To the Editor: First Amendment rights apply to everyone
Written by Gerry A. Troyer   
Thursday, 05 July 2012 11:42
I am writing in response to the recent letter of Lloyd A. Jones, who believes that elected officials should avoid any public displays of their faith.
He states that “such participation is a violation of the First Amendment of our Constitution.”
First of all, I am a strong proponent of the Constitution of the United States, and seeing what Mr. Jones quoted, he is not familiar with that great document, nor its content. The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Can Mr. Jones show me anywhere in that Amendment where it says “separation of church and state”? Can he show me any law on the books where Congress has enacted a law forcing Americans to adhere to a particular religion? Of course not! He also stated that whenever elected officials “demonstrate their piety”, it violates our Constitution. This is also immensely false. Any judge who has ever ruled in favor of the farce of “separation of church and state”, has done so according to his own bias, not according to the Constitution. Those judges should be removed from the bench.
If anyone is in violation of the Constitution, it would be those who hold the opinion of Mr. Jones, by “prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” These First Amendment rights belong to every citizen of the United States of America, regardless of who signs their paycheck.
That includes elected and non-elected officials. They are people, and citizens, too. If Mr. Jones does not want to display his faith, or lack thereof, in public, that’s his choice. But anyone who tries to keep someone else from openly displaying theirs, that is an attempt to blatantly deny another’s freedom and their Constitutional rights.
I can only hope that, before people jump on the “Constitutional separation of church and state” bandwagon (which does not exist), that they read the Constitution first, and know what it says. As citizens, our freedoms are for us to enjoy. But beware of those whose desire is to take them away!
Gerry A. Troyer
Cygnet
 

Comments  

 
# 2012-07-05 12:57
It takes a synonym-free (i.e. literalistic and myopic) reading of the English language to go from emphasizing that "congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" to claiming that "separation of church and state" is a "farce." Any time a public official in an official capacity invokes a particular religious perspective as an article of faith, (s)he implies that that particular perspective is the official line--and risks implying that those who do not share that belief, be it atheists, Muslims, Jews, or, more likely, Christians who have a different interpretation of scripture, are not considered part of the public. Officials in an official capacity asserting religious belief imply an official religion. Hence the need for a "wall."
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-11 07:36
Quoting Christopher Williams:
Any time a public official in an official capacity invokes a particular religious perspective as an article of faith, (s)he implies that that particular perspective is the official line--and risks implying that those who do not share that belief, ... are not considered part of the public.


Nonsense, absolute nonsense.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-11 16:17
Obviously "Conneaut" has never experienced religious persecution. Dr. William's observation is a living truth for many of us.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-12 15:33
You claim "obviously" and yet you have no idea what my religious beliefs are or how they are received by others. Are all your opinions based on nothing as well?

OK, for the sake of debate, give me one example of when a politician did not consider you to be a member of "the public" because of your religious beliefs, as Dr. Williams claims.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-13 10:12
My religion was not at all represented in my town's "Day of Prayer." My (elected(?)) sheriff declared his official religion in a public forum in which my religion is not recognized.

Have you ever been fired because your boss found out you were Xtian? I didn't think so. I've been fired and denied housing for both religious and political beliefs.

