Members of the religious right must feel like dancing in the streets. The august U.S. Supreme Court has upheld what are referred to as "the Judeo-Christian values." Now everyone pledging allegiance to a common country must note that said country is "under God." (Yes, I know - one may be silent in that part of the recitation, but the words are there.)
Down with those satanic unbelievers who actually want the government to be neutral when it comes to religious matters. In the colorful words of Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, "... the Supreme Court has removed a dark cloud that has been hanging over one of the nation's most important and cherished traditions." Never mind that this "cherished tradition" has been in place only 50 years. The nation can now exult in the blinding light of religiosity.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor observes patronizingly that challenging the words in the pledge was "well-intentioned." (How Michael Newdow must enjoy that encomium!) However, she adds firmly that the expression "under God" is "... the inevitable consequence of the nation's religious founding."
She must know better. Anyone who studies the Constitution knows those words are false. Everyone who has merely read the Constitution knows that it is pointedly secular. It is secular for a reason: for the sake of freedom of conscience and of speech.
Sadly, one must agree with court historian David Garrow, who says that "... the court's ruling "bears all the hallmarks' of a political decision." A virus has invaded the highest reaches of our government, creeping silently to destroy - perhaps permanently - the liberties we hold dear, the liberties we once thought were our most "cherished traditions."
-- Abigail Ann Martin, Brandon
Let the pledge remain as it is
I was appalled to read on your June 15 front page the article "Under God" stays for now. What do you mean, "for now"? I should think the Pledge of Allegiance should remain as is.
If many do not agree, then let's put it on the ballot in November and take a vote.
-- Theresa Hoopingarner, Palm Harbor
Government power is the real issue
Re: The right pledge ruling, editorial, June 16.
Regarding the Supreme Court's "nondecision" in the recent Pledge of Allegiance case, the editorialist states that the issue "appeared to be rooted in an unseemly custody struggle as much as in arguments over church-state separation."
"Unseemly?" Is a child custody battle ever "seemly"?
And has the writer sufficiently researched the facts of this parental struggle to justify that negative implication as to the father/plaintiff's motivation in pursuing the constitutional issue all the way to the Supreme Court?
The writer goes on to apparently approve Justice John Paul Stevens' dictum that Michael Newdow does not have a "right to dictate to others what they may or may not say to his child respecting religion." The operative word here is "others." Both Stevens and the writer miss the very essence of the issue.
The father is not taking exception to the comments of some vague "others." Rather, he opposes the official imposition of the words "under God" into the original pledge. Clearly there would be a big difference between my telling the editorial writer to "shut up" and the U.S. government dictating that he do so.
Lastly, the author begins by lamenting the attention being paid this case when so many "more pressing" matters abound.
Maybe so, but under the current administration, the ultimate removal of that vital "separation" between church and state is surely being pressed real hard, and definitely demands our attention.
-- Phillips Evans, Largo
Pledge is much needed in our schools
It really saddens me that it takes the Supreme Court to rule that, yes, we Americans may continue the use of "under God" in our beloved pledge to our United States of America.
I wonder how may other Americans felt betrayed by the need of the bureaucrats to take this to the ultimate, only to find it judged "for the time being" as all right to stay as is? And how much longer will we Americans be able to include "under God" until it is brought before another judge on another day on behalf of those people who consider themselves Americans?
I remember as a child having to say the Pledge of Allegiance to the "flag of the United States of America" every morning before classes began. We all put our hands over our hearts, held our heads high looking at our flag, and recited this beloved pledge knowing the meaning of "one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
We all have something to believe in if we choose to believe, and when I hear my 7-year-old grandson say our pledge to our flag, and when he can say it with such conviction and sincerity, it makes me happy to know we still have this much needed "morning routine" in our schools. And, with God's help, this will forever be "routine."
-- Violet T. Wallace, Tampa
Let's stick to the patriotic part
Re: The right pledge ruling.
If there were conclusive proof of the existence of God, I would have no problem with keeping "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. However, since no such proof is (or, likely, ever will be) available, I believe that those contentious two words should be deleted and the pledge returned to its original form that dealt only with patriotism and not superstition.
-- Bob Lindskog, Palm Harbor
Adapt to new technologies
Re: Do-it-yourself job destruction, letter, June 15.
