|
|
|
|
On First Amendment, Some Folks Flip-Flop Editor, Times-Dispatch: Let's see: An artist takes a cross and puts it in some urine (a rather silly and childish act), and there's a public outcry. "They should outlaw it!" "That's blasphemy!" Okay, it was distasteful. I didn't like it, but we didn't ban it. Good. Rewind the tape a little further. People burn the American flag. Some people are upset. Sure. Though it's an act of protest (a bit silly and childish), we don't get too carried away. One can still burn the flag. Let's fast-forward the tape a bit. A judge rules that technically an atheist is correct: The words "under God" are indoctrinating American kids with a certain way of thinking. Okay, that's true. But there's an outcry and the Pledge of Allegiance stays the way it was (as of 1954). But somewhere in a Southern state someone challenges the validity of burning a cross (someone's religious symbol) and the same people who are upset over flag- burning, urine artists, and the Pledge of Allegiance, stay quiet? They don't say a word? They mutter things to themselves such as, "Well, that's your First Amendment for you. I ain't upset"? Well, my friends, that's a bit of hypocrisy, don't you think? And we wonder why certain minorities give one political party a 90-percent approval rating? Well, we're some funny people, y'all. Fred Ostrow. Richmond . Jul 14, 2002 'Under God': Writer Cites Court Precedent Editor, Times-Dispatch: With regard to banning the Pledge of Allegiance, the Ninth Circuit appellate judges' reference in their majority opinion to the equation of the word "God" with Jesus, Vishnu, Zeus, and "no god" as an argument for neutrality was dismissed by the United States Supreme Court in the 1965 case, United States v. Seeger (380 U.S. 163), dealing with a statement in the Universal Military Training and Service Act about conscientious objectors being excused from military service because of "an individual's belief in a relation to a Supreme Being." Influenced by the theology of Paul Tillich, the Court decided the word "God" can represent, in Tillich's words, the "depths of your life, the source of your being, your ultimate concern, what you take serious- ly without any reservation." Thus the Court stated that a "sincere and meaningful belief which occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by God" exempts a citizen from the military. The same argument applies to saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. The federal appeals court should have studied the Seeger decision before making its ruling. Plaintiff Michael Newdow could also teach his daughter that the word "God" represents the very principles embedded in the Pledge: loyalty, unity, liberty, and justice. Jack D. Spiro. Richmond . . . . Editor, Times-Dispatch: The goofy decision to outlaw the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance is yet another example of the effects of emphasizing "diversity" rather than teaching an appreciation for our shared national values. "One nation, under God," seems to say that all are protected under God's umbrella, even unbelievers, certain Catholic priests, and other assorted miscreants and outright fruitcakes. There is nothing, either implied or openly expressed, that places "pressure" on those who are not of a particular persuasion. The verbiage in the complaint, and the decision supporting it, are equally whiny and petty. There is nothing in the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution that says that one has a right never to be offended or inconvenienced (just look at what is broadcast on TV). The complainers should grow up. Dave Cathers. . . . Editor, Times-Dispatch: This court decision about the Pledge of Allegiance has really ticked me off. Why do people continually trash God and then ask Him why He let 9/11 happen or why the world is going to Hell? The separation of church and state means the state will not force people to pursue a certain religion. People seem to think it means the state will not mention God in any way. These people who file lawsuits saying they are "offended" want money. Have they noticed those greenbacks say "In God We Trust"? None of them seems to care about that, so why do they jump at every other minute detail? This court ruling says "under God" in the Pledge
is unconstitutional because the 13 colonies were founded for religious freedom.
Back in The people who do not understand separation of church and state seemingly have not looked too hard at other countries. The Nazis hated all religion. The Taliban said Islam or else. There are dozens of more examples all over the world. What is people's problem? Michael J. Thomas, Age 14. Midlothian. 'Under God': Pledge Debate Continues Editor, Times-Dispatch: I cannot help wondering where we are going as a country that is supposed to value religious freedom when such a furor is raised because the Pledge of Allegiance is being returned to its original text. If someone believes in a god, fine. More power to him. That is his business. But he has neighbors, who are good American citizens, who believe in the goddess, multiple gods, or in some cases just an unnamed Higher Power. Some folks have found strength in beliefs they cannot fully define but know they work. Others are atheists. Some of our Founding Fathers were not Christians. It's wrong to force people to follow a Christian path who are not Christian. That is not the freedom our country was founded upon. I worry that we are becoming fascist in our tolerance of intolerance. Catherine Kauffman. Heathsville. . . . Editor, Times-Dispatch: In their effort to remove any reference to God from our public lives, the federal courts are attempting to establish atheism as our state religion. This would have been abhorrent to our Founders. From now on I, like the House of Representatives, will say "under God" a little louder and a little prouder when reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Ed Trainum. Glen Allen. . . . Editor, Times-Dispatch: I believe the decision by a panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on the Pledge of Allegiance issue was one of soundness and clarity. It is unfortunate our President writes off as "ridiculous" a ruling that properly checks the government from advocating a religious position. It seems that while most praise the fairness of the separation of church and state in this country, many fewer care to abide it. Attorney General Jerry Kilgore should speak for himself instead of calling the decision "an affront to all Americans." It is anything but an affront to this one. Travis Wheeler. Henrico. . . . Editor, Times-Dispatch: To the misguided individuals, especially those few parents, who would attempt to ban the Pledge of Allegiance from our children's classrooms and other public venues, I offer the following advice: (1)The society that does not enjoy absolute allegiance from every citizen sows the seeds of its own doom. (2)Our allegiance is to the flag and to the Republic it symbolizes. But what is the Republic? It is we, the people - all citizens. Therefore, we are pledging allegiance to each other. If someone has a problem with that, I have a problem with him. (3)If someone is offended by the "under God" phrase in the Pledge, he is either ignorant of our history or blindly arrogant. Otherwise he would be completely convinced that but for God's guiding hand, our country neither could have come to be nor survived to the present. And it will be by His good grace that we survive the future. (4)The Pledge may be voluntary, but for the true citizen it is not optional. If this sounds contradictory to someone, then his citizenship needs work. (5)In reciting the Pledge, he has no obligation to be sensitive to his neighbors. Either his neighbor is a fellow citizen or he is an alien. (6)If he refuses to recite the Pledge, then he obviously intends to enjoy all the privileges and opportunities we offer here, yet witholds his loyalty to us. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. R.S. Davidson. Richmond . 'Under God': Readers Debate 'Christian Nation' Editor, Times-Dispatch: As a regular reader of the paper and its Editorial Pages, I read all the columnists from Molly Ivins to George Will. Though they may express varied opinions along the entire spectrum of social and political thought, their rationality is not generally in question. I normally avoid the words of Ross Mackenzie. I have very little patience with his narrow-mindedness and studiously ignore his sophomoric opinions. I made an exception to my rule on July 4. Mackenzie reached a stunning level of arrogance in stating that "less muddied minds understand that like it or not, ours is a Christian nation" ["A Piece of Cake, Even Easier Than 'Re Went to the Store'"]. This is the height of undiluted chauvinism. As I understand it, we are not a theocracy, but rather a
democracy in which the majority happen to have Christian beliefs. Nowhere in our
seminal documents, Pledge of Allegiance, or inscriptions on currency or upon
public buildings is "Jesus Christ" mentioned. Further, to state that
non-Christians are merely "tolerated" in our land reminds me more of
the Less muddied minds realize we are not all of white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant descent and we do not all worship God in the same way. I, for one, think we're the stronger in our diversity. Mackenzie's opinions are normally merely laughable. This column is despicable and he owes the "rest of us" an apology. Steven A. Linas. Richmond . . . . Editor, Times-Dispatch: I would like to address all those who are offended by the word "God." I'd like to take a moment to remind opposers of tradition that our nation is founded on "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God." Please explain how saying God is an infringement on anyone's constitutional right. We are not saying, "In the Baptist Church We Trust." God does not specify a particular religion. Why should we be forced to give up our Pledge of Allegiance? If we don't have a Pledge to our own country, then what do we have? I welcome anyone who wishes to become an American citizen; however, we should not give up our traditions because a foreigner decides to leave his own country, move into ours, and then has the audacity to become offended by American tradition. We are giving up our traditions because of a few unhappy minorities and spineless government officials. Hmmmm, speaking of politicians, the simple truth is too many politicians are overly concerned with their own careers. Are they concerned with being re-elected or are they concerned for the future of our nation? Mr. or Mrs. Politician was not elected by these citizens to become re-elected. Politicians were elected to look out for our beliefs and our values. Are they really doing what they were elected to do? The 9/11 tragedy rocked our world indeed; however, doesn't anyone believe that by silently giving up God and our traditions our world is also being rocked and changed for the worse? Isn't that also a tragedy? If we want to continue to lead the world as a united nation, we cannot waver on our traditions every time someone claims he's been offended. Are we a united nation or are we a bunch of wimps who shy away every time someone gets offended? Dawn Stanley-Spaid. Stuart's Draft. 'Under God': Readers' Pledge Debate Remains Intense
Editor, Times-Dispatch: The Founding Fathers who actually risked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor inventing and defending this nation gave us a uniquely American national motto. It was also, alas, way too politically correct for the mid-century U.S. Congress. "Out of Many, One," indeed! Made us sound like a bunch of Negro-loving Commies! So Senate President Richard Nixon, Senate Democratic Party Leader Lyndon Johnson, James Eastland of Mississippi, and plenty of other serial blasphemers, racists, adulterers, bearers of false witness (the junior Senator from Wisconsin slandered the entire U.S. Army as a nest of subversives, and, after attacking the reputations of several million loyal Americans, "caught" exactly one obscure Army dentist) managed to graft God's name onto our national coin and make the chanted acknowledgment of His existence our much-improved national motto. Got rid of that old Commie motto altogether, they did. Two years before that, they had incorporated God's name into our Pledge, "improving" upon the work of an ordained minister of the faith who'd had enough sense to leave Caesar's business to Caesar and God's business to God. So the incumbents of the 1954 and 1956 sessions of Congress got publicly to vote for God. Twice in three years, a new record. These two resolutions amount to sandfleas presuming to improve upon the work of giants. They reek of the pious, ostentatious public prayer of the hypocrite, the "empty chant of the heathen." They are not only constitutionally unjustifiable, they are also in direct doctrinal opposition to the words of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, as quoted in the Book of Matthew. Matthew is also one of the parts of the Gospel in which
Jesus warns us to watch out for false prophets. Are we beginning to see a
pattern here? Mark Dorroh. . . . Editor, Times-Dispatch: Now that the Pledge of Allegiance has been declared unconstitutional, it's time to set the record straight. The political left long has argued the existence of a wall between church and state. Typical for liberals, this argument is only a half-truth. The "wall" is not between religion and state, but a particular religion and state. Never was it established by the Founders that our government was to be free from God. To argue otherwise is to elevate atheism to the status of religion. Let us be clear. We may respect the individual choice of atheism, but this respect does not change the fact that our nation was founded on the belief in a greater being, the Creator (by whatever name or names a mortal may know him/her/it). It is, in fact, the most fundamental principle of our civilization that our rights flow from said Creator. The Declaration of Independence could not be more clear. The government is a creation of man to protect rights and principles that flow from the Creator. That is to say, the government is something lesser (read: under God) established so as to protect something greater. Simply put, in the Declaration the principles flowing from the Creator are timeless and governments are finite. An individual may be an atheist, but our civilization is founded on the premise that his right to be one flows from a Creator. How's that for irony? One nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.