You are defending that, and I resent it.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-05 13:32
Gary-thanks for enlighting us on the terms of the Biil of Rights. We all have the right to assemble and if an elected official wants to pray thtat's his or her right to do that openly. When we have to hide what we stand for and something is done very nicely then one should not be msde out as a bad guy for stating his "Thanks" to God or any other religious feelings. What would Mr. Jones rather an elected official do cuss someone out? Now that would be offending.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-06 08:12
It is a pretty far leap, Suzzie, to think that Mr. Jones wanted elected officials to cuss people out or blaspheme. You have a hard time understanding that if a public official prays in a specific way, it has the effect of imposing those religious views on others. It might be hard for you to understand what is wrong with this when you share those views, but you have to agree that this community has been torn up by people taking their religious prejudices and trying to make people who do not go to their church agree with them. That's where Mr. Jones is coming from, for the most part.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-06 14:11
CW-I don't agree with you. Just because one prays outloud or silently don't mean everyone has to clap or get out a red carpet for them to walk on. Maybe you would be happy if they said and to all my Jew, Muslum, Budha, atheist friends (sp) etc good luck chums. Would that be better Chri and Lloyd? LOL
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-06 16:57
One has the right to pray outloud or silently. No question. But when one is a public official, acting as a public official, then one is endorsing a religious perspective when one prays from the podium. I sense your trouble with this issue, Suzzie, is that you share the religious position that is most likely to expressed by one of these public speakers. I am not saying there is anything "wrong" with your religious views, just that you need to be aware that not everyone shares them. What works in church does not work in the public square.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-10 13:13
Chris-it makes no difference whether you go to church or not. If one knows anything about the bible, maybe you don't but let me fill you in. If this is all you have a belief in. The bible can stand for freedom, hope, faith, something to believe in, trust, obeying laws, loving, friendships. A place to turn to for inspiration and a way turning your sorrows over to someone else. An offical has that right same as you do or Lloyd thinks he does. This is the only things we have left that is positive in our lives........Praying.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-10 15:38
A public official may do anything he or she wants in private, but when that person steps to the podium and prays in the name of the community, he or she implies that the community is part of that same faith experience. That's the problem; can't you see it?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-11 14:12
No Chris-it's a form of respect, good morals, name it what you want to. I see no harm in an official praying. Everyone can bring whatever they like to the surface but there is nothing wrong with praying. That is that persons right whether elected or not.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-12 15:34
What is "the problem?"
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-13 07:23
That people whose religious experiences lie outside the faith proclaimed from the podium are presumed to lie outside the community. Jews and Muslims have to put up with this all the time, but there are also Christians who have different interpretations of the Bible who can feel excluded. In our own community, there have been fiercely-fought debates about homosexuality and abortion, and people have used religion, and played the "Bible card" to argue that their religious views of these issues should be the law of the town, applied to people who are not members of their church. Apparently, you don't see a problem with this Conneaut, as you tend to express the view, to put it bluntly, that "liberals" are less good citizens than you are.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-10 17:12
That's the ONLY positive thing you have?!?!?!?!?

What a sad sad life that must be.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-05 13:35
Let me put it slightly differently, in order to be perfectly clear. The main issue is not really what happens on a National Day of Prayer, when elected officials express religious belief in a way that clearly signifies that it is their personal faith. But when people get hot under the collar about "separation of church and state" being a farce or fraud, you have to ask what they really mean and want. What they want is for their elected leaders to express and impose their faith more universally: to see that faith reflected in the schools, so that biblical principles may drown out things that go against their beliefs (like evolution), and so that groups whom their religious beliefs require them to discriminate against (Muslims, gays, atheists, maybe even "feminists") are disenfranchised .
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-10 13:20
Chris-you just said that very well but whether you are elected or not, one should be able to say how they feel in public or behind closed doors. Would you rather they back-stab each other as the Presidnetial candidates are doing right now? Saying a Prayer in public is better than that.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-05 15:53
US Citizens DO NOT have the right to assemble. The Occupy movement demonstrated that quite clearly.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-06 08:08
Brian, I think that if you were to poll the readership of the Sentinel, you would find that they agree with the right to assemble if it involves prayer--specifically Christian prayer--but it does not involve the right to protest against things that are important to conservatives. Then, the protesters suddenly morph from citizens into "animals," bogeyman zombies like "ACORN" are invoked, and the right calls for them to lose their jobs, as we have seen.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-06 14:29
Oh, I know.

Anyone advocating for a move away from the status quo is a 'lazy animal' or whatever.

It is the process of "othering" and de-humanizing that which is feared.

They exhibit their fear with police violence and repression, while their religious/political leaders have public events to tell us how they want us to think.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-10 13:23
Brian-how should one think? I thought everyone is different. We all think differently and our minds change daily.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-10 17:13
Think for yourselves. Examine the world critically. Don't allow the dictates of so-called 'authority' (biblical or otherwise) to determine your conclusions.

