
Of course, I won’t know as I continue my struggle to not read her articles.
Beverly Gibb
Spokane
Our editors found this article on this site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.
