Letters to the Editors

There is danger when the state promotes religion

© St. Petersburg Times, published June 30, 2000

The irony is almost palpable. On June 21 there appeared on page 2 a story headlined Scores killed in religious warring, telling us that in the Maluku Islands "more than 2,500 members of both faiths [Muslim, Christian] have been killed in the past 18 months." And in the same issue, an editorial (Injecting religion) praises the U.S. Supreme Court's decision striking down official prayers at public school functions. This ruling, the writer says, "reiterated that the Establishment Clause is intended to keep majorities from imposing their religion views on those of a different faith or of no faith at all. That danger is all too real in certain communities in this country, even today."

Also in the same issue, George Will writes at length, lamenting this turning away from religion in government (Religion or irreligion establishment). He is appalled at the contradiction of the court's ruling and its opening ritual invoking God to save it. He is indignant at the banishing of official prayer in school when the very first Congress of the nation hired a chaplain and the first president proclaimed a day of "thanksgiving and prayer" to Almighty God. Blithely disregarding the sensibilities of non-believers, he says that the Establishment Clause means there would be "government neutrality between religious factions, not between religion and irreligion."

Will surely knows that the country today is much larger and its inhabitants much more diverse than it was 200 years ago. He knows about the rancorous politicizing of the chaplain appointments in Congress. Just recently we were treated to a disgusting example of that.

Our founding fathers realized what dangers lay in official religion and religious exercises. All too well they knew the sad histories of governments controlled by religion. They knew the stories of men and women fined, imprisoned, tortured and banished because they disagreed with the tenets of the ruling religious power. If they were alive today, they would undoubtedly look with horror at the terrible conflicts raging between members of different faiths in various parts of the world.
-- Abigail Ann Martin, Valrico

An absurd contradiction

Re: Prayers given by students silenced, June 20.

The court silenced prayer in school; yet, all currency here in the United States reads, "In God we trust."

How absurd can we get?
-- Joyce Van Horn, Dade City

Washington on religion

George Will was correct when he quoted President George Washington in his June 21 column Religion or irreligion establishment. However, Washington, who was the only president unanimously elected by the Electoral College, had made a few contrary statements about religion.

He was a member of the Episcopal Church where the pastor once stated that America was created as a Christian nation. Washington later told the pastor, "We were not created as a Christian nation any more than we were created a Muslim nation" (and this from the chairman of the Constitutional Convention).

In a letter to John Adams in 1797, Washington wrote: "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

He, in general, concurred with James Madison Jr., the author of the Bill of Rights, that establishment of religion meant separation of church and state. Thomas Jefferson gave this same interpretation when asked by the Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Church.

Washington was sworn into office in 1789, on a Masonic bible.
-- Dr. Charles H. Hamblen, St. Petersburg

Baptist group doesn't look democratic

Re: Southern Baptist holdouts, June 20.

R. Albert Mohler Jr. used a recent column to boast about the growing numbers in his Southern Baptist denomination. It is shocking to see the kinds of things that make him proud. The Southern Baptists are described as democratic, yet the facts presented in the column show them to be the opposite.

The use of voting does not make an organization democratic. A denomination that was truly democratic would welcome those with opposing views rather than drive them away. A democratic organization would wish for seminaries to teach tolerance for differing viewpoints. A democratic organization would include everyone in the leadership. What the Southern Baptists are doing may be the right path for them, but they are mistaken to call it democracy.

These folks believe the Bible instructs them to follow this policy. But Baptists reading the same Bible used to be noted for their passionate belief in individual conscience and defense of independence in congregations and seminaries. I find that religious conservatives are quite ready to use the Bible to support whatever personal plans they might have.

The social issues Mohler rails against are convenient handles, used by the conservatives to gain and keep power. For example, individuals who happen to be homosexual make up a small portion of our population. An even smaller portion desire to have their unions recognized. Surely this tiny group of people will have little impact on the eternal plan of an Almighty God! But leaders like Mohler can use this issue as a rallying point to raise money, boost their own power and attract members.

There is no doubt that abortion is undesirable. Abortion protests appeal to the emotions and help conservatives grab attention. It is also an act with unlimited repeat engagements, because Americans are unlikely to reach agreement. But there are many thousands of children already born who are dying or stagnating due to poverty, violence, neglect and lack of health care. If the Southern Baptists would direct their vast resources toward these problems, much good might result.