Is that good?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-11 14:15
Yes Brian but then we don't need elected officials.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-11 16:18
So we should be blind sheep instead? No thank you!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-06 12:48
The Constitution states that "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble", and I emphasize the word "peaceably". The Occupy movement, for the most part, was little more than a riotous mob, invoking violence and lewd behaviour. In my letter, I was clarifying what the First Amendment REALLY said, and some some people would like to prohibit us from exercizing our freedoms. Mr. William, it's obvious to me that all of the points you are trying to make are coming from a spirit of anti-Christian bigotry on your part. I will leave it at that.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-06 17:01
Gerry, Brian was most likely thinking about the BG Occupy, which was rather docile and well behaved. Also, the Occupy movement in the bigger cities was also NOT __"For the most part" a riotous mob, etc. Those were the images that were broadcast, without context, to us in the Heartland, especially by media (Fox) that were hostile to the movement. I observed the Occupy in SF, which was camped right outside the hotel where I was attending a conference, and they were pretty darned docile and quiet, and friendly. It's like during the Vietnam era: the media showed the violence and the drama, but most of the time the protests are/were neither
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-06 17:06
As to "anti-Christian bigotry" and "all the points" I am making, I will submit this: I am an elder of a Christian church. I also believe that non-Christians are citizens of this great country of ours, and have a right to be respected. I do not discriminate against others on the basis of creed, color, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

You therefore have ZERO right to call me a bigot. Your calling me a bigot makes me think rather that you, dear Sir, are the Christian bigot.

I also suppose that by slamming "all the points" I am making, the fact that I would favor the teaching of evolution rather than the biblical creation story in the public schools would be included as a sign of my "anti-Christian bigotry?" Be straightforward and honest about it.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-07 07:35
Gerry -- If you believe neutrality is "anti-Christian", then you have to be against the Constitution itself!

Furthermore, precious, if you read the writings of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, you'll find they were deists and *not* Christians. Jefferson even created his own bible by removing the so-called "miracles" and retained his core philosophies.

Finally, Jefferson was also the writer of the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom, which also banned the state from establishing a specific religion.

Because you're the majority, you've never been the victim of religious persecution or oppression. Maybe if you spent some time in Saudi Arabia or Iran, maybe you'd understand.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-10 13:34
Marlen-not everyone can go to other countries. One has to admit TJ was quit the history maker and set his own words to make U.S. history. We have all added a bit of history, more than some but The good 'ole U.S. of A. has more freedoms than most other countries, maybe in fact I know that's hwy everyone that comes here wants to saty. One of these days we will be a third world country.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-10 15:58
How does your last sentence follow logically from the rest of what you wrote? And, didn't you notice that when Marlene mentioned Iran and Saudi Arabia she was choosing two countries with far fewer religious freedoms than we have? She was saying something that you should agree with. You don't have to go to other countries to be informed about them. On the other hand, Americans can be so poorly informed about the rest of the world that they get really upset when people are critical of the U.S., even when the U.S. is falling short compared to some countries whose modern societies are actually to a large extent modeled on the U.S. (like Europe and Japan)
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-11 14:24
Chris the reason I added we will be a 3rd world country is because of all the worldly things happening with change and lack of jobs. We are used to leading the world and we have taught other countries how to produce what we have in the last 100 years and now they do it cheaper so we now send everything over seas. Being poorly informed is because we only get info the media wants us to know.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-11 15:53
Basic info about other countries is relatively easy to find, but it is not widely presented on television. Even when international news is important--the Euro crisis, or the changes in the middle east--if it is complicated, the only media outlets that regularly dispassionately report on world affairs are public media (PBS/NPR). The other television outlets simplify and lead to misperceptions.

