Letters

November/December 2003 Ends and Means
I am greatly dismayed that your response to Mr. Gary Jenson's letter to the editor in the May/June 2002 issue was so restrained and vague. "Rough logic"? Mr. Jenson's logic was fine; it was his suppositions or assumptions that drove his logic that were dangerously flawed. His suggestion that our internment of United States citizens of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps was a benevolent and necessary act to "protect" them from the other citizens is absurd! Should we round up all the African-Americans in the United States of America to protect them from hate crimes that are motivated in response to crimes committed by a few other African-Americans? The same could be said of the Irish Americans every time the IRA commits a crime. Should we resegregate our society to "protect" one racial or cultural group from the bigotry of the others? This was the fundamental argument and justification used by many to institute segregation in this country. The belief that "the ends justify the means" is the basis of most of the atrocities in history. We should have and should always rise above our fears and protect the innocent from the mobs.

PHIL DABNEY
E-mail

I plead guilty to not condemning or attacking the letter that offended Phil Dabney. We want Liberty to be a safe place to express views, no matter how offensive they might be. Sometimes an argument can discredit itself by revealing flaws in logic or morality. We trust our readers can make appropriate judgments. —Editor.

"Rough Logic"!
I rather liked having my logic described as "rough," as you did in your response to my letter that was published in the May/June 2002 issue—it is Lincolnesque, perhaps. I do not, however, recognize the constitutional rights of everyone living in this country. Those rights are reserved for citizens. It is wrong and dangerous to grant them to foreigners, who may or may not be here legally.

The article by Jim Walker dredges up some interesting quotes while arguing that America is not a Christian nation, but he tries too hard when he suggests that the Treaty of Tripoli is more relevant to American law than the Declaration of Independence. It cost the government nothing to assure the "Mussulmen" that we weren't Christian so they would sign a treaty with us, but the Declaration and the Constitution are the compact that makes us a people.

Walker is wrong when he says that Christianity is not mentioned in the Constitution. In Article VII it says, ". . . in the Year of our Lord . . ." (I suppose I should give Jerry Fallwell credit for pointing this out to me—that's why we keep him around; he says interesting things.)

Walker sloughs off the statement in a Supreme Court case that this is a Christian nation by calling it dicta. Well, the "wall of separation" statement in Everson is dicta of the worst kind; it goes against the sense of the case. The Supreme Court breached the wall in that very case. The justices could have said, "It's none of our business how New Jersey chooses to pay for the education of its children," and the result would have been the same, without all the confusion we cope with today.

GARY D. JENSEN
Lake Jackson, Texas

Human Rights a Trump
I read with some interest "The Quest for Power and Influence" and the editorial in the May/June 2003 issue. While I agree with the philosophy of separation of church and state, I firmly disagree with your position that "the deadly dozen" advertisement fostered by Catholics was wrong.

The problem is simple. Many, apparently like you, consider abortion to be a political subject when in actuality it is a "human rights" issue. Who among us, of any faith, can deny that the denial of God-given life is anything but a denial of a basic human right? It most certainly is not Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, liberal, independent, or conservative. Many have tried to make it political, but the right to life transcends all politics.

If you can agree with the "right to life" being a basic human right, why is it wrong for any faith group to demand of its members who are in political office that they do what they can to extend that basic right to the unborn? Any human right should have the full backing of government and "the church" in unison. Anything less literally "spits in God's face."

JOHN C. KOST
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina

Abortion is hardly an unimportant issue—whether seen as a human rights denial or a moral denial of faith. My point is that people of religious faith and human concern should object through the means provided by the Constitution. What should trouble any freedom-loving citizen is a willingness to impose any church dicta on the state. If we allowed Islamic fundamentalism to have its way, women might be disenfranchised in startling ways. If we allowed Catholic priests to rule through the state, they might require all to observe Sunday and attend Mass. Religious concerns permeate our common dialogue and people of faith must act on them—but not to the detriment of the freedom of choice guaranteed by the Constitution and so fully endorsed by my Bible. —Editor.

