Bits 'n Bytes

Your Comments are Welcome!

I think it’s pretty funny that you refer to the 67F from Oakland to Trafford as an express! It may be a one seat ride, but it’s far from a quickie. It regularly took over an hour when I was riding it daily.
Alycia (URL) - November 25, 2004

With all due respect to your correspondent, she is wrong. Nowhere does the U.S. Constitution specify a “separation of church and state.” That phrase was used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802, and has since been used by the courts (wrongly, I believe) to remove “God” from many public institutions.

What the Constitution does say, in the First Amendment, is this:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

That is very much different from the “separation of church and state,” translating in most cases to the “separation of God and state,” as forced by organizations like the ACLU. This does not seem to be at all what was intended by the Founding Fathers, who declared that we are “endowed by (our) Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” invoked the “laws of nature and of Nature’s God,” and pledged a “firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence,” all of this in the Declaration of Independence alone.

I could go on, but you get the idea. As for the parks and monuments, I am moderate. Let there be Christian symbols, let there also be Jewish ones, and Muslim ones, and something for Kwanzaa at Christmastime. God does not hold a gun to one’s head forcing them to believe (or what or how to believe), and neither do I think the religious should do so, whether they be Christian, Muslim, or otherwise. But neither do I think we should remove “God” from our nation simply because we cannot agree on who He is, or if He exists. Let the symbols stand, and let each person settle the matter in their own mind.
Alert Reader - November 25, 2004

Geez, I leave you people alone for a day and what do I come back to? Four dozen spam messages for mortgage financing, payday loans and pr0n. This is why we can’t have nice things!

Anyway, she’s not my correspondent. That’s the wife of Bob over at Subdivided We Stand. I could give her name, but I don’t know how general knowledge it is. Also, then I’d have to shoot you.

I do think the people running around trying to chisel “In God We Trust” off of buildings are overreacting. Especially when trying to remove, say, 10 Commandments plaques that have stood for 100 years or so. Just as you need to demonstrate that a product is dangerous before you can have it banned from the market, someone should have to demonstrate that a 10 Commandments plaque, for instance, is causing harm, and I don’t think they can.

But “respecting an establishment of religion,” IMHO, does mean “any religion” or even the general idea of a higher power. The gubmint needs to stay out of my religious beliefs, and my religion needs to stay out of my gubmint.

There is too much evidence —- Ireland, for instance, or in an extreme case, Iran —- that religious involvement in state affairs is a bad idea.

Can’t we get back to talking about buses again or something?
Webmaster (URL) - November 25, 2004

You’re right. I missed the opening paragraph before her screed and thought it was a letter to the editor. Or something.

Anyway, I have posted a similar response on her (his?) blog. Flames will abound, I am certain.

And your observations on chiseling off the Ten Commandments are, I think, dead on. The courts have generally held (although not always) that such mentions of God as are in the DOI, on our currency, the invocations of Congress and the courts, etc. are not religion-specific and are part of our historical tradition, and therefore acceptable.

“Respecting an establishment of religion,” from what I have read, was not to preclude religion in general, but to prevent the United States from establishing a national or state religion as the King of England had done. Belief in God was not considered a religion per se, and in fact, it was illegal for many years for an avowed atheist to hold federal office. Even those of our founding fathers who were not Christian (Thomas Jefferson, for example, was a Deist) clearly believed in God.

So the debate will continue. Who was it that said never to discuss religion or politics? Now we have both.

P.S. While I am typing this, just to throw a bone to multiculturalism, Walter Cronkite is narrating a PBS documentary on the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. (If the ACLU is one of the underwriters, the circle is complete!)
Alert Reader - November 25, 2004

FWIW, Dan Rather has now been the anchor of the CBS Evening News longer than Uncle Walter. In fact, I think Walter has been off of the CBS News longer than he was the anchor. So why is that Unca Walt still more identified with the newscast than Dan?

It must make Dan madder than a Texas toad on hot Abilene asphalt.
Webmaster (URL) - November 26, 2004

You know, I got a form letter from Walter Cronkite prior to the election expressing his view of the Bush administration as the spawn of Satan (more or less), and seeking to raise money for some liberal cause whose name I don’t remember. I guess Uncle Walter has the right to advocate for whomever he chooses, but it took away some of the long-held respect I’ve had for him. And I would have felt the same if he’d claimed that Kerry was the antichrist. It’s just not worthy of his distinguished and objective career.
Alert Reader - November 26, 2004

I tend to agree with you about Uncle Walter’s political lobbying. At the very least, he only reinforces the suspicion that many people have about liberal bias in the media —- and specifically at CBS.

And that’s the way it is, this Saturday, November the 27th, 2004.
Webmaster (URL) - November 27, 2004

To comment on any story at Tube City Almanac, email tubecitytiger@gmail.com, send a tweet to www.twitter.com/tubecityonline, visit our Facebook page, or write to Tube City Almanac, P.O. Box 94, McKeesport, PA 15134.