Doug F. Spencer. . . . Editor, Times-Dispatch: Your correspondent was gratified to witness the recent fervent rush of outrage over the 9th Circuit's inquiry into the constitutionality of the phrase, "under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance. "How dare they take God out of our Pledge?" Goodness, and for a minute there I was afraid folks didn't care. Every day in Are we so brainsick and demented as to believe that we need merely recite a series of magical words in just the right mystical order and all of our sins will be absolved? That all we need to do is blithely declare ourselves "one nation, under God" and then go back to the business of treating our neighbor as just so much disposable rubbish? Yes, it has truly been gratifying to see everyone get all
worked up and righteously indignant about the "under God" stuff. Now
all we need to do is get back to work on this forgotten project we once knew as
"liberty and justice for all." Michael Warren West. 'Under God': Pledge Issue Still Tops Agenda
Editor, Times-Dispatch: In the days the Pledge-of-Allegiance debate has been taking place, I have seen little mention of the original author of the Pledge. The first version of the Pledge was written in 1891 by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister who mentioned nothing about God in the Pledge. He left the ministry because his socialist sermons were not well received. In 1923 and 1924, a change was made from the previous
"my Flag" to "the Flag of the Then, in 1954, "under God" was added. Bellamy's granddaughter said he would have hated this change as well. So, let's consider this as well as the constitutional issues. Shouldn't we respect the author of the Pledge? Just by glancing at the letters to the editor and seeing this debate surrounding the Pledge rage on, I can see we owe him a lot. Colleen R. Toole, Age 13. midlothian. Editor, Times-Dispatch: Okay, I think everyone needs to slow down and take a deep breath. Way too many people are getting much too riled up over this Pledge of Allegiance thing. I mean really, what's the big deal? Maybe it's just because I'm only 14, but I just don't get it. Since I've been saying it, the Pledge has always mentioned the word "God." And anyone I've ever known who has had a problem with it has either skipped that line, or didn't say the Pledge at all. And there's nothing wrong with it either way, with or without the "G Word." I've always been taught the Pledge wasn't so much about a
prayer to anyone in particular, but rather said out of respect for the soldiers,
both dead and alive, who fought for the freedom of the nation. So if someone
doesn't want to hear the word "God" mentioned in school, he should put
his fingers in his ears and hum. Lisa Harbin. Editor, Times-Dispatch: If I (not an English major) can understand the plain English of the Constitution, then surely the liberal, socialist federal judges and lawyers can understand it - leading me to conclude their goal is not just to interpret the law, but to make law through their rulings. It is time for Congress to assume its responsibility for oversight of the judiciary, since judges are appointed and not elected, and put an end to this judicial activism and other abuses the judiciary is perpetrating on the citizens of our beloved nation. The First Amendment says Congress shall make no law. Congress does not consist of state legislatures, local governments, or school boards. The Amendment does not prohibit Congress from mentioning or referring to religion, but prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion. The tendency at the time of the Founding easily could have been to establish the Church of England, the Anglican Church, the Episcopal Church, or the Catholic Church as the national church. Several of our states already had dealt with that issue. A review of church history amply reveals the tendency toward excesses and corruption when the church is nationalized or when the nation is ruled by the church. Our Founders were intelligent enough to preclude that through the adoption of the First Amendment. Neither the states nor the citizens have empowered the federal government to dictate what is legislated in the states relative to religion. We have reserved that decision to ourselves. So, federal judiciary, when it comes to religion and God, get off our backs. And Congress, you keep them off our backs. Jim Powell. blackstone. | |||||||
|
Send mail to boballey@comcast.net
with questions or comments about this web site.
|
