Writer responds to Payton Perspective: Exercising our right to religious freedom in the public square

Dear Publisher:

Hypocrisy is not limited to those who are agnostic or atheist. Many people of faith can be just as hypocritical whether they be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist or of any other faith.

Look at those of faith who say it is okay to pull families apart and put children in cages at our border. Is that really a statement of faith?

Does that really apply the golden rule or is that hypocrisy?

Or, look at the man in the White House. A narcissistic serial liar; with five children from three baby mommas and innumerable mistresses on the side. A man who somehow holds solid support from the faith base of the South.

Those folks just look the other way. Does that really make one a person of applied faith or a hypocrite?

This is not a question of exercising faith. This is an issue of free speech. Free speech on both sides. So, on this point we can agree.

In our American we have free speech, but that right is not absolute. You cannot yell “fire” in a theater. At governmental meetings where the public can speak, everyone should have the right to make their statement within the bounds of acceptable decorum.

Does someone expressing their desire to have a flag flown have the right to silence others? No, is the simple answer.

Do those of faith have a right to express their view? Yes, is the simple answer.

The decisions of our representatives should be based on the law. What does the law state? How should it be applied? What are the rulings of courts that may apply? This is how decisions should be made by government, local, state or national.

Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are documents written by men. All religious testaments are words written by men. Whether they are inspired by a higher power; well that is a question.

Your statement made “that there is no separation of church and State in the Constitution” is incorrect.

The United States Constitution is a living document with Amendments. The first ten of these is called the Bill of Rights.

Amendment 1 states, and I’ll paraphrase, Congress shall not establish a State Religion. By Supreme Court confirmation this means that no religion has a preference over another and has no sway over the government of the United States. That; in and of itself is separation.

The Pledge of Allegiance you reference containing “Under God” was not originally written with those words. You misspeak here.

Written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy it originally read: “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic, for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Not until 1954 in response to Communist treats of the time were the words you reference added.

You speak of “Divine Providence” in your Perspective. Divine for whom? Slaves? Native Indians? Indentured Servants? Women? Truth be told this country was formed because of a tax revolt and a lack of representation in Parliament by white, land owning men.

If all men are equal, then why would a higher power shine greater on North American than on the British Isles? Why not shine equally on all? The world rotates so why not shine all over the world? We’re not blessed by Divine Providence we’re blessed by our law. For whom no one is above.

I don’t have the answer to many of the questions written here. I’m not that smart, gifted, or enlightened. Humility rather than hypocrisy should be the consideration whenever an elected representative needs to make a decision for all of us.

Thank you for expressing your thoughts and for publishing this response should you choose to do so.

Mark Jordan

Antioch

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

One Comment to “Writer responds to Payton Perspective: Exercising our right to religious freedom in the public square”

  1. Al Mason says:

    Kudos Mark Jordan for taking time for a thoughtful and enlightened response.

Leave a Reply