Actually, I think your third-world worries are completely misplaced. I mentioned Europe and Japan. You thought of the developing nations like India and China (I guess). There is a pretty big difference, and I recommend you do some reading on an international perspective. Germany's Spiegel magazine has an English site (www.spiegel.de). You can read online English and Australian news, too.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-10 13:25
Chris-see I am not the only one who feels that way. It's called "Freedom"
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-06 17:14
Lastly, Mr. Troyer, by calling me out for "anti-Christian bigotry" after I have merely stated a completely mainstream, even centrist interpretation of the "separation of church and state," I fear that I have hit the nail exactly on the head. You indeed wish the nation to have an established religion--your religion--and feel righteous about it because you feel it is right. Your revisionist refusal to see a justification for the "separation" that Jefferson wrote about it is simply an admission that you do not feel that other perspectives really have a right to equal respect.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-10 13:39
Chris-I don't think Gary is trying to establish a church, he is trying to say that one can speak freely and say what he nay feel is right in his heart. Whether another agrees, well that is up to them. It's like your critical thinking theory. Opinions are formed after the speach. Debateable or not.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-08 13:13
I'm going to pray wherever and whenever I feel like it. I will pray silently if I feel that it would intrude on anyone and I will pray quietly aloud if not. And if the Romans come and haul me away to be imprisoned then so be it.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-09 07:37
You will get no argument from me about private prayer. The argument here is about public prayer, from public podiums by public officials. Jesus himself was famously skeptical about public prayer. But now there are no "Romans" and no "prisons" on this matter, so there is no need to worry. Contrary to a lot of what one hears in the media and from _some_ pulpits, Christians are not a persecuted class in this country. However, for some, being Christian can mean "getting in the face" of others in order to proselytize and spread the Gospel, to insist that "Christian values" be imposed on people who do not belong to their church, and when this provokes a negative reaction, it is then spun as persecution. I sense this is the undercurrent here.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-10 13:46
Chris-the undercurrent as you put it, is Lloyd doesn't want officials to publicly pray because it offends him. I am almost positive Lloyd was raised in a Christian home. Maybe he thinks it was jammed down his throat as a youngster. I have grown acustomed to praying. One could pray to a statue or a tree if they want to but at least they are asking to be heard by something.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-10 15:53
Suzzie, I think you are blind to what it might be like to not share the belief of the person who is praying, or know what it is like to have that person speak from the podium and thus imply official prayer. Our recent presidents, including the present one, have been reasonably good at making clear that their prayers have been their personal belief. But you forget that the first reaction to the BG Prayer day was to complain that the speaker was TOO inclusive, and you forget that during some of the nastiest debates in our community, including the one especially the civil rights ordinances, neighbors have used the pulpit to attack their neighbors. That could very well be the sort of thing that motivated Lloyd to write the letter.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-11 14:36
Chris-maybe you are right but there is still no harm as far as I am concerned with an elected official praying at the podium. I guess if they use the pulpit they probably think they are getting someones attention. The only reason your students get your attention is because you release grades for them to pass, they don't have to agree with you. They only want to get through the glass whatever it takes to get an A or B or a passing grade. The same can be said for an elected official. The next election will tell the tale if people agree, am I right?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-11 15:55
Actually, I hoped that I got my students' attention by being generally awesome and funny. And because they want to learn something.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-11 16:19
Did you ever consider that some students actually want to LEARN?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-13 07:31
Sadly, some do not. I think this is also why some people end their education early. The pressure to "grow up and get a job" leads some students to become very impatient with their own learning process. The harshest complains I get about my teaching are from students who get frustrated that I DON'T spoonfeed and tell them what to think. I give a lot of information, provide a lot of context, but make them do their own outlines and ask/answer the "why" questions; this frustrates them. Deadened curiosity and resistance to the dynamics and hard work of critical thinking are the tragic losses here. Unfortunately, there are some (e.g. the Texas RP) that see these as goals and not tragic losses.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-10 13:40
Amen down the pike!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-09 05:39
