Your Published Letters

From the June 27, 2006, edition of the Las Vegas Sun:

Letter: School District right to limit grad's speech

The Clark County School District is being criticized in national media for complying with the U.S. Constitution. At a Foothill High School graduation ceremony, Brittany McComb was prevented from using an unapproved talk promoting her religious belief.

The School District, by providing McComb with the opportunity to give a talk to other graduates, acted appropriately by not allowing her to proselytize others at the graduation ceremony. McComb's free speech and religious rights were certainly not violated. She has a right to speak freely and practice her religion anywhere in her church, her home and even on a public street. But the school should not endorse her religious proselytizing by providing her with the equipment, the place and the audience.

I wonder what the public outcry would have been if McComb was prevented from saying she owes her graduation to Satan or if she tried to say her mind was not cluttered with religion and her lack of belief in God was responsible for her high grades? Would her free speech rights have been violated if she was not allowed to promote racial or ethnic hatred? In each of these cases the School District would prevent her from continuing and would probably be praised for doing so.

The First Amendment requires separation of church and state, which includes a prohibition of governmental endorsement of religious beliefs and practices. This requirement protects religions as well as individuals who may not hold the same religious beliefs as the majority. This same amendment assures that McComb can freely express her religious beliefs anywhere, but that she cannot expect the government school to assist her in that expression.

Mel Lipman
Las Vegas

Editor's note: The writer is president of the American Humanist Association.

From the June 19, 2006, edition of the Mobile (Alabama) Press-Register:

America founded as Christian nation?

In his June 13 letter, "Our public schools have been ruined," Bill Casey proclaims, "When the colonies became the United States, God was very important to people." He also quotes former Chief Justice Earl Warren, "I don't see how anyone can study the history of this nation and not recognize that we are a Christian nation."

While he is sure that America was founded by God-fearing men as a Christian nation, those who were present at the founding were not so sure. In fact, the founders gave the faithful good reason to fret over the religious course the new nation was to take, as God and Christianity were conspicuously absent in the public statements and policies of the founders.

In 1787 and 1788 the Constitution, which made no reference to God, Christ or Christianity, was attacked by its detractors as a deist conspiracy to overthrow the Christian commonwealth. A pamphleteer, "Aristocrats," contended that the delegates in Philadelphia created a government that for the first time in world history removed religion from public life.

Many witnesses to the formation of the United States, including a delegate to the Connecticut Ratifying Convention, William Williams, were appalled that the document did not requisition divine guidance, did not vow to build a godly nation, and, in fact, did not even mention God.

It especially grieved Williams that the Constitution did not demand a religious test for office-holders requiring "an explicit acknowledgment of the being of God, his perfections and his providence."

Because of his religious unorthodoxy, Thomas Jefferson was reviled by the clergy. In a July 4, 1798 sermon, Yale University president the Rev. Timothy Dwight warned Christians against supporting "the philosophers, the atheists and the deists" in the election of 1800. Rev. Dwight opined that "our churches may become temples of reason" should Jefferson win the election.

In 1812, Timothy Dwight was still lamenting, "We framed the Constitution without any acknowledgment of God; without any recognition of His mercies to us as a people, of His government, or even of His existence."

David N. Miles
Orange Beach, Alabama

From the June 15, 2006, edition of the Anniston (Alabama) Star:

Speak Out ... More thoughts on gays and gay marriage

By our readers

Christian conservatives opposing same-sex marriages proclaim that God abhors homosexuality - a sin biblically, punishable by death, and today a ticket to eternal damnation. It is unfortunate that many fervently embrace the god of the ancient Hebrews. This god was used then, and is still used today, to justify people's likes, such as wars of aggression, and dislikes - anyone who doesn't subscribe to their beliefs and practices.

From the time the Hebrews created their god, obedience to his "will" has plagued mankind with intolerance, violence and hate. Rather than continuing to blindly obey God's irrational and unlawful orders, maybe we should remake this vindictive, capricious, cruel deity into a rational and kind god who understands biology and wants all people to enjoy life's pleasures.

Of course, if Jerry Falwell and his ilk could not preach that "God is a consuming fire" (Hebrews 12:29), the fear factor that brings tithes into their coffers would soon vanish. While President Roosevelt said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself," Falwell and his sort know that they have nothing to fear but the disappearance of fear. The wrath of a God who condemns homosexuality and same-sex marriages keeps them in business.

David N. Miles
Orange Beach, Alabama

From the June 10, 2006, edition of the Pensacola (Florida) News Journal:

It's important to question Christian beliefs

Letter writer Chrys Holley ("Satan on attack," June 1) asks, "Can good come from Dan Brown's blasphemous work ('The Da Vinci Code')?" Any work is beneficial that prompts the questioning of incredible notions that are accepted without evidence.

The majority will dismiss Brown's work as a blasphemous lie. However, some will investigate to determine if there is any truth to the movie, or more importantly, to the biblical story of Christ. They will be amazed to find that there isn't one shred of historical documentation corroborating the Gospel accounts of Christ.

Why is this good? Because if the story of Christ is fiction, then intolerance and atrocities committed in Christ's name are unjustified. For example, if Christ were not declared to be divine, millions of Jews would not have been subjected to unspeakable horrors for denying his divinity.

Today, biblically justified intolerance permeates Christianity. This intolerance is responsible for the discord plaguing all levels of society.

Christianity steadfastly proclaims itself inerrant, and its creeds, tenets and practices immune from criticism. Hence, secular institutions, e.g., the arts and government, must provide the impetus for enlightenment and rational behavior.

David N. Miles
Orange Beach, Alabama

From the June 1, 2006, edition of the Laurel (Maryland) Leader:

Matthew Pasalic's May 18 letter on church-state separation is just plain wrong.

While the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, it is implied, as the Constitution gives government no authority to meddle with religion. The First Amendment prohibits government from interfering with the free exercise of religion or taking any actin "respecting an establishment of religion." President Jefferson declared in 1802 that these words erect "a wall of separation between church and state."

The Supreme Court in the 1870s agreed with Jefferson, as did the Court, unanimously, in 1947 in the Everyone and subsequent rulings.

After the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment was passed to make the Bill of Rights applicable to state and local governments. In 1952 Congress approved the Puerto Rico Constitution, which states: "There shall be complete separation of church and state."

The late Chief Justice Rehnquist may have disagreed with the separation principle, but he was outvoted by his colleagues.

As for religion classes in public schools, there is no way that our many hundreds of religious traditions and divisions within them could possibly provide such classes in our 15,000 separate school districts. Our churches are quite capable of taking care of religious education.

Moreover, Benjamin Franklin wrote 250 years ago that, "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 its professors (adherents) are obliged to call for the help of the civil power (government), 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."

Edd Doerr
President
Americans for Religious Liberty
Silver Spring, Maryland

From the June 1, 2006, edition of the Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch:

City rules show disrespect for free speech

A recent letter by Bea Murphy complained that the Columbus city government is refusing the Hilltop community's requests for a public meeting on a proposed neighborhood health center the city wants to build.

By opposing public discussion of the issue, the city is continuing an alarming and un-American trend of quashing public debate and criticism.

Several years ago, the city silenced many community groups and citizens by eliminating public-access TV. City officials say no money is available for it, despite collecting $7 million in franchise fees from cable TV companies each year. Numerous smaller U.S. cities somehow continue funding and offering public-access TV.

To further clamp down on public debate, last year the city stopped showing on the government's TV Channel 3 the speakers at City Council meetings and the other nonagenda items. And the city began requiring permission and 15 days' notice for any rally at City Hall, along with additional new restrictions on protests there.

Those acts could not be taken by leaders who cherish free speech and an open marketplace of ideas, as our Founding Fathers did. Thomas Jefferson said the right to speak freely and receive information is so important that, in its defense, "every spirit should be ready to devote itself to martyrdom."

U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas warned in 1952: "Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us."

Open discussion of public issues and a well-informed citizenry are at the foundation of a government that is supposed to be, as Abraham Lincoln said, "of the people, by the people, for the people." The city's ongoing erosion of that foundation must be reversed.

