To the editor:
Having recently read a post by a reader I found myself dumbfounded. For a minute there I had supposed I was born in a country different from that which our founding fathers had established.
But then I realized the letter was obviously written by a secularist and more than likely a person who ignores many of the provisions in our Constitution especially the First Amendment to which it makes clear a distinction between what is the establishment of a national religion and the people's right to express their religious beliefs without barriers in not only their churches and properties but openly without the dictatorial restrictions by a king or a government. To wit: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free expression thereof." That, Mr Chack, does not mean the denial of religious people to profess their religions but instead a prohibition, as you outlined, against the government from imposing a religion upon the people no matter what form it might take - even under the guise of secularism.
Those men knew the history of kingships and tyranny that you referred to sir, and therefore they did not free us from religion but established our freedom to profess our religion and in that regard there was never an intent to impose a restriction upon the people or their religious beliefs nor their values but just the opposite - the restriction was upon the government.
It seems to me that you may well wish to extend the discrimination's of the past to now include a discrimination to those who presently profess the values of their faiths and instead make them adhere to the "religious" fervor of the secularists.
The values you seem to ignore are those inherent in most religious doctrines. But then that is the overall attitude of those with a rather secular viewpoint is it not?
Your letter, Mr. Chack, seems to be a demand for you and others to be protected from religious thinkers and those who might follow the values they hold dear. Fine then, don't enter religious halls of faith, hospitals, charity wards, schools, etc., and you may well be free of your inner aversion for faith based values.
You may well be, in your letter, making a subliminal attack on the recent discourse of the provision in the health-care bill in which many of the secularists demand religious entities deny their beliefs so that a mandate they consider morally wrong be forced upon them. That, Mr. Chack, leaves me with a fear in my heart that such ideas would take away from me and others the right to express our religious beliefs unless we get permission from a rather benign secularist who would "trump" our guaranteed rights under the First Amendment of our Constitution.
What amendment might I ask is next to be either ignored or condemned that we are to be protected from?
Mrs. Diane L Logan