Azure Jane Lunatic (Azz) 🌺 (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
azurelunatic) wrote2002-06-27 12:24 pm
azurelunatic) wrote2002-06-27 12:24 pm
Letter to the Editor, getting posted wherever I damn well can.
Dear Editor,
Pres. Bush's statements regarding the decision of the 9th Circuit Court on the Pledge of Allegiance appall me.
There are two things that the President perhaps overlooked. The US was founded so that the citizens might have freedom of religion, the freedom to worship in whichever way they chose. The way that they set about doing so was to mandate the separation of church and state.
"Separation." This means that the two things, "church", and "state", do not get involved in each other.
America is a nation of people who, separately and individually, value the relationship that each separate person may *or may not* have with the Almighty that *may or may not* exist. Or not.
The rights of the US may be descended from legal codes that were worked out based on the common-sense rules of conduct laid out in a particular holy book. These same rights of the US clearly say that church and state are not, and never have been, the same thing in this country.
I would like to ask President Bush to please leave his personal faith in whatever Almighty there may or may not be, whatever name he may or may not address it by, out of his presidency and any decisions he may make in office. President Bush has no right to make any executive decision or official statement as to the existence or nonexistence of any divine or supernatural power.
It has been argued time and again that if any one person is offended by the wording of "One Nation, Under God," then that person should just not say that, then. What if the wording were "One Nation, Under No God?" Perhaps the people who do believe in a God could just skip that line.
Judges have no business affirming or denying the existence or the public faith in any God in the public square. The very fact that the phrasing of the Pledge of Allegiance was brought to court is proof that there are people in this nation who do not agree with God being an issue in any official setting. That's not to say that public officials should denounce the idea of God.
Let's substitute the idea of “chocolate” for “God” here for a moment. Some people cannot imagine a world without chocolate. Other people are deathly allergic to chocolate. Some people like chocolate. Some people don't.
Now, with that, let's discuss “One Nation, With Chocolate, Indivisible.” You mean you're going to force chocolate on everybody, regardless of whether they like it? Oh no, people who don't want chocolate can just skip it. “One Nation, Without Chocolate, Indivisible?” You mean you'd deny people their chocolate? An outrage!
Why discuss chocolate in any sort of official setting at all? What's the point of bringing it up? Certainly, there should be laws to ensure that the people who want chocolate can have a chance to get it; that's up there under “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” And certainly there should be legal structure in place to keep people who can't have any chocolate or they'll go into anaphylactic shock from accidentally getting any.
“One Nation, Indivisible.” Let's not allow chocolate, God, or lack thereof separate us as a nation.
Sincerely,
Joan Laurel Baldridge
Pres. Bush's statements regarding the decision of the 9th Circuit Court on the Pledge of Allegiance appall me.
There are two things that the President perhaps overlooked. The US was founded so that the citizens might have freedom of religion, the freedom to worship in whichever way they chose. The way that they set about doing so was to mandate the separation of church and state.
"Separation." This means that the two things, "church", and "state", do not get involved in each other.
America is a nation of people who, separately and individually, value the relationship that each separate person may *or may not* have with the Almighty that *may or may not* exist. Or not.
The rights of the US may be descended from legal codes that were worked out based on the common-sense rules of conduct laid out in a particular holy book. These same rights of the US clearly say that church and state are not, and never have been, the same thing in this country.
I would like to ask President Bush to please leave his personal faith in whatever Almighty there may or may not be, whatever name he may or may not address it by, out of his presidency and any decisions he may make in office. President Bush has no right to make any executive decision or official statement as to the existence or nonexistence of any divine or supernatural power.
It has been argued time and again that if any one person is offended by the wording of "One Nation, Under God," then that person should just not say that, then. What if the wording were "One Nation, Under No God?" Perhaps the people who do believe in a God could just skip that line.
Judges have no business affirming or denying the existence or the public faith in any God in the public square. The very fact that the phrasing of the Pledge of Allegiance was brought to court is proof that there are people in this nation who do not agree with God being an issue in any official setting. That's not to say that public officials should denounce the idea of God.
Let's substitute the idea of “chocolate” for “God” here for a moment. Some people cannot imagine a world without chocolate. Other people are deathly allergic to chocolate. Some people like chocolate. Some people don't.
Now, with that, let's discuss “One Nation, With Chocolate, Indivisible.” You mean you're going to force chocolate on everybody, regardless of whether they like it? Oh no, people who don't want chocolate can just skip it. “One Nation, Without Chocolate, Indivisible?” You mean you'd deny people their chocolate? An outrage!
Why discuss chocolate in any sort of official setting at all? What's the point of bringing it up? Certainly, there should be laws to ensure that the people who want chocolate can have a chance to get it; that's up there under “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” And certainly there should be legal structure in place to keep people who can't have any chocolate or they'll go into anaphylactic shock from accidentally getting any.
“One Nation, Indivisible.” Let's not allow chocolate, God, or lack thereof separate us as a nation.
Sincerely,
Joan Laurel Baldridge
no subject
no subject