To the editor: With all due respect to Eli Federman, I take problem along with his op-ed article on rethinking the role of wine in religious ceremonies due to alcohol’s severe well being penalties.
At this time, a lot is alleged to trigger most cancers — preservatives in meals, pesticides in our soil, some even worry cellphones and microwaves. There are additionally lethal medicine that do extra harm to younger individuals than the rest.
A glass or two of wine to me is a pleasure, and right this moment I’m very wholesome. I really like joyous prayer time elevating that tumbler — it warms my soul and my physique, and sure, there’s something non secular about it.
Elaine Vanoff, West Hollywood
..
To the editor: Had Federman written 20 years in the past, he would have been touting science’s help of reasonable red-wine consuming and explaining how religions corresponding to Judaism and Catholicism made use of fermented grape juice of their ceremonies.
Through the years, the scientific examine of foods and drinks has yielded wildly completely different — typically conflicting — proof resulting in equally conflicting conclusions.
Caffeine is dangerous — no, good — no, dangerous. A glass of purple wine a day extends life, or possibly it shortens life. Eggs increase ldl cholesterol; no, they don’t. The listing is lengthy. All of those declarations needs to be consumed with a grain of salt.
Science advances, and extra info is healthier than much less. So let’s see whether or not the brand new considering on alcohol will stand the take a look at of time earlier than we throw out a whole lot and even hundreds of years of non secular rituals.
Lastly, although one could make reference to smoking warnings as a template for the alcohol state of affairs, the 2 are usually not related. Mild and even reasonable consuming impacts nobody aside from the person (so long as the drinker doesn’t drive), however secondhand smoke impacts everybody.
Andrew E. Rubin, Los Angeles