Joseph C. Sommer
Columbus, Ohio

From the May 30, 2006 issue of the Cleveland Plain Dealer:

Lack of students' scientific knowledge is troubling, but not surprising. Much of the current problem can be traced directly to the Bush administration, which distorts scientific fact for partisan political ends on issues ranging from global climate change to embryonic stem-cell research.

By restricting federal funding for research on stem cells, the chances of finding cures for many diseases that plague us were drastically diminished. With abstinence-only sex-education programs, young people are left without information that might help them make wise choices. By ignoring years of global warming evidence, the chances of our survival on Earth may be shortened. And Bush's doubt about evolution is just another instance of an attempt to ignore well-researched evidence in favor of personal beliefs.

According to comments by members of the National Science Teachers Association, the president's No Child Left Behind program has actually hurt science education, by testing exclusively on math and reading and telling teachers to "stop teaching science and get back to reading and math."

Roni Berenson
Chesterland, Ohio

From the May 30, 2006, edition of the Pasadena (California) Star-News:

Terms defined

Rich Mason ("Your View," May 23) says I shouldn't criticize Christianity's approach to sin unless I can present an alternative. As a beginning, here's my definition of good and evil:

Good is that which has positive survival value for the human species; evil is that which has negative survival value for the human species.

Ray Sherman
Duarte, California

From the May 29, 2006, edition of the Tuscaloosa (Alabama) News:

History doesn't prove Christ's life

Dear Editor:

In debunking "The Da Vinci Code" and labeling it blasphemous, a letter writer claims, "Truth always prevails!" But which is the truth -- the Bible or the movie?

There are no historical documents that corroborate the Gospel accounts of Christ's life, or even his existence. This is peculiar, as there were many writers of the time who produced copious historic documentation of the events of the era. Philo of Alexandria, who lived from 20 B.C. until 50 A.D., was present at the times and places where Christ was allegedly performing his miracles, being crucified and resurrected into heaven. Philo never mentions Christ.

Flavius Josephus published a 20-volume history of the Jews. Two brief passages mentioning Christ appear in Josephus' works, but biblical scholars and historians find them spurious and believe they could only be the work of Christian tamperers who added them after the fact. Even if we accept the passages ascribed to Josephus, they provide scant evidence for a biblical Christ.

Roman historians, e.g. Tacitus, describe Christians but not an historical Christ.

The first Gospel, Mark, was not written until circa 70 A.D. Not only are the Gospels removed time-wise from the supposed events, but they are inconsistent. For example: one women came to the sepulcher, John 20:1; two women came, Matt. 28:1; three women came, Mark 16:1; more than three came, Luke 24:10. The Gospels are of no historical value.

David N. Miles
Orange Beach, Alabama

From the May 23, 2006, edition of the Saginaw (Michigan) News:

Weird 'science'

I would like to add my remarks to state Rep. John Moolenaar's legislative proposal to teach the theory that "life is the result of the purposeful, intelligent design of a Creator." Moolenaar advocates the teaching of intelligent design, or creationism, along with evolution in public schools.

THe teaching of creationism or not is really a question of being intellectually honest. The practice of creationism or the assertion of a purposeful, intelligent designer, along with infusion of the science of evolution with religion, is akin to the practice of alchemy -- a medieval chemical science and speculative philosophy aiming to achieve the transmutation of the base metals into gold, the discovery of a universal cure for disease and the discovery of a means of indefinitely prolonging life.

We have learned since medieval times that the cosmos has evolved independent of religious beliefs; that the cosmos continually evolves through successive cycles, forever expanding and collapsing and creating new worlds.

We also have learned that religious beliefs, such as the biblical story of Genesis, are mythological and have no bearing on the evolution of Earth and life.

Given the creationists' efforts to develop a pseudo-science to explain creationism, the creationists would do better to use reason and rational methods of inquiry to substantiate their claims to divine cause of the evolution of the universe.

They might find what scientists and scholars have found -- that the long-held beliefs of religion are truly mythological and have no bearing on the evolution of the universe and, therefore, should not be taught in public schools.

RIchard A. Maltby
Midland, Michigan