Dear USA Today editors,

I am just curious to know how many angry letters you have received since Star Parker's ill-conceived editorial, "Countries in Glass Houses," appeared in your paper last week?

I do not have a problem with you folks providing a range of viewpoints in your editorial pages - that's the whole point of such a page. But to publish an article that starts out with a very misleading sentence, and then goes on to draw an absurd parallel between "pro-choice" Americans and Palestinian suicide bombers, is completely irresponsible on your part.

As editors, I expect that you would want your writers to provide a well-supported argument. However, what Ms. Parker left out of her first sentence, and what you ignored, is that the evangelical ministers who got into trouble after 9-11 did so not because they questioned the moral fiber of America, but because they specifically pointed the finger at "homosexuals" and "feminists" for helping to create the moral climate that brought on the attack.

As someone who has seen a number of close female friends agonize over whether or not to have an abortion, I deeply resent Ms. Parker's parallel between "abortionists" and suicide bombers. How you could allow such an inflammatory and ill-conceived argument in print? Honestly, what is the similarity between someone intent on killing a number of people for political purposes and the agonizing decision to eliminate an unborn life inside you?

I'm amazed that it was not obvious to your editors that Ms. Parker was offering up one of the most simplistic summaries of volatile issues like abortion and Middle East conflict ever seen in print. Instead of furthering intelligent debate, this article simply proves divisive.

The biggest shame of all is that Ms. Parker's initial desire to take a harder look at our own country's moral issues is such a laudable one. Next time you publish an article by an author who wants to look at our own moral culpability as a nation, how about making sure that author includes themselves in their inquiry instead of scapegoating a particular group of people who, incidentally, share a wide range of political and religious viewpoints?