The letter writer bemoans the loss of jobs as a result of new technology - specifically, ATMs and self-checkout machines.
One wonders how much he has learned from history. New technology always creates more jobs than it destroys. I don't know who coined the phrase, "the ash heap of history," but those of us who refuse to adapt to new technologies will certainly be consigned to it!
-- John Hungerford, Palm Harbor
Fed up with outsourcing
I don't like it! I called to ask something about my Capital One card and got Bangkok. The next week I got New Delhi. When I clicked to cancel my account, I got a man in Tampa. He asked why. I said I don't like the outsourcing. He said everyone is doing it.
I don't care. I want our jobs to stay here. I am sure some of us would do these jobs! EarthLink tried to sell me on the phone the other night. Guess where the man was calling from: India.
I want my country back! I hope more of you feel the same as I do.
-- Sally Bauer, Largo
Economy has significantly improved
Now that the U.S. economy is clearly on the rebound, it's time for critics to admit that President Bush's economic policies were the right remedy to cure the recession. A combination of the dot-com bubble bursting, fueled by "irrational exuberance" and corporate scandals, exacerbated by the terrorist attacks of 9/11 plunged the U.S. economy into a free fall in 2001.
But what has happened between Sept. 2001 and now is actually quite remarkable. Terrorist attacks in the United States have been entirely thwarted! Some may disagree with how these attempts have been thwarted, but the fact is that no attack has taken place in almost three years. Who knows what would have happened to the U.S. economy if another attack had occurred sometime during 2002 or 2003 while the economy was recovering?
Federal income tax cuts have obviously stimulated this economy as they have done in the past. Job creation is accelerating rapidly, corporate profits are increasing, and revenues to the U.S. Treasury are exceeding expectations and lowering projected budget deficits.
Accounting and finance legislation that hold corporate executives accountable has been passed by Congress and signed by the president. Corporate greed-mongers who intentionally misled the public are being punished and any semblance of impropriety within corporate board rooms and executive management is resulting in resignations and additional punishment.
Even the staunchest Bush critics must agree that this economy has significantly turned around since 9/11, and objective observers will no doubt understand the enormous obstacles that had to be overcome to get this economy on sound footing.
-- Bob Borland, Safety Harbor
Seeing a different reality
I wonder what television program government officials have been watching over the last few years? They certainly haven't been looking out their windows, where the reality of America is there for them to see.
The economy? It's doing great - if you're part of the wealthy or corporate elite. Remember all those tax avoidance issues and President Bush's tax relief policies? The ones that are supposed to help the economy by helping corporations save money to re-invest in America? They are instead using the money to move overseas, giving themselves raises, and paying their lobbyists to court the best government money can buy. The government has moved from "Good Old American Know-How," to "Good Old American Know-who," so instead of good values and hard work being rewarded, greed and corruption are rewarded with power, and the good people suffer.
I love America and voluntarily served my country in the U.S. Coast Guard in the '80s, (honorably discharged), but I have no love for an administration run "for the special interests, by the special interests, and of the special interests." Just for clarification, my definition of a special interest is politicians, the wealthy, corporate elite - you know, anyone who hurts a fellow American for their own personal gain.
-- Thom Short, Tarpon Springs
Depoliticize the comics
As a nation, we are more politically polarized today than at any time that I remember during my 61 years. Why must we also be confronted by the comic pages? Doonesbury has put forward its brand of left-wing trash for many years, and I have learned to ignore it. But Non Sequitur and The Boondocks are too much.
Please let us have a laugh at ourselves with Pickles without the trash in these other strips. There are enough places that you can present your lopsided, biased points of view. Let's leave one page as a demilitarized/depoliticized zone.
-- James Childres, Tarpon Springs
Proud of jumping George
Re: Bush's birthday jump: not solo, but still a thrill, June 14.
George H.W. Bush made a tandem jump on his 80th! Glad he did. Those of us in our 80s enjoy such displays. And to be escorted earthward by two Golden Knights is a deserved honor.
When Carolyn and I made our solo jumps at Zephyrhills, we were in our 50s. Does that make us liberal Democrats?
We're definitely not Bush fans, but we're truly proud of old George.
-- Virgil Feltner, St. Petersburg
Share your opinions
Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by fax to 727 893-8675 or through our Web site at: http://www.sptimes.com/letters/
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.
