The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Building Bridges

8.13.07 @ 12:01AM

(Page 3 of 5)

Finding Christopher Hitchens cited in AmSpec is surprising: admittedly, he is well versed in the subject of religion, but his position is vehemently hateful and biased in the extreme. Yet Mr. Orlet's citation of Hitchens' position is a sagacious one; Orlet uses one of the Left's brightest voices to score a point for the Right: the Constitution makes no judgment on which religion is most valuable. Hitchens, like the Constitution itself, is fair and balanced in regards to the value any particular religion. Neither gives more credence to the Torah, The Bible, Koran, Bhagavad-Gita or any other holy writing. Clearly The Constitution maintains one position when it comes to religion: legal neutrality.

Just as Jacob was unwise and unkind to favor Joseph over his brothers, legislators who favor the Qur'an and Islamic holy artifacts over other religious objects are also doing a disservice to all other religions. While a practitioner of a religion, by his actions, declares one religion to be of greater value than all others, he does no damage and bears no malice to other religions, unless it is part on his religious creed. But if the government singles out and protects one religion over others, it does more than the individual can; it adds enforcement to its beliefs. With the United States' strong religious roots, the writers of the Constitution could have easily legislated America into being a Christian nation, but they wisely chose to leave religious conviction to the conscience of individual citizens. Those legislators who wish to protect the Qur'an over all other religious objects deny the wisdom of our Founding Fathers. Further they demonstrate no understanding the natural entailments of creating special classes of laws to protect Muslim dignity and religious materials.

If legislators wish to legalize the obligation to treat a particular religion's materials as sacred, then a categorical imperative is set up: all religion's holy objects are to be treated as being sacrosanct. If this happens, the First Amendment is seriously weakened. No more flag burnings, no more painting or sculptures of Jesus or Mary made of excrement, no more Piss Christ. Or another course, though non-legislative, is to practice common courtesy and respect, also known as the Golden Rule. Since I wish my holy artifacts to be treated well, I will do the same for yours; while The Constitution may allow for the desecration of the national ensigns and holy objects, human decency does not. In the end, we may still lose flag burnings, crap art and the destruction of Scriptures, but we would do so because people chose to do what it right and not just what is forced upon them. Is that such a bad thing?
-- Ira M. Kessel
Rochester, New York

Find a willing subject who will simultaneously burn a Bible, Koran, Saudi flag, American flag, cross, crescent, etc. and see how the criminal justice system reacts. If the bureaucracy only responds to the destruction of foreign religion artifacts that should be rich fodder for a hostile legal response.
-- Mark Bruenger

Christopher Orlet's "Canned Koran" is perfect journalism. Excellent!... Excellent!!
-- R.G. Lawrence
St Joseph, Missouri

PERMISSIVENESS BREEDS DEPRAVITY
Re: Richard Kirk's More Freedom, Less Freakonomics:

This from the book review by Richard Kirk on John Lott's, Freedomnomics :

Lott argues, by contrast, that the Supreme Court's legislative fiat in 1973 (Roe v.Wade) actually increased crime by boosting out-of-wedlock births and single-parent households. These crime-correlated statistics exploded in the 1970s and '80s as social sanctions against extra-marital sex disappeared and as the legal but odious option of abortion was rejected by millions of now-pregnant unmarried women.

Huh? If author John Lott actually makes this argument, it is preposterous. My hope is that Mr. Kirk somehow poorly worded this paragraph in the review. How Roe v. Wade would boost out of wedlock births is a mystery. In fact, the statistics easily show the opposite. This whole paragraph is counter intuitive, completely illogical and unsupported by the actual statistics. As Kirk is a very bright man and good writer, either there is something left out here -- or it is yet another case in my life of not noticing the train that just rolled past me unnoticed.
-- Bill Margeson
Dundee, Illinois

BEST LAID PLANS
Re: David Hogberg's Healthcare from the Hash Mark:

Woe to all of us who fail to see the warning of Walter Reid's (and other government military treatment and care facilities) disgraceful treatment of our combat wounded. With the compassion of the IRS and the efficiency of the U.S. Postal Service -- we go marching into the sunset of Single Payer (Government) Healthcare.

God help us all.
-- Mike Horn, LTC, AUS, (Ret.)
Tracy, California

David Hogberg may well be disappointed with Giuliani's Health Care Plan as well as Huckabee's, Romney's, Clinton's, Obama's and Edwards' plan, but unfortunately there is no, I repeat NO, completely free-market solution to effective health care. Just like law enforcement and the armed forces, one must spend the money efficiently and with an outcome-based approach, penny-pinching and not allowing big business to dictate to the American individual. I sometimes shudder at the disrespect the Republicans have for the personnel in the police and armed services, and the lack of quality pay they offer when they are in government, and of course the same goes for healthcare. Giuliani offers a $15,000 tax credit for healthcare, but if you are on $12,000 a year, which millions are, food and rent is of more importance. Rudy's plan would work brilliantly for those over say $60,000 a year, but for the unemployed, the chronically ill, the under privileged, the have-nots, Republicans and Right-leaning individuals need to ask themselves on what is money better spent; Healthcare for Americans or guns, explosives, planes and tanks for Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Egypt?
-- Nathan Maskiell
Melbourne, Australia

Geez, guys, you've got Rudy looking like Alan Alda. Barf!
-- Mike Showalter
Austin, Texas

IMAGINE THAT
Re: Lawrence Henry's In Praise of Yuppiedom;

Author Lawrence Henry's article, "In Praise of Yuppiedom," has simply got to be a satire, perhaps unintended, on yuppies.

Henry concludes his article: "For our part, we courted, got married, learned to make a living, and had children. We are mostly still here, doing the same thing. Not bad, my friends, not bad."

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Transportation, Health Care, Business, Satire, Religion, Islam, Abortion, Environment, Global Warming, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Founding Fathers, Military, Iraq, Russia, Africa, Socialism, Communism