The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Cross Purposes

2.5.07 @ 12:01AM

(Page 2 of 7)

TAKING OFFENSIVE
Re: Thomas H. Lipscomb's Loyalty Oaths Are Back at William and Mary:

Most accounts of the Wren Chapel story at the College of William and Mary fail to penetrate to the heart of the problem -- the easy acceptance of President Nichol's absurdity that a Christian cross, simply by existing, can be "offensive."

No normal person takes offense at the symbols of other people's religion. In fact, if a student or visitor to William and Mary complained to President Nichol that they saw a Buddha depicted in the library, or that a Jewish student's room had a mezuzah on the door, he would at a minimum suggest a visit to a psychiatrist.

As long as people like President Nichol play along with the fiction that Christians give offense by existing, there will be no peace for the structures that they lead.
-- Jim Noble

Mr. Lipscomb does not point out in his article that the current W & M president and his wife have a trail of anti-Christian activism. They both left the Univ. of North Carolina system under a cloud for their anti-Christian activism.

Where is the outrage from the taxpayers of the Commonwealth of Virginia about this anti-Christian bias? The Board of Visitors is appointed by the political system of the state. The Board of Visitors should be called to account to respond forcefully to this provocation. Do the citizens of Virginia want to see their tax monies used to support the war against Christianity? Virginia was founded as a Christian colony and later state. Like it or not, that is a fact. The Board of Visitors, a state created and funded organization, needs to step up to the plate and invite the W & M president and his wife to seek employment elsewhere.
-- Ken Shreve
New Hampshire

REAL CONTROVERSIAL
Re: Eleanor Stables's Getting Real:

Thank you for your article on the REAL ID Act.

As a conservative, traditional Republican, I have been amazed that it was my party the put the REAL ID Act into law. My concerns are over terms like "minimum security standards," "machine-readable," and "security features."

Knowing how the politicians like to frame the debate, I hear the following:

1. "Minimum security standards" translates as "big step forward in government ability." It is a lot like "common sense" restrictions that never seem to end... If these changes did not make significant strides in the central government's ability to track free citizens, politicians would not push for the changes.

2. "Machine-readable" translates "Easily accessible to anyone in the private or public sector." I hear "identity theft made easy." I also hear, "Breakdown of states' integrity." Everyone's information is potentially accessible with the ease of an Internet connection.

3. "Security standards" means "biometrics." Republicans sit on their hands when the issue is illegal immigration, yet they want to brand me like cattle and track me with biometrics (or possibly RFID.) When I am finger-printed, DNA-sampled, or retina-scanned, I can never undo that action. Where will the digital information (computer file) containing MY BODY'S INFORMATION go? Will other nation-states have free access to it? Will credit reports be tied to it? My medical records? Where does it end?

In the early days, politicians promised that Social Security numbers were not to be used for identification purposes. But we know where that road led.

Also, the 4th Amendment is at risk. With biometrics/rfid, the government can potentially track Americans in real-time. Why bother with a warrant?

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Education, Mainstream Media, Economics, Business, Social Security, Religion, Islam, Abortion, Environment, Books, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Founding Fathers, Military, Iraq, Iran, United Nations, NATO, Socialism, Conservatism, Immigration