Chad

Here is the unedited version of my letter to the editor that was published in today's paper. BTW, I think I would have dropped the "ignorance" comment if I had to do it all over again, but only because it comes across as harsh even if true.


I find the level of ignorance displayed by those objecting to the pledge ruling both amusing and sad. The two letters published on Saturday are excellent examples. The first writer points to Abraham Lincoln's reference to God in the Gettysburg Address as evidence that we are "one nation under god." I suppose many years from today, Christian nation revisionists will point to our current president's references to God as additional proof. Yet, if we truly are a one nation under God or a Christian nation, why is it that God, Jesus Christ, or Christianity are not mentioned in the Constitution?

The second letter writer challenges readers to identify the location of the phrase "separation of chuch and state" in the Constitution. Yet, no one that defends church and state separation claims the phrase is included the Constitution. However, the principle is there. The phrase was simply coined to indicate what the First Ammendment does without the need to repeat the law verbatim every time the issue is discussed. I wonder if the second writer objects to the right to a "fair trial" or "religious liberty." Those phrases are not in the Constitution. However, nobody disputes that the principles are there.

As far as I am concerned, people that oppose the separation of church and state, whether or not is in the Constitution, do so for one reason. These people want the United States government to favor their religion and, by default, their point of view with respect to the existence of god. For these people I quote Benjamin Franklin: "When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that it's professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign I apprehend, of it's being a bad one."

The pledge ruling does not prevent childern from saying "under God" or prohibit their parents from instructing them to do so. The ruling simply removes the phrase from the official pledge because it is not neutral with respect to religion. Furthermore, it prevents government employees (public school teachers) from teaching childern to recite the unconstitutional version. Is it really asking too much for our government to remain neutral with respect to all religious viewpoints?

rcressl

Great letter!

DMB

Well done, Chad! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

GaryP

Great!! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

crazyfingers

Excellent!