Letters

In her report on the divisiveness of the presidential election [Nov. 1], Nancy Gibbs contemplated whether it will be possible to bring Americans together after the vote. It is not only possible but also probable. While those in our nation's capital and in the media are totally consumed by politics, most Americans view politics as just one element of their everyday lives. We are too busy to be overcome by the aftermath of elections. We share key values. Ultimately, we all want to be able to live decent lives in peace and security. The presidential election almost seems to have taken on the quality of the World Series or the Super Bowl. We each have a favorite, but after the winner has been determined, we can go back to our regular lives. CHARLES K. STEIN Coram, N.Y.

I am the sole Democrat where I work. All of us are devoutly Christian and love one another. As Oregonians we were able to cast our mail-in ballots before Election Day, and since then my friends and I have quietly sought to heal the wounds inflicted by this heated campaign. We've asked one another probing questions and listened with respect and good humor to the answers. I try to avoid eye rolling, although I cannot say it has never happened. And we have kept in mind that our goals and values are the same. We just have different ideas about how to get there. KATHLEEN PRESNELL Roseburg, Ore.

As someone who mostly votes republican, I want to think that only one side takes part in voting shenanigans. But as an intelligent American citizen, I know that the "funny stuff" is probably pretty evenly divided. I believe people should vote because they've educated themselves on the issues, and are ready to make an informed choice, not because election-year propaganda has told them what to do. But unfortunately, being informed isn't a prerequisite. Any law-abiding citizen can fill out a ballot. MARK WAFLE Green Bay, Wis.

After an election, it isn't always easy to forgive, forget and move on. And although it's disheartening to believe that the leader of your country is a wrongheaded and dangerous person, it's far worse to realize he was eagerly chosen by a self-righteous and gloating majority. Some of us feel deep in our heart that America isn't really the place for us, that perhaps we belong somewhere else, in a country where good people live. There are parts of the U.S. where I now know I could not live, not because of the red or blue color on the electoral map but because of the narrowness of the residents' minds and the darkness of their hearts. Might we not be better off as two separate nations than as one in which half of us are forced to accept the will of the other half? LARRY HERBST Pasadena, Calif.

TIME'S cover stated, "The stakes are higher than we could ever imagine." The magazine needs to be more judicious. Anyone who has studied the American Civil War or lived through the cold war and Vietnam knows there were more polarized election seasons, when the stakes were surely higher than they are now. The casualty levels of the war on terrorism, regrettable as they are, have not approached those of other conflicts. We got through them. This has been a politically contentious time, but were we to face another crisis on the scale of Pearl Harbor or 9/11, Americans would get over it, whoever might be in office. Our domestic political campaign was a war of words. If we exaggerate its importance, as you do, we increase the danger that a more destructive divisiveness will rise among us. JOSEPH R. STAINS Homer City, Pa.

Your story on the divided state of the country was inspired and posed a warning that all should heed. Disagreements are destroying the U.S. from within. Politics has become a major contributor to the breakdown of trust, without which government and civil society cannot function. And we are setting a ghastly example for the world. The presidential campaign was not a shining model of democracy but a no-holds-barred push to win at any cost--a sort of politics of mutually assured destruction. We should delay any future elections until the Democrats and Republicans agree to sign a peace treaty and re-establish the integrity of our nation. DAISY SWADESH Farmington, N.M.

Why do we continue to use the Electoral College when the popular vote should count now more than ever? There should be just one vote, allowing our citizens to speak once and for all. Maybe then the money spent and the promises made by the candidates would be directed more at the real issues that affect voters. JERRY KEELER Bath, N.Y.

Most Americans have absolutely no clue as to the importance of the Electoral College. It is not the easiest thing to understand, but it is crucial: it allows all areas of the country to be represented. Every person's vote should count, but we are not a pure democracy, we are a republic, and as such we vote for people to represent us. The Electoral College was set up to give the small states a voice and has done a marvelous job of achieving its purpose. If the Electoral College were abolished, would presidential candidates ever visit the less populous states? Probably not. The Electoral College is still valuable. It may need some reform, but it should not be eliminated. JANICE SMITH Philadelphia

I became a U.S. citizen in 1968, and I believe that voting is the most important part of citizenship. I have been amazed that the system is so disorganized--flawed voter lists and different election rules in different states. Compared with many other countries, the U.S. is still in the Stone Age. We need to develop national election standards. Our votes can push national and local issues in widely disparate directions. But if you did not vote, you have no right to complain. PETER JENKINS Eagle River, Alaska

Thanks for addressing a fundamental reality head on. The term Uncivil War nails it. I am afraid of the aftermath of the election. I'm afraid for the future of this country. We must find a sane way through this trial and focus on those fulfilling little moments in life that quietly trump our sometimes desperate fears. MICHAEL KIRK San Bernardino, Calif.

Your article invited the thought that no matter who won the election, half the country would need a morning-after pill to cope with the results. If we cannot agree on, for example, what counts as unjustifiable homicide (as we cannot in the case of abortion), then perhaps we constitute a polity in name only and should be free to secede from the Union. Or is that our democracy's only forbidden desire? ANTHONY FLOOD New York City

The people of the U.S.--and that includes the media--need to rally behind our President and give him our full support. We must remain a nation united to defeat our enemies. They would like nothing better than to see the U.S. implode following a divisive election. We don't need the mainstream media to foment chaos and divisiveness. Enough already! We need the media to help unite us. United we stand; divided we fall. HARRIET E. RICE Webster, Wis.

