wpe3.jpg (20850 bytes)               

Search Now:
 
In Association with Amazon.com

Free Website Calendars by Bravenet.com View my Online Calendar
 

Free Web Journal from Bravenet.com

 

Letters to the Editor 

Richmond Times-Dispatch 

Box 85333 

Richmond, Virginia 23293

 

Editor, Times-Dispatch:

The ideas in the three letters published under the banner "‘Christian Nation’ Provokes Debate" were rather disturbing and contained several factual errors. For starters, David Hutchison writes that the Declaration of Independence "endorses ‘God’ - not Allah, Buddha, Mohammad, etc." Actually, it uses several different terms to refer to a deity. Nature’s God, Creator, and Providence are all used, but nowhere does it "endorse" a Christian God. More importantly, many of the same men who attended the Second Continental Congress, which produced the Declaration of Independence, gathered eleven years later to produce the Constitution which, except for the words Year of Our Lord in reference to the date, makes no mention of any deity, Christian or non. The only reference to religion is to prohibit any religious test as a qualification for government service. It is interesting though that Hutchinson views the word God as referring specifically to a Christian Deity, especially considering the debate over the use of the word God in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Hutchison conveniently omits the establishment clause in his reference to the First Amendment, but Philip Moore, the author of the second letter, actually quotes the entire amendment and then denies that it says what it says. He follows the quote, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." with the following sentence. "There is no statement anywhere in the amendment that the government shall not establish a religion or endorse any particular one." In fact, that is exactly what it states! Both of these men choose to focus on the free exercise clause at the expense of the establishment clause. This is a tactic employed by many who would use our public institutions to further their own particular view of religion.

Another tactic is to portray those of us who object to the mixing of church and state as being atheistic, antagonistic towards religion and, in today’s political climate, unpatriotic, a most disturbing trend. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most of us believe that the separation of church and state protects both institutions, and that when state religions are established, free exercise is threatened. A related fallacy is that if government fails to mention God, it is establishing the religion of atheism. This would be the case if Congress wrote a pledge that referred to "one nation under no God", which would be equally as offensive to the First Amendment as "one nation under God", but to not mention God at all is neutrality.

Both authors imply that, because of various court rulings, people are prohibited from praying in public schools and other institutions. Again, this is simply not true. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that, because of the First Amendment, individuals, including public school students, are allowed to pray and otherwise freely exercise their religion anywhere and in any way they want, as long as they don’t disrupt the school or violate civil laws. What is true is that public school teachers and administrators, who work for the government, cannot lead students in prayer or any other religious activities as a part of the official school day. That, according to the Court, would be an establishment of religion.

The third letter, by Corbin Dixon, is rather confusing in its references to Vikings, Native Americans, and the "purest of religious beliefs", but the message, expressed by all three authors, that the United States is a Christian nation and that there never has been and never should be a separation between church and state comes through very clearly.

Undoubtedly Hutchison, Moore, and Dixon find my views as disturbing as I find theirs. Thankfully, the First Amendment and subsequent judicial rulings as to its meaning allow us all to freely express those views. My fear is that if many of the recent authors of Letters to the Editor had their way, we would no longer enjoy this right in the area of religion.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Robert S. Alley Jr

 

 

Send mail to boballey@comcast.net with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 2003 Bob Alley's Education Web Site
Last modified: 11/26/2008