War and Conscience
I am writing this after reading the issue "War and Peace" (March/April 2003). May I say I appreciate the historical and law coverage of the first article, "War and Peace," by Ronald B. Flowers. I thought of Prime Minister Jean Chretien of Canada standing firm in not agreeing to join President Bush totally in the Iraq war. History might be repeating itself, as young Americans can still come to Canada to live (instead of causing "public unrest" by staying in the United States of America and being part of marches against war). With differing views on the war, peaceful means are more likely achieved.
Thank you for the revealing article.

ATHENA MONTOYA-TULLOCH
Cocrane, Alberta, Canada

Prisoners of War
After reading "War and Peace," I see again how Jesus makes one search His words on understanding of war.

In the Old Testament wars the question wasn't "How many men are on your side?" but "Is God on my side?" The rule is different in the New Testament. Jesus taught that it is the military with the most muscle that wins the war (Luke 14:31). Why the change? Because Jesus died so that we would not need to kill on His behalf. This isn't to say He doesn't want evildoers punished (Romans 13:1-7).

We process criminals every day in America without killing them. Why don't we use this approach with foreign invaders—real or imagined? I believe the most mature Christian leader would and could, because with God "all things are possible" (Mark 14:36).

BILL TASSIE
Burlington, Michigan

A Matter of Which Religion
"Theocratic Dreams" (July/August 2003) brings up a bunch of topics, some of which I have pretty strong views on. If I understand Kimberly Blaker correctly, she seems to be saying that there are two options for government policy: either support and fund no organizations that make mention of God, or else fund the organizations that are of the dominant faith. I disagree with this on two grounds.

1. It is surely possible to create a system of equal access in which the government supports religious organizations regardless of creed.

2. I believe that secularism is a religion, in that it has a defined worldview with a listing of values and taboos, and is aggressive in evangelizing people to accept it.

The author mixes two areas that are quite different, in my view. I am quite worried about the atmosphere of crisis in America following September 11, 2001. There is a real danger of tyranny arising out of this atmosphere. However, I do not see government support of religious organizations in such areas as feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, and educating children as being a threat to constitutional liberty or democracy.

She is also quite wrong in her view that secularism is necessary for a successful democracy. There are plenty of examples of nations with an overwhelmingly dominant religion and simultaneously a vibrant democracy. Poland, Italy, the Philippines, most of Latin America, and, in a way (the case is unique), Israel all testify to the dispensability of secularism in a successful democracy, without producing a "fundamentalist" state. And then you have such examples as Germany, where the citizens pay a tax to their church (the tithe), but select which churches (or none) receive the money. I think this is a wonderful thing that we would do well to institute here—with a few modifications, of course.

STEFAN, VIA JOZ LEE
Medford, Oregon

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was intended to prevent overt public funding of religious activity. And, yes, radical secularism can function in an aggressive way to inhibit true religious expression. That is why anti-religious views and policies have no place in the United States of America. The goal is to create a neutral government environment that allows religious faith to flourish and coexist. —Editor.

How We Got Here
My dad is an atheist. My mom is Episcopalian, and has been actively involved in her church for about 48 years. They have been happily married for 54 years.

The United States of America is 227 years old, and contains people of all religions, or lack thereof. We are stable and prosperous, and have avoided most of the religious strife that has plagued the rest of the world. I love my parents and my country. I learned early on that, although my parents have different views on religion, they have many of the same interests and very similar values. They have always treated each other with a great deal of respect, and treated their children—and the whole world—with great compassion. They are both active and responsible members of the community and are well respected by everyone.

The United States was determined from the beginning to avoid the mistakes of Europe by focusing on the core values of freedom, democracy, human rights, and a government limited by the Constitution. How one felt about God or Jesus or the pope was secondary to this great experiment. After much discussion (which continues to this day), we decided to let people believe and worship however they pleased, with the government officially neutral. The goal of creating a free, prosperous republic was paramount. Sure enough, this great experiment has worked beautifully! All kinds of religions have flourished and coexisted like nowhere else. Not coincidentally, we have become the richest and most powerful nation as well. I am fully convinced (especially since September 11) that this freedom of religion/separation of church and state policy is the single smartest thing this country has ever done.

Therefore, let us continue to keep our eyes on the prize, and let everyone believe whatever they want in the privacy of their own minds and houses of worship. Let us resist all attempts by the government to favor one creed over another, as in the Middle East and Middle Ages. Let us continue to be the great and free nation that we are, and let us not forget how we got there!

DAN MARSHALL
Silverdale, Washington

---