The Spirituality Gene

My hat goes off to TIME for the provocative piece "Is God in Our Genes?" [Oct. 25]. I am a deeply spiritual person and often wonder why more people are not also that way. Has molecular biologist Dean Hamer with his discovery of a God gene, one that inclines a person toward spiritual beliefs, answered that question for me? Is it really in the genes? That makes sense to me. MARGOT ROBINSON Greensboro, N.C.

It is very sad that people in this day and age of scientific discovery still cling to old superstitions. If we would accept that this is the only life we have and stop yearning for a nonexistent afterlife, maybe humanity would make the world of today a better place.WILLIAM MCWHINNEY Coral Springs, Fla.

Could there also be a gene that inclines some to rationalize God as existing only in our minds? TOM HOUG South Pasadena, Calif.

Humans are pattern-seeking, social animals with a talent for storytelling. Spirituality and religion result from these traits. They help humans feel comfort in a dangerous, often frightening, world. But the more we learn about ourselves and the universe, the more it becomes obvious to anyone who thinks rationally that spirituality and religion are really self-created illusions. It's time we faced reality and dealt with the universe as it really is, not as we imagine it to be. Our continued technological advancement and survival depend upon it. GARY MEAD Travis, Calif.

Your story asks, "Did humans create religion from cues sent from above, or did evolution instill in us a sense of the divine so that we would gather into the communities essential to keeping the species going?" As an atheist turned agnostic turned theist turned Christian, I find myself embracing a theory that both sides find controversial: intelligent design. We are created with the need for God by God. AMY E. MITCHELL Eaton, Ohio

When I read about Hamer's discovery that brain chemicals responsible for regulating our mood are found in people who have traits of spirituality, a light came on. For 35 years I tried to regulate my wild mood swings with drugs, alcohol and relentless exercise. Not until I recently re-found my faith did my mood swings stop--completely. Now I understand why. JIM DUFFY Fort Atkinson, Wis.

Registration Efforts for All

Your article "Trhanslating Faith into Spanish" [Oct. 25] contained an important error about Focus on the Family's Hispanic voter-registration initiative. You said our group is taking the wedge issues of abortion, same-sex marriage and stem-cell research and emphasizing them with Hispanic voters in an attempt "to try to sway the Hispanic vote for George Bush." As a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization under the Internal Revenue Code, our voter-registration efforts for both Hispanic and general audiences are nonpartisan. We cannot and do not advocate for or against one candidate or party. GLENN WILLIAMS, VICE PRESIDENT FOCUS ON THE FAMILY Colorado Springs, Colo.

Hope for Tibet?

The Dalai Lama, Tiber's exiled religious and political leader, said in his interview with TIME [Oct. 25], "If you look at the Tibet situation locally, then it's hopeless. But from a wider perspective, it's hopeful." To me, it looks as if the struggle for Tibetan independence from China will further diminish after the Dalai Lama's death. Exile and inaction never yield positive results. While it is true that peaceful methods of promoting the cause of Tibetan freedom should be adopted, what has the Dalai Lama done to direct these efforts? In today's world, substituting philosophy for action does not yield results. ZUBAIR KHAN Frankfurt, Germany

Waiting in the Wings

Your article "Iraq's Shadow Ruler" [Oct. 25], on Islamic Shi'ite leader Grand Ayatullah Ali Husaini Sistani, stated, "The version of democracy [the U.S.] went to war to create in Iraq may not be the one it gets. To achieve a stable, free Iraq, there's no going around the power--and preferences--of ... Sistani." I doubt, however, that Sistani would ever cooperate with a pro-U.S. regime in Iraq. After all, your story quoted the cleric as telling citizens to ask the Americans they meet, "When are you leaving Iraq?" CHRISTOPHER RUSHLAU Mosul, Iraq

In Defense of Action

People are still objecting to the invasion of Iraq [Oct. 25]. But the fact is that President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair are nearly the only people who are willing to act and not just talk. If it weren't for these men, no action would have been taken against Saddam Hussein until the world was on the verge of destruction, and by then it would have been too late. Just imagine how effective the fight against terrorism could be if all the countries of the world worked together instead of sitting back and relentlessly criticizing the actions of the U.S. and Britain. MACIEK PUNA Secunda, South Africa

After the flurry of car bombings, hostage takings and beheadings in Iraq, I find it disturbing for the media to depict these killers as "insurgents" or "resistance fighters." A fuss is made over every foreign civilian casualty in the green zone, the headquarters of the U.S. administration in Baghdad, while the Iraqi civilian casualties of terrorist acts get scant coverage. And how is the U.S. policy of winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis going to work in a terrorist haven like Fallujah, where many of the citizens are collaborating with the extremists? Any peaceful means of conflict settlement by Americans is viewed by these brutes as weakness and emboldens them to commit even more horrible acts. If the pro-democracy forces and the West want to avoid a second Vietnam in Iraq, they need to use determination and tactics like massive aerial bombings of terrorist havens. If the terrorists are faced with the prospect of total extermination, they might think twice about their actions. WERNER MEYER Duesseldorf, Germany