The Times Leader has recently published what might easily be the most ignorant, misinformed, and fallacious letter in the Letters to the Editor section...and somehow an author connected the "Ground Zero Mosque" to my complaint against the nativity scene from last December.
It's quite sad that no matter how much information is out there, people will twist words, be willfully ignorant, and not do any research to understand very clear arguments that have been presented months ago by rational human beings.
Here's some background information for those who aren't aware...
During December of 2009, I filed a complaint about an unconstitutional religious display at the Luzerne County Courthouse - this letter was sent.
The nativity scene and menorah were taken down along with the snowman behind the tree as evidenced in this press release. Because of this, I received a great deal of hate mail, hate, threats, etc from residents of Luzerne County.
If you'd like to read all of the media coverage including newspaper articles, television appearances and stories, and everything else, feel free to browse through my "December 2009" section of my blog.
Jane George of Tunkhannock is way off the mark in this following letter to the editor,
Christian symbols also warrant protection
I have just finished reading a letter defending the right to build a mosque near the site of the 9/11 outrage. One cannot disagree with the writer’s eloquence or reasoning.
But the very same letter could have been written last December about the Nativity scene on the courthouse lawn or the desecration by the American Civil Liberties Union of a cross in a cemetery in California where men and women who died fighting for this country are buried. Or it could have been about the many other assaults on traditions involving Christianity in this country.
Please, do not insult my intelligence by quoting that outrageous lie about separation of church and state in the Constitution. Only the most ignorant believe that lie anymore.
In fact, the letter correctly quotes the only statements the Constitution makes on the subject of religion.
Would leaving the Nativity scene or the cross on display, even though Congress never met or even discussed voting on the matter, establish Christianity as America’s religion? Then, if the symbols remain, therefore Christianity must be the country’s religion. If you have ever heard of anything more ludicrous than that, I’d like to hear it.
One can only say on the subject of Christian symbols on public lands being illegal, never have so many been deceived by so few. Now that I have laid to rest the myths about the Constitution or other laws, what about the claim about government-owned land. Who pays for government-owned lands? The taxpayers. We own the government land.
In corporations, decisions concerning the property owned by the business are made by the stockholders. So if a majority of taxpayers want a Nativity scene on a courthouse lawn or a cross at a cemetery to honor service personnel, they have a legal right to have it there. In what way could any of these situations interfere with someone’s rights?
Lincoln was right when he said, “you cannot deny equality to one without endangering it for all.”"
I will disect all of the arguments and claims in this article in order to have clarity tonight.
I have just finished reading a letter defending the right to build a mosque near the site of the 9/11 outrage. One cannot disagree with the writer’s eloquence or reasoning. But the very same letter could have been written last December about the Nativity scene on the courthouse lawn
The "issue" regarding the "9/11 mosque" did not exist in the legal realm. People, for whatever reasons, did not want the Islamic Community Center, but none of these reasons were legal arguments. In the case of the nativity, the argument was PURELY a legal argument. People can put up a place of worship - this is legal...but the government can not put up religious displays conveying a message of support of religion over non-religion, endorsement of religion, or favoritism of one religion over another. The government -- not the people -- dictated the speech on the courthouse lawn in the case of the nativity. In the case of the "9/11 Mosque," people proposed to have a place of worship in a building that they purchased. These situations aren't even remotely alike.
The desecration by the American Civil Liberties Union of a cross in a cemetery in California where men and women who died fighting for this country are buried
The ACLU did not desecrate a cross, but rather fought to have it legally removed.
the many other assaults on traditions involving Christianity in this country
It's funny how the language used when people are fighting for separation of church and state is so aggressive. What is this "assault?" People are simply filing legal complaints because they believe that the establishment cause of the constitution is being violated...and it's not only Christianity, either. Appealing to traditions is fallacious. The law is much more important than tradition. We had a lot of "traditions" in this country such as women not voting, slavery, racism, lynching, etc. We obviously can't morally justify traditions simply because they are traditions.
Please, do not insult my intelligence by quoting that outrageous lie about separation of church and state in the Constitution. Only the most ignorant believe that lie anymore.
Wow. This irony is juicy and delicious. The separation of church and state is a cornerstone of the United States that the founding fathers were very passionate about. Wikipedia it. This comment is just ignorant. Like every amendment and article mentioned in the constitution, courts have interpreted the constitution to establish legal precedent. Perhaps this reader should purchase a copy of "The United States Constitution what it says, what it means: a hip pocket guide" to have some understanding and turn to page 39 to read, "...the Establishment Clause prevents the government from creating a church, endorsing religion in general, or favoring one set of beliefs over another. ...the Establishment Clause was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and state..."
This website gives another clear explanation, "It did not take long after the passage and ratification of the 1st Amendment for people to start interpreting it to simply mean that that federal government had no business getting mixed into religion. Of course, there is more to it than that, especially when it comes to the individual right part of the amendment. But the notion that the government should not become enmeshed in religion is an important concept, too. There is nothing in the Constitution that specifically says that there is a wall of separation between religion and government. The Wall, however, is a nice shorthand metaphor for non-establishment."
Would leaving the Nativity scene or the cross on display, even though Congress never met or even discussed voting on the matter, establish Christianity as America’s religion?
This is more wordplay with incorrect emphasis on the word "Congress" and a misunderstanding of the word "establish." The establishment clause does not only mean, "We can't be a theocracy," as I mentioned above; it covers much more than that.
Then, if the symbols remain, therefore Christianity must be the country’s religion. If you have ever heard of anything more ludicrous than that, I’d like to hear it.
This wasn't my argument against the religious symbols. This is a very clear strawman of my position and the position of courts' rulings regarding religious symbols. Again, this letter plainly details what the violations are...and this has nothing to do with "Christianity being the county's religion." The establishment clause covers more than just that. If the author is seriously arguing that violations only encompass "what sets up a religion," she'd be disagreeing with hundreds of court rulings on church-state issues and tremendous amounts of legal precedent. She'd also have to concede that it's perfectly okay for the government to erect Islamic crescent moons on government property and force students to pray to Mecca in classrooms because it's not making the nation an Islamic nation. Give me a break.
...what about the claim about government-owned land. Who pays for government-owned lands? The taxpayers. We own the government land. [...]So if a majority of taxpayers want a Nativity scene on a courthouse lawn or a cross at a cemetery to honor service personnel, they have a legal right to have it there.
This argument is ridiculous. People can't break the law or "do what they want" simply because they pay for the land. If the author wants to seriously forward this argument, she'd have to agree that slavery, rape, incest, and murder are perfectly permissible on land that they pay for. She'd also have to concede that I can break the law in my own home because I own my land. Clearly, this is not the case.
The author is also arguing for a tyranny of the majority, the idea that people can "vote" to do whatever they want simply because everyone agrees with it. Just like above, this simply doesn't work. If 90% of the population decided that slavery is permissible, would slavery suddenly be okay? Obviously not.
We also can't claim legal rights just because a majority wants a legal right. Could we all agree that we ought to have a legal right to punch babies simply because a majority agrees on it? Obviously not.
Laws are in place and they must be followed. We can't suddenly break laws with no punishment and claim legal rights just because a majority of people decide so.
In what way could any of these situations interfere with someone’s rights?
Red herring....this is breaking the law. Rights don't even need to enter the picture. The displays were clearly illegal.
The author of this post clearly "doesn't get it." Perhaps she should attend the Wilkes University discussion this Friday.