It amazes me to this day how un-christ like most people that consider themselves to be christians become when the conversation is about religion or religious freedom. Does everyone forget that to be a chritian you are supposed to be trying to be more like christ and be accepting and loving towards all people?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-10 13:49
OG-you are right but there are a few people who believe in nothing but themselves-it's the "Me" world and not thinking about how one could give to another person in a humbling way and make it look good but still pray at the same time.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-10 17:17
They are not so few, unfortunately.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-09 13:38
The problem with the Occupy Main Street in Bowling Green was the way the organizers let it become like a slum, dirty, ugly and just got out of hand. Not to mention the location.Actually gave the Occupy Main Street a bad name
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-09 15:36
Actually, they maintained that alley in a far cleaner state than the city EVER did. Hell, the Sentinel photos show folks sweeping the place and ensuring people could still pass through the alley. Give us a break. Your lame opinions speak volumes about your ideology.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-09 19:17
"We establish no religion in this country. We command no worship. We mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are and must remain separate." - Ronald Reagan
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-10 07:43
The problem with putting people on pedestals is that after death they get co-opted as symbols for things they did not in fact stand for. His galvanizing principles were the Cold War and dismantling the liberal welfare state. But you will find people today who laughably claim that he "never raised taxes" or that he would support the religious absolutism and anti-gay rhetoric of a fundamentalist Christian movement that made him nervous. His cooperation with Tip O'Neill would be cast as treasonous today. In short, Reagan was too liberal for today's Republican party, especially on the social issues.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-10 13:55
Chris-he was just playing your part by not being releglious. I would hate to do a formal paper for you Chris. I bet you don't hand out many A's unless the people are on the same page as you are that precise moment in time.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-10 15:43
I grade on the strength of a student's reasoning and ability to provide evidence. If a student makes the assumption you do about me and gives me what he or she thinks is "what I want," I am very likely to give it a poor grade. My job is to provide as much information as possible and lead the students to think for themselves.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-11 14:46
OK Chris you said it all, thanks, that was what I was waiting for from you. Make them think for themselves. As we all age we hear millions of words and opinions from everywhere. Now you are going to tell me you don't feel different now, then you did from your college days? I was a smart butt know-it-all at 18 and 20. Now I have matured and think of what I am saying and humble myself and treat others in a kind way.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-11 15:59
Socrates was once recorded as saying that wisdom lies in understanding the limits of one's own knowledge. When I was 18, I was a cocky, judgmental know-it-all. But i was humbled after being the "smartest kid in the room" in high school by going to a college where I felt most people knew a lot more than I did. It led me to find out what really mattered and to build my areas of competence. And to become very curious about the world, not just what affected me personally. Believe it or not, I do not consider myself a know-it-all. But I am curious about a lot of things, and I work hard to know very well what it is that I do know.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-10 17:15
They need to be able to spell and use the language properly so as not to embarrass themselves in public adult life....
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-10 08:49
Excellent quote. However Ray-Gun spoke out of both sides of his actor's mouth. I'm not sure he really meant it.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-07-10 15:47
I strongly recommend "Reagan's America" by Garry Wills. His acting career and his relation to Hollywood were fundamental for understanding his later political career. I believe he was quite sincere and well-intentioned, but his perception of reality was strongly shaped by image. It was also why he became an effective politician, in that unnerving way where poll after poll had the American people supporting policies that he actively opposed but somehow thinking he was the best politician suited to carry them out. In terms of social attitudes, though, he was far too much of a pragmatist to be successful in today's Teapublican Party.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 

Add comment

NOTE: Comments are moderated. Comments have a 800 character limit! Comments are not posted until reviewed by Sentinel staff. Depending on the time of day you submit comments there may be a delay in posting to the website. If you see a comment that you think needs our attention, please e-mail hbrown@sentinel-tribune.com.


Front Page Stories

Elmwood tries income taxes again
06/18/2013 | MARIE THOMAS BAIRD Sentinel Education Editor
article thumbnail

JERRY CITY - Elmwood will be back on the ballot in November with the second request fo [ ... ]


+ Full Story
 Bullying reports on the rise
06/18/2013 | BILL RYAN Sentinel Staff Writer

Over the summer, school officials will have a question to ponder: Is bullying in schools on the rise [ ... ]


+ Full Story
Other Front Page Articles