Your Published Letters

Your January/February/March '08 Published Letters

From the March 14, 2008, edition of the Pensacola News Journal:

'Spiritual revival'

In his letter ("Politicians rejecting U.S. Constitution," March 2) David Loden calls for a spiritual revival and the election of patriots who love God. Only this will save America from destruction.

Ironically, the Pew Research Center noted, "Religion has come to be woven more deeply into the fabric of partisan politics than ever before." America's born-again president has joined the religious war against science and education, e.g., his stance on stem cell research and creationism.

Ninety-nine senators stood on the steps of the Capitol and bellowed "under God." Members of the Supreme Court have called "separation of church and state" a myth. Polls show that Americans will not elect an atheist to political office; and it is unlikely Americans would elect Thomas Jefferson president today, as he rejected the divinity of Christ.

America has never been more religious. Not since the Puritans were persecuting Baptists, Quakers and witches have the people of these shores embraced God with more devotion and fervor.

During the past century, church membership has grown from 25 percent to 65 percent of the population. A study by the Pew Research Center found that America's religiosity is closer to that of Third World countries than to other industrialized nations.

David N. Miles
Orange Beach

From the March 10, 2008, edition of Newsweek:

'The Meaning of Being Secular'

Lisa Miller rightly points out (Belief Watch, Feb 25) that America's Founders intended to set up secular -- i.e. religiously neutral -- government, with religious freedom protected by a "wall of separation between church and state". And Harvard humanist chaplain Greg Epstein is right in preferring the positive "humanist" to the empty and negative "atheist" or "unbeliever".

Edd Doerr
Silver Spring, MD

From the February 28, 2008, edition of Tuscaloosa News:

Creationism is not science

Dear Editor: A letter writer states, "I do not understand why this inane discussion of evolution and faith is still going on. It is because there are those who refuse to forgo ancient myths in favor of empirical evidence." [Feb 20]

All claims of science are tentative and are not based on unquestioned dogma. The scientific method has made evolution highly probable. The evolutionist asks questions about our origins; and then develops a hypothesis offering possible answers based on empirical evidence. The theory is continually upgraded.

While the scientist quizzically delves into the unknown to find answers, the creationist makes the unequivocal statement, "In the beginning God" and then futilely gropes to find something to give this dogma credibility. In creation "science" if the data doesn't support the dogma, then the data is rejected or changed. Creationists state that the creation model points to a creator. What is this "evidence?" What does the data tell us about this creator? Evolution is based on evidence, not wishful thinking.

The only arguments for divine creation are specious claims against evolution, e.g., the opinion of the majority of scientists doesn't make it true; and blatant falsehoods - "Evolution suffers from two fatal flaws: explaining how life came from non-life and a fossil record devoid of transitional forms." Science is explaining the former and there is a plethora of transitional fossils. Of course, there is always that hackneyed canard: "Evolution is only a theory." Even if evolution is totally wrong, it doesn't follow that creationism is valid.

David N. Miles
Orange Beach

From the February 28, 2008, edition of Mobile Press-Register:

Constitution calls for separation

Letters occasionally appear in the Press-Register stating that there is no such thing as "separation of church and state."

This contention is based on the fact that the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. While this phrase is not in the Constitution, it summarizes the spirit and force of the First Amendment's "establishment of religion" clause. Does anyone deny the principle of "fair trial" -- a phrase not found in the Constitution?

The Supreme Court in interpreting the "establishment of religion clause," has quoted Jefferson's famous phrase. In the 1879 case known as Reynolds vs. United States, the court stated that Thomas Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the First Amendment."

Justice Hugo Black (a Baptist Sunday school teacher from Alabama) spelled out church/state separation in the Supreme Court case Everson vs. Board of Education (1947) by defining the First Amendment's "establishment of religion" clause.

In expressing the court's opinion, he said, "Neither state or federal government can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." He explained that neither a state nor federal government could, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups; nor can religious organizations or groups receive support from government.

He concluded, "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a 'wall of separation between church and state.'"

While the First Amendment guarantees a person the right to acknowledge his God privately or with willing participants in any way seen fit, an individual or group may not enlist the influence of government to support religion. Government must be neutral as to religion. When the statement, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" appears on government property, it is a violation of religious neutrality.

Hence, it is a violation of the First Amendment for a public school official to lead, or authorize a student to lead, the student body in prayer. It is also a violation of the First Amendment for a school official to prevent students from praying individually or in groups or to discuss their religious views with their peers, read their Bibles, say grace before meals and pray before tests so long as they are not disruptive.

