The Times' savage editorial assault on Alabama's Chief Justice Roy Moore (Alabama extremist unfit to judge, Aug. 22) is one example of how far the zealots of modern America's state-sponsored religion of Secular Humanism have gone in hijacking the principles upon which our nation was founded.
Moore's principled stand is condescendingly dismissed by the Times as "defiant drivel," because he refused to bow down to the modern elite's perverse interpretation of the Constitution's Establishment Clause. The clause reads as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Many of us who know how to read would like to know how one gets from forbidding Congress from establishing a state religion - as the clear meaning of the clause conveys - to decreeing that a public display of the Ten Commandments, the very foundation of this nation's laws, somehow violates that clause.
This constitutional provision was intended to protect "we the people" from government, yet in recent times atheist and humanist radicals have perpetuated the lie that this means that anything having to do with God must be completely expurgated from public view. This turns the meaning and intent of the clause completely on its head; it is precisely what the authors wanted to avoid.
Judge Moore was absolutely correct to stand his ground in defiance of renegade federal judges who rule over us based on their own sociological opinions and not on the letter of the law. The federal court ruling, along with most asinine rulings like it, is based on eight words written by Thomas Jefferson to a group of Connecticut Baptists - words that have been used to usurp the Constitution of its authority to protect the people's rights in matters of religion: " . . . the wall of separation between church and state." How many times have we had this phrase drummed into our heads? Judge Moore has been unfairly savaged in the press over his righteous stand, but how many of his critics would venture a wager over whether the founders of this country were men like themselves, laying down while federal authorities strip away individual rights, or would more resemble Judge Moore? If the founders of our nation were here today, I'm afraid the elite, like the Times editors, would dismiss them all as "extremists" or "right-wing nuts."
-- Theo Benetis, Safety Harbor
Our freedom to choose
In reference to the monument of the Ten Commandments that Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama has been ordered to remove from the courthouse building due to the supposed violation of separation of church and state, I am absolutely perplexed as to why the citizens of Alabama have been denied their freedom of choice to decide whether or not to read the monument or walk away from it should it be so offensive?
After all, we private citizens, some of whom are offended by the smut that is pumped into our homes via television, computer, etc., are told that constraining smut is a violation of the First Amendment and is a matter of interpretation to the viewer. We have freedom of choice to turn off the offender. I fail to see how the displaying of the Ten Commandments is proselytizing or promoting any one form of religion since these rules transcend all religions. We citizens of this country have the right to choose which religion we worship.
Displaying the Ten Commandments in the courthouse is not a religious mandate, and I find it ironic that we have "choice" in dealing with media smut, but are unable to exercise free will where this issue is concerned. Perhaps we are dealing with a double standard, insofar as "free will" being okay as long as it is politically correct.
-- Pam McAloon, Palm Harbor
Why we keep church and state separate
All citizens must be vigilant in protecting the concept of separation of church and state. Think what would happen, as it has in other countries, if religion dictated every aspect of human life.
What if there were a preponderance of elected officials of a specific religion voting their conscience? We could have a government that forbade all coffee, tea, alcohol, tobacco and stimulants. How about one that forbade blood transfusions and inoculations and used only prayer for medical treatment? Another might deny eating of all shellfish or pork and restrict all work or transportation on their sabbath, and compel all women to wear wigs. What about one that says a woman may not have an abortion under any circumstances, where divorce is forbidden and birth control is a felony? What about a government where women were under the strict domination of males, had to be covered from head to toe, had limited formal education and could be put to death for minor offenses, where punishments for misdemeanors were meted out by an axe.
Separation of church and state does not prevent anyone from believing anything they choose. It prevents religious zealots from forcing you to believe what they want you to believe.
-- Gloria R. Julius, St. Petersburg
Jesus might agree
Re: Alabama extremist unfit to judge, editorial, Aug. 22.
Separation of church and state is not only a constitutional belief, but according to the Christian Bible, a religious one, too. In this case, the Ten Commandments was carved in stone and placed in a government building. Jesus was asked about this very thing when he was questioned about paying taxes. His comment was, "Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's." A government building is for government business. One other thing that Jesus said was to beware of people shouting their faith from the temple steps so that all men could hear. Jesus called these people hypocrites.
