Printed Letters to the Editor
Dear Editor, Jan. 16, 2006
It amazes me that it required a judge 139 pages to explain his ruling that teaching Intelligent Design is unconstitutional. The Declaration of Independence and the entire Constitution can be copied in only 30 pages. If Americans would spend more time actually reading those 30 historic pages, we would have a clearer picture of the country our founding fathers established, and how to preserve our liberties.
First we would be amazed to discover our founding fathers believed that God is our Creator and the Author of our liberty. “We hold these truths to be self evident that all men were created equal and were endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…”(Dec. of Ind.) How could it be unconstitutional to teach “the design in nature demands a designer”, when America was built upon the belief in God?
Second we would see the purpose of the Constitution’s First Amendment was to protect citizens from a national religion. (A quick review of English history would reveal why they were so fearful of a national religion and why religious freedom was so dearly held.) The first amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech,…” The establishment of a tax supported, nationally endorsed religion would be unconstitutional. Likewise, prohibiting the free exercise of religion (displaying Nativity scenes, praying, singing Christmas carols…) is unconstitutional.
It is interesting to note that in the 1960’s the Federal courts began ruling that atheism and secular humanism are religions and thereby protected by the First Amendment. (Original Intent by David Barton p.237-238) Obviously, if it is unconstitutional to have an established, tax supported religion in America, and atheism has been declared to be a religion, then it is unconstitutional, in tax supported, public schools to preach “there is no God”. The only truly constitutional compromise would be to teach both sides and let the students decide. Another option would be to abolish public education all together and allow education to enter the realm of free enterprise and parental choice. Every parent could receive an educational voucher to be used at the school of their choice. Just imagine the educational advances that would be made if schools were forced to compete for students. But that is another topic, until we have educational freedom, Americans should at least demand the upholding of the First Amendment by allowing both theism and atheism with neither being the established religion. If Intelligent Design is not allowed in the class room then neither should the teaching of atheistic evolution. We need to stop preaching atheism in the classroom all in the name of science.
Dear Editor, April 27. 08
If it were not so tragic, it would be laughable the number of people whom are of the opinion that science has been able to disprove the existence of God. Charles Powell’s letter (April 23rd) was an excellent example of the assumption that science has successfully removed God from His throne of Supreme Ruler of the universe and has placed Him among the fables and gods of antiquity. Consider this quote from Dr. Boris P. Dotsenko. After receiving a purely atheistic education in Russia, he went on to become the head of the nuclear physics department in the Institute of Physics in Kiev, Russia. His scientific studies lead him to this conclusion: “As I though about all that, it suddenly dawned on me that there must be a very powerful organizing force counteracting this disorganizing tendency within nature, keeping the universe controlled and in order. This force must not be material; otherwise it too would become disordered. I concluded that this power must be both omnipotent (all-powerful) and omniscient (all-wise and all-knowing).There must be a God – one God – controlling everything.” (Including the rain)
Granted many of today’s scientists do not believe in God, but this is not because science has proven His non-existence, it is because they have chosen to not believe in God. Perhaps George Wald, (a leading, textbook writing, Nobel Prize winning, evolutionist) said it best when he said, “There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose. Spontaneous generation arising to evolution or, a supernatural God…There is no other possibility. Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others, but that just leaves us with only one other possibility….that life came as a supernatural act of creation by God, but I can not accept that philosophy because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution.”
Perhaps if America’s public education system would teach student to reason and think in stead of just listen and memorize, there would be less atheistic scientist in America today. Go see the movie Expelled, you will laugh a little and learn a lot. Who knows it may even get you to think.
Dear Editor, Jan 18, 2008
Dr. Currier gave an excellent explanation of the second law of thermodynamics. Another example he could have used is the metamorphoses of the butterfly. After the cocooned caterpillar disassembles into a mass of jelly, the seemingly 2nd law defying, delicate butterfly emerges. One could almost be tempted to say this is an example of spontaneous generation – except that we know the living butterfly arises because the still living cells of the jellified caterpillar are following the detailed instructions of the DNA in order to reform into a butterfly. By the way, if Evolution was the source of life, from where did DNA arise? How could there be a detailed instructional manual without an intelligent author?
