Readers write for Saturday, Nov. 20, 2010

I just caught the news about Lockheed Martin's decision to close its Eagan facility and move remaining operations to Owego, N.Y., Manassas, Va., and San Diego ("1,000 jobs to go with Lockheed," Nov. 19).

This is very surprising, considering that Republican Rep. John Kline, whose district includes Eagan, is on the House Armed Forces Committee, and Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who is from Eagan, must have known that this was coming.

I want to hear if either of them can explain why a major defense industry company is willing to move its business and employees to states with currently higher taxes, or states facing bankruptcy, vs. staying in a state with similar or lower tax rates, and one that has a more stable workforce and a proven track record.

Pawlenty's and Kline's records are worse than Vikings Coach Brad Childress'. Why aren't Minnesotans asking for their heads?

BRUCE FOLKEN, APPLE VALLEY

• • •

Sens. Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar, where are you?

Tell me where 1,000 Minnesotans are now supposed to find jobs that pay in the six figures and include health insurance?

You both failed us.

JANET BATES, EAGAN

• • •

Our frequently absent governor said, "I strongly believe...the business friendly environment in Minnesota [is] an important consideration for continuing operations here."

Governor, people aren't stupid and businesspeople aren't deaf. Which message did Lockheed Martin hear? Which message are you going to stick with?

BOB BRERETON, ST. PAUL

Republicans fueled their election campaigns this year with attacks on President Obama for failing to end, or sharply reduce, unemployment. That would seem to suggest that the Republicans see the high unemployment rate as being caused by the president and as a serious matter that needs to be rectified.

Why, then, are they now refusing to help those who have been unable to find work ("No extension for jobless aid," Nov. 19) and, in fact, laying the blame on the unemployed for their failure to get back to work?

To make it worse, the reason that GOP legislators are giving for their opposition to extending unemployment benefits is the cost. At the same time, they're demanding that tax cuts for the top 2 percent of American incomes be extended permanently, and they aren't the least bit concerned with the source of funding for that. They're even threatening to kill tax cuts for the other 98 percent if the rich don't get theirs.

JIM BOOTZ, MINNEAPOLIS

To Bonnie Erbe's unnuanced Nov. 19 commentary from the left about the state of the Catholic Church ("An unwelcoming church may soon have its reward: emptiness") will come the predictable unnuanced responses from the right: She says the church must change its dogmas to keep up with the times, and the right will respond "Truth is not a popularity contest!"

The problem with both sides is a chronic inability to distinguish between things that are essential to the unity of the church and things that are not. The truth is that not everything in the church is up for grabs, nor should it be. But on the other hand, must the church in our day be defined by a strident insistence on a narrow set of public policy prescriptions dealing with a few sexual issues? The problem is not only that these issues are not the sum total of the Gospel. The problem is that support for candidates who say they support a particular legislative agenda regarding these issues has been made into a litmus test for being a true Catholic.

Can we please get back to basics?

BILL CAVANAUGH, ST. PAUL

Erbe stated that "Dogmatic, dictatorial churches do not resound with today's spirituality." Does she contend that a church should just drift along with the tide of public opinion instead of preaching its doctrine?

Under that premise, nothing would hold a church together across two generations, let alone about two millennia. But forget about the meaning of "faith" and "church." The main point of Erbe's piece is in error both factually and logically.

If, as the piece contends, "dogmatic and dictatorial" churches are driving members away, one would assume that traditional churches are losing members while liberal churches are gaining them. This is exactly opposite of what is happening in the United States. Liberal Protestant denominations in the United States are bleeding members, while more traditional Christian churches (including the Roman Catholic Church) are growing. That's a fact. The University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center states that of Christian converts, 15 percent leave "fundamentalist" sects for more "moderate" ones, but 21 percent go the other way.

Something must be drawing Christians to the churches Erbe spitefully denigrates. It is the very "dogma" that she scorns that more and more Christians are recognizing as the courage to speak the truth, whether it is politically correct or not.