-- Joseph Bosch, St. Petersburg
Atheism is a religion too
After reading your Aug. 22 lead article (Judge loses fight on Commandments), I could not wait to turn to the editorial page and see how you would slander Judge Moore. You didn't disappoint me. You characterized him as an "extremist unfit to judge." You equated him with former Alabama Gov. George C. Wallace and called his supporters religious zealots. Never did you acknowledge the fact that he has a legitimate legal argument regarding the federal judge's authority to order the monument removed.
Atheism is a religion, whether you acknowledge it or not. By forcing atheism on our government, the courts are establishing a religion. This is the very thing the Constitution forbids Congress from doing.
I guess the framers of the Constitution should have said, "neither Congress nor the courts shall make any law" establishing a religion.
-- Larry W. Weld, Clearwater
Commandments inappropriately placed
I believe that if government offices choose a monument for their buildings it should be the Bill of Rights. I also believe that if a church, synagogue or mosque chooses a monument, it should be one that describes the basic tenets of the particular faith. I would think that the government offices would be proud to proclaim the Bill of Rights as their testimony to the basic tenets of their offices, as I would think that religions would be proud to proclaim their missions. How many times do we see government monuments on religious properties? The separation of church and state is a basic foundation for our country. Any misplaced attitudes will erode the Constitution.
-- Lorraine B. Smith, St. Petersburg
An appalling insinuation
Re: Don Addis' Aug. 22 cartoon.
We usually enjoy Don Addis' perception and humor in his artwork. We are appalled at the insinuation in this cartoon of similarity between beer-chugging and a sip of wine in a sacred rite. The fact that he would draw it and that you would print it is reprehensible.
-- Bob and Pat Dunn, New Port Richey
Incompatible approaches
Re: A hairy subject, letter, Aug. 21.
The letter writer unwittingly provides a wonderful argument against vouchers, especially if they are used to fund faith-based schooling. Her ignorance of both the intellectual and practical value of scientific discovery, as well as utter misunderstanding of the workings of evolution, make a far better argument than I could.
One might as well ask, "If white people are descended from black people, why are there still blacks?" The assumption that a species, or a subspecies, or a race, disappears once an evolutionary change takes place is as absurd as thinking the trunk of a tree disappears once it grows a few branches - unless your thinking has been clouded by faith, in which case reason is thrown to the winds.
Religion and science are simply incompatible by nature. Allowing science to be corrupted by religion is cheating our descendents and destroying the future of our country far better than a few terrorists could.
-- Brent Yaciw, Wesley Chapel
Taking away women's choice
Re: Born of convenience? Aug. 19.
In reading your article, I noticed there is no mention of the International Caesarean Awareness Network (ICAN), a nonprofit Caesarean information, prevention, support and VBAC information organization. In the Hillsborough County and Pasco County areas, many women are forced to have repeat Caesareans without a choice because of the OB refusal to do VBAC. Their 33 percent-plus average caesarean rate is climbing due to lack of choices, not just choices to have surgery. While Pinellas County's percentage is slightly lower, it is still climbing.
I am always angered when the focus is on women who choose major surgery rather than all of the women whose choices are being taken away from them. VBAC is a safe way to give birth; far safer than Caesarean section. It is a woman's right to choose to have a vaginal birth.
-- Shannon Mitchell, Palm Harbor
These colors don't show
Re: The colors of her world, Aug. 16.
I'm sure your readers would have liked to at least see a sample of Violetta Shtumeyzen's fine work. Four bare easels against a concrete wall certainly doesn't describe the "colors of her world."
Very disappointing.
-- Helen Komar, Seminole
Keep quiet on the canals
Re: Getting a back yard to rock, Aug. 18.
Every time I go into a store, my ears are assaulted by someone's idea of music. Now you are telling people to "get their back yards to rock." I live on a canal. Sound travels. Please, no back yard music!
-- Wilda Bisset, St. Petersburg
Share your opinions
We invite readers to write to us. Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They also can be sent by fax to 893-8675.
They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.
Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.
For e-mail users: Letters can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com E-mail messages must be text only and cannot include attachments. If you're using a word processing program to write the message, you must use its "Save as" function to save it as a text file, then import it into your e-mail program. Please include your return e-mail address, as well as your name, mailing address and phone number, in the text of the message.
