Two opposing points of view on Shahid Shafi’s GOP role

We support Dr. Shafi strongly

We write in support of our colleague Shahid Shafi, a Southlake surgeon and the vice chairman of the Tarrant County Republican Party.

Just as we reject discrimination of all kinds in our profession and in our practices, we urge the party’s executive committee to reject discrimination against Dr. Shafi because of his faith. Prejudice and discrimination are anti-American, anti-Texan and contrary to the ethical precepts of medicine.

Our Code of Medical Ethics directs physicians to respect the law and seek changes in laws that “are contrary to the best interests of the patients.”

We are proud of Dr. Shafi for taking this directive to heart with his service on the Southlake City Council and in the Republican Party. He joins eight Texas physicians — all Republicans — in the Texas Legislature and the U.S. Congress, and countless more in city and county government, on school boards and as volunteer local leaders of both parties.

The training has to be kept secret

In regards to the Dec. 4 front-page story, “Dispute over Muslim Republican intensifies”: The only substance in this article that “intensifies” is the reporting by Anna M. Tinsley, which is aimed at discrediting solid efforts by Dale Attebery, Sara Legvold and Dorrie O’Brien to build a solid knowledge base among Republicans who will vote on the issue of Shahid Shafi’s remaining in the Tarrant County Republican Party leadership.

The so-referenced secret training event is needed because one of O’Brien’s past training events was disrupted by Muslim attendees. For that reason, they are being excluded from this event.

The Democrat-inspired, McClatchy Star-Telegram is sowing confusion about an honest effort to train people about what Islam will do in the future. I have attended this training. It directs attention to two key Islamic documents: “Reliance of the Traveler — A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law” and “Tafsir: An Introduction to Quranic Exegesis.”

Tinsley is distorting the truth.

When is a nickname not?

A Wednesday letter writer who took exception to an earlier letter that referred to Rep. Beto O’Rourke’s nickname as immature offered the retort that Sen. Rafael Edward Cruz goes by the nickname Ted.

Sorry, but that is not a valid comparison. Does he not know that Ted is a very common nickname used by many adults with the given name Edward — as in Ted Kennedy? And don’t tell me Beto is a common Hispanic nickname for Roberto. O’Rourke’s name is not Roberto, and he isn’t Hispanic — though he seems to have emphasized his nickname to try to “Hispanicize” himself to get more votes.

Now if Cruz had plastered front yards with “Teddy for U.S. Senator” signs, that would have been acting more like O’Rourke.

And as for O’Rourke’s presidential ambitions — it’s customary to actually win at least one statewide office first.

A market-based climate solution

The recent article “Report: With climate change, big wildfires may triple in number” (Nov. 24, 4A) paints a grim picture of a future with extreme weather, rising oceans, crop failures and threats to global security, caused largely by rising global temperatures.

The problems may seem overwhelming, but the principal solution is clear: We need to reduce the use of fossil fuels. Economists have long agreed that the most effective approach is to put a price on carbon.

Last week, a bipartisan bill, the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, was introduced in the House of Representatives.

This bill is a conservative, market-based approach that would place a steadily rising fee on carbon emissions and return all the revenues collected to American households.

I urge Reps. Kay Granger and Marc Veasey and newly elected Ronald Wright to study this bill carefully. It could help make our future a happier one.