The First Amendment decrees, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." It does not state establishment of a religion (i.e., state religion) but establishment of religion -- in other words, all religion.

Obviously, if our Founders had wanted Christianity to receive special treatment from our government, the U.S. Constitution would have so stated. The words "God," "Jesus Christ" and/or "Christianity" do not appear in the text of the Constitution.

David N. Miles
Orange Beach

From the February 19, 2008, edition of the Washington Examiner:

'Do our country a favor'

So Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia does not think that torture always violates the Eighth Amendment ban on "cruel and unusual punishments". He has also shown scorn for the religious liberty provisions of the First Amendment. Yet, curiously, he is regarded by some as a "strict constructionist" of the Constitution. Justice Scalia could do our country and our liberties a great favor by retiring from the Court, and it would be nice if he would take his acolyte Justice Clarence Thomas with him.

Edd Doerr
Silver Spring, MD

From the February 03, 2008, edition of the Birmingham News:

'Sex ed can reduce abortions'

Abortion will continue to occur even if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, just as it did before Roe vs. Wade. Although education can reduce abortion, many opponents of abortion oppose sex education.

The National Center of Health Statistics reported a dramatic decline in teen pregnancies during the 1990s. Family planning was emphasized during the Clinton years. The abortion rate dropped as teen pregnancies declined.

The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States reports that reasons for the decline include:

The availability of comprehensive sexuality education in schools, leading to young people's knowledge about contraception.

More effective contraception use.

Improved ability to negotiate contraceptive practice.

Greater social support for services related to both pregnancy and disease prevention among adolescents.

Programs preaching abstinence do not prevent teenage sex. Abstinence-only has been the linchpin of the Bush administration's sex education policy. The Washington Post reported last April 14 that a six-year study concluded abstinence-only education had not proved to reduce sexual activity, teen pregnancy or sexually transmitted disease. The birth rate among teenagers 15 to 19 in the United States rose 3 percent in 2006 for the first time since 1991.

David N. Miles
Orange Beach

From the January 24, 2008, edition of the Tuscaloosa News:

'Give credit where credit is due'

Dear Editor: G. Wayne Crocker states, 'I hope they [presidential candidates] believe that God--not government--is the source of our liberties.' Bush harbors this theocratic notion and look what 'divine guidance' has done to our great nation. I certainly hope that our next president understands that his authority is derived not from God but from 'we the people' as provided for in our Constitution.

I cringe every time I hear a Christian conservative state that our liberties are a gift from God. This trivializes a concept and events that are monuments to the intellect, will, spirit, determination and sacrifice of those who did provide us with the liberties we so cherish and to those who helped preserve this gift.

Although God had millenniums to provide humankind with these liberties, freedom was only a suppressed thought in men's minds for most of civilization. During the Age of Enlightenment, John Locke advocated that sovereignty resides with the people. Locke's philosophy gave true freedom a glimmer of hope.

Men of courage and wisdom assembled a collection of farmers and tradesmen creating a ragtag army possessed with boundless bravery and perseverance. Freedom became a reality. The deist founders then created a document that guaranteed personal liberties for future Americans and inspired freedom for peoples of other nations.

Generations of Americans have unselfishly given of themselves to preserve the freedom gained 232 years ago. Our liberties are a gift from a rare breed of human beings. They deserve the credit.

David N. Miles
Orange Beach

From the January 07, 2008, edition of the Anniston Star:

'Speak Out...What the Bible Revealed'

Re "Knowing who Jesus is" (Speak Out, Dec. 29):

In complying with writer David Dethrage's suggestion, I read the Bible, and here is what was revealed to me. The founders of Christianity created a larger-than-life being they believed would bring them followers--and it did. However, they unwittingly imparted to Christ their own human frailties.

The Gospels' authors could not credit their "Lord and Savior" with bringing peace, curing leprosy, preventing hunger or eliminating poverty. It was indisputable that all of humankind's maladies were as prevalent after Christ as before Christ. Christ's proponents circumvented this problem by declaring that life on earth didn't matter, as believers would spend eternity in paradise. As a subterfuge for Christ's failures the Gospels' authors disseminated stories about Christ performing miracles. It did not matter how far-fetched the Gospels were. Beginning in the fourth century, torture insured that they were "true."

Christ's creators tried to paint a picture of a man of compassion and forgiveness. Ironically, Christ proclaimed, "But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation." In essence, the Gospels are little more than a threat. "Accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and worship His God, or suffer horrible consequences."

David N. Miles
Orange Beach

Chronological Archives