Even the symmetrical detail of crystallization is due to the molecular structure of the salt, and not chance formation. Each type of salt will form its own unique crystal pattern due to the laws of molecular attraction. It is interesting to note that water has never been known to form the exact crystal pattern twice. But, crystal forming chemicals cannot be equated with life, and therefore can not be used to support spontaneous generation. Besides, their formation is controlled by laws of molecular attraction and not mere chance. The main obstacle to evolution is not the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The Law of Biogenesis, which states, “Life must come from preexisting life.” is the Achilles heal of evolution.
Perhaps George Wald, (a leading, textbook writing, Nobel Prize winning, evolutionist) said it best when he said, “There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose. Spontaneous generation arising to evolution or, a supernatural God…There is no other possibility. Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others, but that just leaves us with only one other possibility….that life came as a supernatural act of creation by God, but I can not accept that philosophy because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution.”
So you see, it all comes down to belief. Some people’s beliefs are based upon facts, some are not. The important thing is to make sure your beliefs are in line with reality. If there is a Creator, then that Creator would also be the Lawgiver, the Judge, the Final Say, in other words the Boss. Yet, we do not want a boss; we want to believe everyone has the right to decide for themselves what is right or wrong. We want to be the rulers of our own destiny. We want easy divorce and “free love”. We want to kill the unborn, unwanted baby in our womb. We want to starve the mentally disabled whose life interferes with our life. We want to live the life style of our own choice- and never be told we are wrong! Yet – if there is a God and His law says we are wrong then we are wrong!
If there is a God, He would not conform to our intellectual assessment. He would be who He is and would continue to be so, regardless of what we may wish, think, or feel. We could not cause God’s existence to cease just by wishing it to do so. Our belief does not shape reality, so we had better make sure reality shapes our belief, for our beliefs will affect our present actions and our eternal destiny. So be sure to research all the facts on both sides of the issue before forming your personal beliefs.
Dear Editor, Jan. 15, 2011
I am a 14 year old homeschooled girl and would like you to consider publishing my letter regarding the graduation being held in a church. Being homeschooled it does not personally affect me, but it does affect my country.
Would the founding fathers agree with high school graduations being held in a church? Unfortunately we can not zap them here in a time machine, but we can look at their well recorded lives to determine a verdict.
Starting with Thomas Jefferson, although he had no part in the Constitutional Convention (being in France at the time) his words “separation of church and state” are often treated as if they are part of the Constitution. Today’s interpretation was not Thomas Jefferson’s intention. The Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut had written President Jefferson of their fears that government would choose one denomination as the country’s religion (as had happened in Europe). The President responded “I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declare that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’, thus building a wall of separation between church and state…” Jefferson was telling the Baptist that the state would not interfere with the church; he was not saying the state would have nothing to do with the church. His actions define his words. In 1774 he introduced resolution for a day of fasting and prayer. When establishing the University of Virginia, he encouraged the teaching of religion. He even set apart space in the Rotunda for chapel services. He agreed with the use of his hometown’s courthouse for church services. And, when it came to the public schools of Washington DC, he allowed the Bible and Watt’s Hymnal for classroom reading texts, saying “I have always said, and always will say, that the studious perusal of the Sacred volume will make us better citizens.”
Another founding father, Gouverneur Morris, the man who actually penned the Constitution and was the most vocal at the convention speaking 173 times, said this, “Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man to God.”
Noah Webster, who did so much to establish education in America that he was called “America’s Schoolmaster”, said “In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed…No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intending to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”
Clearly our founding fathers would not only endorse graduation ceremonies being in a church, they would probably preach a sermon. If Americans continue to cower to the AU and the ACLU, then we will soon cease to be a free people.
Rebekah Estell 8th grade