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 threats 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

3 Comments 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.

    • Loretta Sweatt says:

      It’s a pathetic response, totally missing the point, ignorant and filled with lies and arrogant innuendo. Trumps children were father by his wives, unlike John Edwards. #1) lie….I have not seen one picture of a child in a cage or anyone drinking from a toilet #2) lie….have you? The narcissistic serial liar looks like me to be you. Trump got support from all over the United States, not just the South> #3) lie. Hillary lost and like you, can’t accept it in an intelligent manner. Free speech and an acceptable decorum, IS NOT CALLING EVERYONE A “RACIST” because you can’t take criticism or disagreement. The United State of America is a country governed by secular law, BUT GAVIN NEWSOME DOESN’T KNOW THAT, DOES HE? He signed an unconstitutional law prohibiting candidates from being on the ballot who don’t publish their tax returns, WHEN THERE IS NO LAW TO DO SO?

  2. Loretta Sweatt says:

    Excuse Me….Mark Jordan. Trumps did not have “baby mommas” like John Edwards did. They were his legal wives. And you need not look any further than Bill Clinton for several mistresses. Hypocrisy is exactly what you are exampling in your article. The Bible says, “Let him who is with out sin cast the first stone” Are you without sin? There are a lot of faith based religious people right here in Antioch, not just the South. Look around at all the churches. There are people of faith everywhere. So that is a false statement. Trump carried state’s support from all over the USA. Are you one of those Hillary people who can’t accept defeat in an intelligent manner? Or must you always be ignorant, exaggerating, and a liar? If you are so in favor of free speech, why call everyone a racist who doesn’t agree with you? The word racist exploites race. You are in fact, in my opinion, the hypocrite who lacks faith and strives to suppress free speech. Is Gavin Newsom following “The Law” when he signs an unconstitutional law prohibiting candidates from being on the ballot who have not released their tax returns, when, in fact, there is NO SUCH LAW, to do so? The USA has a government of secular law, not religious doctrine. Doesn’t everybody know that by now?

Leave a Reply