Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ennazus · 03-16-2003, 11:09 AM

Hello all,
Please check out this editorial letter in the Fence Post of my local paper, suburban Chicago's Daily Herald. How does one respond to a letter like this, without sounding angry and bitter? When I think of a response, I feel angry and bitter--so it's been tough. I can't let something like this go with no response. It's down the page a few letters and it's called "Let's not remove God from public life". Thank you for any thoughts. Suzanne

http://www.dailyherald.com/oped/letters.asp

Javaman · 03-16-2003, 11:38 AM

I would suggest using reason but that really doesn't help with the folks that don't use it to begin with. BTW, my local paper has a letter showing that atheism is an enemy of democracy

... or at least leads to it.

Dr Rick · 03-16-2003, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Suzanne**Atheist
How does one respond to a letter like this, without sounding angry and bitter?

Try to remember as you compose your response that you're not likely to convince Mr Hesse of anything, so that should not be your goal. Your response should try to address reasonable people that might have read his rantings.

You could refer to Mr Hesse in the third person or not at all, which may help you distance yourself emotiionally from him.

If you think it might help, why not post your drafts here so that we can provide some constructive criticism?

Rick

Toto · 03-16-2003, 12:01 PM

You are not trying to use reason with them, but with the impressionable minds that might be reading the letter. You are also sending a signal to your fellow rationalists that they are not alone in recognizing this as idiocy, and that they too should speak out.

My thoughts (which probably ought to be toned down):

To the editor

Regarding Gary Hess's letter of (whatever date) Michael Newdow's victory in the Ninth Circuit was not a "victory for atheism." It was a victory for everyone who does not want the government telling them what their relationship with God has to be.

Contrary to Mr. Hess's assertions, it is not illegal to mention God or to read documents that mention God. It is, however, a violation of the First Amendment to put an official stamp on a pledge that embodies a particular theology - that our nation is "under God." This shuts out not only atheists, but those who think that God is within them or within all of nature, those who think that God does not take sides in international disputes, and those who think that God does not bless one nation at the expense of another - not to mention those who worship a Goddess or multiple Gods.

Mr. Hess should also note that the Judge who wrote the decision in the Newdow case is a veteran and was appointed to the bench by President Nixon.

Now that we are preparing to go to war with another culture that also thinks its God (Allah) is on its side, as shown by the unexpected success of the 9-11 hijacking, it is time for all of us to stop and think, not just have our knees jerked by a few emotionally laden words.

Very truly yours,

. . .

Ennazus · 03-16-2003, 01:23 PM

Dr. Rick,

Thanks, I will post my draft when I get it started. Right now I am still fuming and composing the letter in my head. I appreciate all of the posters' ideas and advice. Toto, you should send your letter in also! Suzanne

Never · 03-16-2003, 02:00 PM

It seems to me that the author has answered himself right here but doesn't realize it:

"The First Amendment prohibited only government endorsement of one church over another"

Bingo. One nation "under God" endorses Christianity over any other religion. What if a future American government changed it to "under Allah". Would this expression of religion in the pledge then be a problem for the author?

BigBlue2 · 03-16-2003, 02:59 PM

Quote:

from the letter
With God "prohibited" in our schools and public meetings, those profiting from abortion, pornography, gambling and other violations of the Ten Commandments will flourish.

Which commandments do abortion, pornography and gambling violate? Abortion is a property crime at worst (Exodus 21:22). Has this guy read the manual?

lpetrich · 03-16-2003, 03:39 PM

Abortion would be covered by the prohibition of murder.

Pornography would qualify as a virtual form of adultery, at least according to the interpretation in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:27-18).

But gambling???

Shake · 03-18-2003, 05:17 AM

Suzanne (Welcome, btw!) and Javaman, I can't find the articles/letters that you were talking about. But I did find this interesting piece from the link Suzanne provided. It's pretty good.

Ennazus · 03-18-2003, 12:40 PM

Thanks, Shake. I still don't have a word written on paper or typed on screen. This would/will be my first letter to an editor and it's proving to be difficult. Suzanne

03-16-2003, 11:09 AM	#1
Ennazus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Chicago 'burbs Posts: 1,242	Responding to idiocy in the local papers Hello all, Please check out this editorial letter in the Fence Post of my local paper, suburban Chicago's Daily Herald. How does one respond to a letter like this, without sounding angry and bitter? When I think of a response, I feel angry and bitter--so it's been tough. I can't let something like this go with no response. It's down the page a few letters and it's called "Let's not remove God from public life". Thank you for any thoughts. Suzanne http://www.dailyherald.com/oped/letters.asp

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-16-2003, 11:38 AM	#2
Javaman Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Nebraska Posts: 1,708	I would suggest using reason but that really doesn't help with the folks that don't use it to begin with. BTW, my local paper has a letter showing that atheism is an enemy of democracy ... or at least leads to it.

03-16-2003, 12:01 PM	#4
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	You are not trying to use reason with them, but with the impressionable minds that might be reading the letter. You are also sending a signal to your fellow rationalists that they are not alone in recognizing this as idiocy, and that they too should speak out. My thoughts (which probably ought to be toned down): To the editor Regarding Gary Hess's letter of (whatever date) Michael Newdow's victory in the Ninth Circuit was not a "victory for atheism." It was a victory for everyone who does not want the government telling them what their relationship with God has to be. Contrary to Mr. Hess's assertions, it is not illegal to mention God or to read documents that mention God. It is, however, a violation of the First Amendment to put an official stamp on a pledge that embodies a particular theology - that our nation is "under God." This shuts out not only atheists, but those who think that God is within them or within all of nature, those who think that God does not take sides in international disputes, and those who think that God does not bless one nation at the expense of another - not to mention those who worship a Goddess or multiple Gods. Mr. Hess should also note that the Judge who wrote the decision in the Newdow case is a veteran and was appointed to the bench by President Nixon. Now that we are preparing to go to war with another culture that also thinks its God (Allah) is on its side, as shown by the unexpected success of the 9-11 hijacking, it is time for all of us to stop and think, not just have our knees jerked by a few emotionally laden words. Very truly yours, . . .

03-16-2003, 01:23 PM	#5
Ennazus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Chicago 'burbs Posts: 1,242	Dr. Rick, Thanks, I will post my draft when I get it started. Right now I am still fuming and composing the letter in my head. I appreciate all of the posters' ideas and advice. Toto, you should send your letter in also! Suzanne

03-16-2003, 02:00 PM	#6
Never Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: OH Posts: 5,266	It seems to me that the author has answered himself right here but doesn't realize it: "The First Amendment prohibited only government endorsement of one church over another" Bingo. One nation "under God" endorses Christianity over any other religion. What if a future American government changed it to "under Allah". Would this expression of religion in the pledge then be a problem for the author?

03-16-2003, 03:39 PM	#8
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Abortion would be covered by the prohibition of murder. Pornography would qualify as a virtual form of adultery, at least according to the interpretation in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:27-18). But gambling???

03-18-2003, 05:17 AM	#9
Shake Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Folding@Home in upstate NY Posts: 14,394	Suzanne (Welcome, btw!) and Javaman, I can't find the articles/letters that you were talking about. But I did find this interesting piece from the link Suzanne provided. It's pretty good.

03-18-2003, 12:40 PM	#10
Ennazus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Chicago 'burbs Posts: 1,242	Thanks, Shake. I still don't have a word written on paper or typed on screen. This would/will be my first letter to an editor and it's proving to be difficult. Suzanne

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.