The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Underwhelmed

6.16.04 @ 12:01AM

ABOVE GOD
Re: Tracy Robinson's A Newdow Is Dawning:

A couple of questions for the Michael Newdows of the world: What, pray tell, is the precise religion that the government is attempting to establish by having your child recite "under God." Catholicism? Greek Orthodoxy? Any of a dozen Protestant sects? Islam? If no single one of the above, or any other, then the Pledge does not offend against the non-establishment clause.

(What is wrong with me that this seems so clear-as-sunlight? Am I as primitive and simplistic in my thinking as the Founding Fathers? Isn't this finally all about hatred of God, anything spiritual, transcendent?) May the Supreme Court somehow cease their fine legalistic sidestepping, and find time and the backbone to keep the Newdows of the country from inflicting their impoverished, banal world view on the rest of us, and our children.
-- J. Erickson
Davidson, North Carolina

The Supreme Court is politically astute. They sidestepped this issue until after the election. The four liberals did not want to give evangelicals another reason to make sure they got to the polls. It's up to the Bush people to let them know the "issue" is not dead.
-- Annette Cwik

Tracy lays the Newdow case succinctly but I wish to touch something a little more personal. The Supremes did something else that is taking a back seat -- parental rights. The Court has traditionally deferred to the States on family court issues believing that is the proper venue. But here in the Newdow case they step squarely center stage on this issue. The tactic being that Newdow did not have parental authority as a means to avoid facing the establishment issue as presented in the case. Okay the flag won, but what about the thousands of divorced parents?

Considering that Newdow is in a ugly divorce/custody battle with his ex-wife, it was appropriate that the Court ruled as they did as custody in this case was unsettled. But the Court, from what I can gather, did not scope their remarks strictly to Newdow. So the question arises, with the door ajar, are the parental rights of noncustodial parents now in peril? Is it now possible that based on this ruling that any parent maybe told to buzz off by the courts simply because they are not the 'parent of record'? Or that a noncustodial parent cannot sign off on medical procedures for the child in an emergency?

I suspect that regardless of the outcome of the Pledge issue, the ruling of the Court on the custodial issue will seriously impact family issues in the future. The Court will have to at some future date reverse this decision to extract themselves from the unattended consequences.
-- John McGinnis
Arlington, Texas

NOT EVERYBODY LOVES SOMEBODY
Re: Shawn Macomber's Gathering Moss:

I enjoyed reading the column on Ted Kennedy and found it amusing. All was well until Macomber's reference to Dean Martin. I think linking Martin and Kennedy in the same sentence does a disservice to old Deano. You may recall that it was Martin who warned Frank Sinatra about the phoniness of the Kennedys.
-- Marc Frustaci
Hoboken, New Jersey

AIR FARCE ONE
Re: The Washington Prowler's Kerry Flies the Flag:

I'm glad that someone mentioned the artwork on Sen. Kerry's campaign plane. I have no doubt that he also chose the wording: "John Kerry President." Has anyone asked him about that?
-- Kitty Myers
Painted Post, New York

RON ON TO IRAQ
Re: Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke's Would Ronald Reagan Have Attacked Iraq?:

Of course he would have! His attack on Libya was a direct response to previous terrorism by militant Moslems! In light of the 9/11 Event, you better believe that he would have gone after Saddam. What the authors of this article fail to see is Reagan's basic beliefs about this country and protecting its freedom. Put Reagan and his political philosophy in the 2000s and George W. Bush in the 1980s and the results would have been the same.

The men who espoused the attack on Iraq worked throughout the Reagan Administration in various capacities. The core belief that connects Reagan and Bush is the belief in defending America and its liberty at all costs. Because the men lived and acted as President in two different eras they faced events that had dissimilar political terrain in which to act. Reagan had Communism as the main threat and an Islamic threat in its infancy. Bush faced and faces a full-blown Islamic threat to Western Civilization and a European/Holy Roman Empire threat in its infancy. In the coming months America and Great Britain/Australia/Canada will break away from Europe, politically. In 5 years NATO will be a shadow of its former self, there will be no UN to speak of, except in name only, and Russia and China will try to curry favor with both Europe and America/Great Britain/Australia/Canada. China and the U.S. will form a strong Pacific Rim association that will include Central and South America, as well as, all the countries bordering the Pacific. Russia will play both the European and American cards.

Bush and Cheney, et al., are the right team for the current era. They will overcome the Islamic threat by 2007. They will discourage China from joining with the Moslems to threaten Israel and the world balance of power. Peace will reign in the Middle East by 2008.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Foreign Policy, Religion, Catholicism, Islam, Global Warming, Law, Supreme Court, Military, Iraq, Iran, Russia, Israel, NATO, Africa, Socialism, Communism, Oil