I would urge people to be thoughtful and intentional in their religious belief. Consider the impact of what leaders are trying to sell you. Is the Bible being used as political ammunition to help an organization grow? Individual conscience ought to be our guide, and we should be wary of an organization that claims to be democratic, yet functions as an authoritarian regime.
-- Jim Moir, Clearwater

Back to the Middle Ages

Re: Southern Baptist holdouts, by R. Albert Mohler Jr.

I was a messenger (delegate) to the recent Southern Baptist Convention in Orlando. I also attended the Southern Seminary luncheon (good food) where Al Mohler was the speaker. He was a little bit embarrassed when some of his colleagues presented him with a cap with "Pope" embroidered on it. He, however, would like to be senior pastor and preacher to the SBC, and is often presented as spokesman for the SBC on Larry King Live, etc.

Mohler's statement that moderates have mostly left the convention is true, as far as attending the annual meetings in June, because they are allowed no part in leadership. The largest of the so-called shadow organizations is the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, with a regular budget about 10 percent the size of the SBC's regular budget. The CBF is made up of Southern Baptists. For the most part, they are members of churches still affiliated with the SBC and thus are counted in the SBC numbers.

Mohler would have you believe the SBC has become more than twice the size of any other Protestant body under the present leadership's watch. Its main growth actually was before the 1979 takeover started. Growth has about come to a halt, with the convention actually losing membership year before last.

He says "the convention declared that women should submit to their husbands" and that is how it was done. It was declared -- never mind the selective choosing of Bible verses in order to accomplish their end, which is control. As to women pastors, somehow because only 1 percent of churches have called them to preach, Mohler implies they should not serve. That's poor logic, in that it could be said also for the calling of blacks to preach in SBC churches. The same SBC also said slavery was biblical and passed resolutions to that effect. (They have repented.) Mohler claims "these issues are settled by the word of God." What he really means is they are to be settled by fundamentalist interpretations.

Mohler's statement about being engaged in a battle against modernity is true. The present leadership is very much afraid and wants to take Southern Baptists, and anyone else they can, back to the Middle Ages where people knew their place and the church leadership could use the state's powers to enforce its edicts.
-- Clem White, St. Petersburg

A problematic morality

Re: Southern Baptist holdouts.

R. Albert Mohler Jr. tells us that he and the group he heads stand for: ". . . biblical orthodoxy . . . biblical inerrancy . . . the natural family . . . truth and authority . . ." and so on. Since he holds himself out to be an expert on these matters, one wonders if perhaps he is being less than candid when he neglects to point out that the biblical morality he so heartily embraces also recommends at various times: killing one's wife, killing one's brother, killing children, genocide, slavery, the total subjugation of women, the forced marriage of one's daughter to her rapist, the punishment of the unborn for the crimes of their ancestors, the vicarious suffering of the innocent for the guilty and the inflicting of eternal, unrelenting torture with no hope of mercy or rehabilitation.

Family values? The last time I checked, all of these examples of biblical orthodoxy were so far removed from family values as to be against the law.

Truth? The truth is, that Mohler's knowledge of "God's will" is exactly the same as everyone else's on this planet, which is none whatsoever.
-- Joe Reinhardt, Pinellas Park

Hope for Eckerd's future

Like several readers of the Times, I also have a glimmer of hope with respect to the developments at Eckerd College. I am entering my fourth year at Eckerd, and I could not be more excited.

This year, I and the rest of the student body will receive greater amounts of what we want (faculty) and a great deal less of what we do not want (administration).

For the future, I can only hope that the board of trustees finds replacements who care as much about the students as the faculty already does.
-- Andre Janusz, Naperville, Ill

Is there anything new?

Re: The price of innovation, June 26.

I have been following the recent articles on the problems at Eckerd College. Basically, Peter Armacost is retiring, Lloyd Chapin is acting president, the board of trustees lacked oversight and the endowment was almost depleted due to bad real estate deal.

It is obvious that College Harbor and College Landings were not the best decisions the school could have made. But success doesn't come without failure, and of course we all know hindsight is 20/20.

My question to the Times is this: Do you have any new information on this sensational scandal, or can I expect to soon see an even longer fifth version of the same story?
-- Lee Harris, Eckerd College graduate, 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 can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com or by fax to (727) 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.

© St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved.