A religiously diverse nation needs a secular government
Letters to the EditorPublished March 13, 2005
Re: U.S. a Christian nation? Not exactly.
In his March 6 column, Philip Gailey asked, "Would someone tell me exactly what religion is established by the Ten Commandments?" The answer is very simple. While any of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions could consider themselves established by the display, it is the Christians who have clamored for government recognition and endorsement from Day 1 of our founding.
Yes, Mr. Gailey, secularists want the line drawn where it ought to be drawn. Only a secular government can fairly represent a religiously diverse population. The Christian God should be out of our pledge, off our money, and out of our motto. As our nation was founded on the idea that government is granted its power by those governed, legislators ought to go about the business of governing, not praying to the majority deity for guidance.
Secularists are not anti-God. We seem to understand religious freedom much better than the majority. Freedom doesn't mean getting the government to espouse your faith to all Americans. It's having a government that says nothing about religion, so that we may all worship, or not, as we personally choose without any coercion, no matter how subtle.
-- Dianna Narciso, Palm Bay
It's not freedom "from religion'
Re: U.S. a Christian nation? Not exactly.
It's obvious that Philip Gailey and those like him have no clear understanding of our history.
Our founders referred to God in many of their writings. What they feared was a state religion, such as the Church of England. The people are given the right to practice their religion, which means the states cannot interfere in the practice of it. It is clearly written that we have the freedom "of religion," not "from religion," as people of Gailey's ilk would have people believe.
Gailey's closing remarks revealed his true hatred for conservative Christians by saying that Jesus would be seen as "a dangerous liberal." What arrogance! Neither you nor I, or anyone else can say what Jesus would say if he were alive today. What I do know is that he preached personal responsibility, something liberals like Philip Gailey don't seem to believe in.
-- Peter Stathis, Spring Hill
Strict separation is needed
Re: U.S. a Christian nation? Not exactly.
Philip Gailey, in his rather sneering column, demonstrated precisely why the Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the American Civil Liberties Union are so adamant in fighting to uphold the First Amendment's "establishment clause."
Christianity, Judaism and Islam are only three of dozens of religions with many adherents. There are many religions that do not regard the Ten Commandments as sacred text. There are even religions that do not worship "God." These are the Americans who need the protection of the First Amendment. The supporters of adding the First Amendment understood the danger of an uncontrolled majority. Many had left their homes in Europe to find freedom and safety from an established religion.
Before he speaks so casually against strict rules that protect all of us, it's best to remember that not even the largest Christian denomination can claim a majority of Americans as adherents. Since we are each in the minority, let's try to provide protection and respect for all.
-- Margaret Evans, St. Petersburg
An impediment to rebellion
Re: U.S. a Christian nation? Not exactly.
One of the many ways that we know that the Founding Fathers were not the devout Christians that they are hyped up to be can be found in Scripture.
Romans 13: "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but those who do wrong."
In other words, if the Founding Fathers had been devout Christians they wouldn't have been the Founding Fathers.
-- Joe Reinhardt, president, Atheists of Florida, Pinellas Park
Commandment contradiction
Re: Signe Wilkinson editorial cartoon, March 5.
How can anyone justify exhibiting the Ten Commandments in courthouses or any public property in states that sanction the death penalty? The commandment is very clear: "Thou shalt not kill." I don't think Karl Rove could turn that around. What do some people think with?
-- Bill Lind, St. Pete Beach
We don't need a nanny state
Re: Losing the keys to happiness, by Robyn Blumner, March 6.
Robyn Blumner's column is repugnant to all independent-minded people who value the concepts of personal responsibility and the American dream of being all that you can be.
Thank God America is not a nanny state charged with the job of making people feel happy by implementing the ridiculous list of socialist concepts that Blumner endorses.
The idea that the government can create a "thriving and optimistic middle class" by providing free everything financed with onerous taxation has been tried by many socialists for hundreds of years. All these efforts have failed.
America has shown in the last two presidential elections and the mid-term election of 2002 that Blumner is out of step with middle-class values.
-- Allan Davis, Dunedin
Bill defends self-defense
Re: Self-defense as license for mayhem, March 6.
State Senate Bill 436 is intended to provide law-abiding citizens with more protection against attack by violent criminals. A person should not have to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt prior to protecting herself, if her assailant intends to kill her or just knock out her teeth and steal her car.
The bill would create the presumption that an attacker or intruder intends to do great bodily harm and therefore force, including deadly force, may be used to protect yourself.
In Robert Batey's attack on the bill, he says, "If a drunk swings at you in a bar, you can shoot him." State law prohibits carrying a firearm into a bar. He further says " . . . consider confrontations at sporting events . . . " State law prohibits carrying a firearm to a sporting event. These two examples pertain to citizens with a license to carry concealed firearms.
He also says this bill would "turn Florida into the most dangerous state in the nation." True. Dangerous for violent criminals, not law-abiding citizens.
-- Jim Westerkamp, Indian Rocks Beach