Letters
to the editor
"Under
God" must go
Re
"Pledge is an integral part of U.S.,"
Opinion, April 14: Regarding Jason Garthoffner's
fine editorial about the Pledge of Allegiance,
I couldn't disagree more. Our Constitution
does indeed call for a "separation
of church and state." The establishment
cause states, Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
A
Constitutional amendment or law returning
the words "under god" to the pledge
would be an act of establishing a religion
just as it was in 1954. During the Cold
War, the Eisenhower administration worried
that America had to distinguish itself from
that godless enemy, the USSR.
The
Constitution invokes no mention of God by
intention because the founders feared linking
religion and government.
The
founders were quite capable of making that
link clear in the framing if they so wanted.
Newdow and liberal activist sympathetic
judges are not imposing their wills on the
90 percent of Americans who want those words
inserted into the pledge.
The
fact that Democratic presidential candidate
Kerry and the head of the Democratic National
Committee support such a clause are just
simply the finery of politics. Not surprisingly,
conservatives never have a problem when
sympathetic activist judges rule in their
favor.
What
Garthoffner ignores is that the Constitution
was established to protect minority rights
from the will of an overbearing majority.
Paraphrasing from the New Testament, Jesus
said that it was hypocritical to practice
religion on the street corners instead of
the privacy of one's home.
Forcing
children to recite "under god"
when they don't have the mental or spiritual
aptitude to understand its full and complete
implication is the real abomination.
--
Matthew Black communication studies
Confusion
of facts
Re
"Pledge is an integral part of U.S.,"
Opinion, April 14: I want to bring to attention
of Jason Garthoffner of some of the terribly
misleading and blatant fallacies he made
in his article.
First
of all, he asked whether putting the words
"under God" was unconstitutional
and his response was that god is an ambiguous
term with no reference to any specific religion.
And then he continues to blast atheists
for imposing their will on 90 percent of
Americans. Nothing is further from the truth.
Well,
Garthoffner, maybe you should realize the
term God refers to a super-being that many
people lack a belief in. Furthermore, Garthoffner
also tends to confuse the lack of something
for an assertion of a negative. A lack of
belief does not mean belief that something
does not exist. I don't believe in a god
but I don't positively believe that a god
doesn't exist either.
Though
I technically fall under the "agnosticism"
camp, most people refer me as an atheist
for simplistic reasons. Just like how Garthoffner
mistakes a lack of belief for a belief in
non-existence, he also confuses the absence
of "under God" as equivalent to
putting "under no God." If we
are to rise above this intolerance, we must
respect everyone's beliefs even if they
do not refer to any institutionalized religion.
Furthermore,
might does not mean right. Just because
90 percent of Americans support the words
"under God" doesn't mean it should
be there. Let me ask Garthoffner this: Since
when has the tyranny of majority become
a tolerable factor in American society?
While I disagree with how Newdow uses his
daughter to bring this case to the court,
he is right. The words "under God"
do not belong in the pledge and never have.
I do not live in Iran. I live in the United
States of America, where my government "shall
make no law respecting an establishment
of religion...".
--
Raymond New
Biased
reviews
Please,
I implore you at the On-line Forty-Niner
to take away Brian Spiegel's album review
privileges. While you're at it, tell him
that if he is planning a career in journalism
that he should keep his blatant bias in
his back pocket!
I
read his three album reviews and concert
review in the April 15 issue and it's impossible
to miss his insatiable lust for punk music.
Of course, that's all fine and dandy except
for the fact that he demeans everything
that isn't punk because it lacks a "shot
of adrenaline" or heavy guitar "edge"
or emo screams.
Now,
I have not heard the albums he reviewed
for this issue, but I'd be willing to bet
that they weren't as "droll" and
boring as Spiegel claims. Someone should
strap him to a chair and give him an education
in quality modern music; not that "underground"
punk garbage everybody seems to be pushing
these days.
--
Shawn Roberts political science
Unfair
exclusion
When
Armando Aguilar showed up at the Meet and
Greet (an event where students get to meet
the candidates) he was not allowed to participate
because the Associated Students Elections
Commissioner Michelle Cooper alleged that
he had placed his posters where placed on
walls and other illegal locations which
he actually had not placed (He was presumed
to be guilty).
The
only thing we could think of that is anywhere
remotely illegal was when Armando's poster
team placed 54 posters instead of his allowed
50. If there were four extra posters it
was because the descriptions in the size
requirements made it seem as if the larger
posters where not included in the 50.
Every
poster followed the guidelines given to
us by A.S.I. Besides, by the time we went
to take down extra posters, we found that
half of his posters where either gone or
vandalized.
Did
this really merit Armando not being able
to participate in the meet and greet?
--
Students supporting Mandoman (Armando Aguilar)
for A.S. President
Campaign
hit by vandalism
Armando
Aguilar has been campaigning for the position
of Associated Student President and has
been dealing with targeted vandalism. It
began the very first day that he placed
posters up on campus. Someone went around
targeting Armando Aguilar's posters throughout
the campus.
We
know that the destruction of the posters
was deliberate because the posters were
removed, thrown and cracked. Evidence suggests
that it was a wheeled vehicle. Any posters
by other candidates right next to his remained
intact. The vandalism continued weeks later;
posters right next to the Coffee Bean were
destroyed in an exact manner as to that
of the first vandalism. The second time
he put posters up, after coming back from
spring break, the posters were vandalized
only hours after being placed up Sunday,
April 11 between the hours of 6:30-10 p.
m. We are not sure who is doing this so
we are asking students to keep an eye out
so we can catch whoever is vandalizing posters.
--
Students supporting Mandoman (Armando Aguilar)
for A.S. President
|
