Metroplex Atheists
"If you're interested in us, we're interested in you!"

We're an active bunch here at Metroplex Atheists. Here are a few of the letters we have written to newspapers and other officials. Happy reading!

Newspaper Editorial Commentary
11-28-98 'Bible Week' puts government in the wrong place

Letters To City and State Officials
02-10-98 Withdraw Your Support For RFA (U.S. Rep Joe Barton)
01-20-01 Letter regarding Gideons Bibles in public schools
02-08-01 Letter to state representative (regarding "Texas Prayer Day")
01-24-01 Letter to George W. Bush (regarding faith-based welfare programs)

Letters To The Editor
10-20-98 No atheists in jail (What is T.C. jail population?)
09-09-98 Pray in private ("See You At The Pole")
08-02-98 Don't count on me (Boy Scouts discriminate)
03-06-98 Litmus Test? (Why we were at Tucker execution)
01-25-01 Be Careful What You Wish For (Bush's inaugural call to prayer)
10-07-00 Religious Freedom (is the right to discriminate "religious freedom"?)
09-01-01 A Little More Balance (Dallas Morning News's shrinking science section vs. the growing religion section)
09-02-01 Regarding a Jeer directed at Shelly Hattan (Shelly got a "jeer" in the "cheers and jeers" section of the Star Telegram for the Birdville protest)
09-23-01 Beware religion (religion's role in the WTC disaster)
10-01-01 Do not use religion to unify us (religion as a rallying cry)
10-03-01 True Religion (the "right" religion versus terrorism)

I oppose and protest the city document signed by North Richland Hills Mayor Charles Scoma proclaiming the week of Nov. 22-28 as "BIBLE WEEK" and encouraging residents to read the Bible.

"BIBLE WEEK" insults and marginalizes nonbelievers. Nearly 10 percent of Americans -- more than 25 million people -- identify themselves as atheists, freethinkers, agnostics, or some other term which covers the notion of "non-belief." That figure is larger than most Christian denominations! Millions of other Americans are branded with the pejorative label of "unchurched," and do not regularly attend church, temple or mosque rituals. For them, religious teachings and activities play little or no role in their lives.

Proclamations such as Scoma's put the government in the position of being a "prayer bully," casting public institutions, offices and officials in the role of judgmental authority figures scolding residents for irreligiosity and encouraging not only religion but a specific form of religion.

Along with the millions of atheists and other nonbelievers who are being insulted are millions who embrace religions such as Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism. How would Christians feel if politicians suddenly declared "Koran Week" and encouraged a "moral revival" by having people read and meditate upon verses from the Islamic holy book? Or what about having our mayor endorse the religious writing of L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology?

Is any of this fair and proper? I say it is not.

Should government officials be using their official posts to "recommend" that people read a specific holy book, or embrace a religious ideology?

The very first issue taken up in our "Bill of Rights" is the issue of religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

We often talk of the First Amendment, saying it guarantees freedom of religion in America, but that is not all it guarantees. Freedom of religion is the essence of the second clause: "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." However, the first clause -- "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" -- deals with freedom from religion.

In other words, in the United States of America, you have a right to the free exercise of your religion, as long as that right, that freedom, or that exercise does not interfere with or infringe upon the right of others to be free from your religion, to be free from everyone else's religion, or to be free from religion, period.

The Supreme Court, in the historic 1971 case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, interpreted the First Amendment's religion clauses to mean that government can take no action which is not primarily secular in its intent, that promotes one religion over another or belief over non-belief, or that results in the "excessive entanglement" between church and state. Scoma's proclamation fails all three of these tests, and in the process it leaves our community vulnerable to potential litigation.

RANDALL GORMAN of North Richland Hills is the state director of American Atheists.

Response sent

CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS

Office of the Mayor

Randall Gorman
**** ******* **
North Richland Hills, Texas

Dear Mr. Gorman:

Please be assured that I respect your right to believe or not believe in God. I also have no problem with your full expression of those beliefs.

My actions, personally and officially, are based upon my conscience. My conscience tells me there is a God. I cannot, in good conscience, act otherwise. I do not believe you could really have respect for a Mayor who does not follow his conscience.

I am sorry for the delay in responding to your appearance at the City Council meeting and written correspondence. You were not on the agenda and appeared at a courtesy section of the agenda known as "Citizen Presentations". The Council could not take action on an unpublished agenda item. However, I trust this letter will suffice as a response from the City Council as well as me.

Very truly yours,

Charles Scoma

Xc City Council

Return to Index

Letter Opposing the Religious Freedom Amendment

February 10, 1998

The Honorable Joe Barton
6th District, Texas
2264 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515-4306

Dear Congressman Barton,

I recently sent you a postcard telling of my opposition to the Religious Freedom Act. Imagine my surprise when I read your letter of January 22, 1998. In your letter you "appreciated my bringing my support" and that "Like me, You strongly support the right of voluntary prayer in school." Like me, Congressman'? I DON'T want MORE religion in government, I WANT LESS OR NONE AT ALL.

About the RFA you said, "It gives students who wish to pray the option to do so. It allows students to say a voluntary prayer in the school setting, so long as those prayers are initiated and composed by the students."

Sir, with all due respect, besides the fact the Constitution gives students the right to pray already and has since our country began, don't you think public schools, where attendance is compulsory, should be for teaching children how to become thinking adults and how to obtain life-skills enabling them to provide for themselves and their families in THIS life? Shouldn't religious exercises and religious teachings be left to the parents and to the churches'? What learning will be accomplished if every 30 minutes, some student jumps up in class and demands his time for RFA supported self expression to some who-knows-what deity?

In your letter, you wrote, "H.J. Res. 78 also provides against religious discrimination", and "Censoring prayer is but one of many forms of religious discrimination. I have always supported legislation which protects the free exercise of religion." I don't care what any person chooses to believe; it's just not right that my tax money should be used to support beliefs that are contrary to mine. There is religious freedom in this country; has been for over 200 years. If you don't believe this, open up a telephone "yellow pages" directory under the heading, "Churches", and count the number. I can't drive in any direction from my home without running into a church within the first few miles. Doesn't look like religious discrimination to me.

"Our country needs to return to traditional values as perceived by our Founding Fathers. I will continue to support any legislation that upholds these values." Sir, don't you think if the "founding fathers" had wanted "god" in our constitution they would have put him/her/it/whatever in the constitution? "God" is not mentioned even once. By "traditional values" don't you mean religious values? Values are taught in the home; ideas of right and wrong come from the home. They can not be legislated. Most of the "founding fathers" were deists, a belief in sort of "nature as god". Read the "Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine to see what he thought of religion. Thomas Jefferson explained to the Danbury Baptist Association during his presidency that there must always be a "WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE".

Congressman Barton, I am an active Republican running this year for precinct chairman. I met you at the Senatorial District 10 convention in 1996. At that time, I said to you that I didn't have anything to disagree with you about. That has changed since I found you supporting more religion in government. I am extremely saddened that the GOP has been taken over by religious extremists. If we keep heading down this track, America will become as much a theocracy as is Iran.

In closing, I will state again, as I did in my postcard before. If you want my support in this primary election, you must drop your support of RFA.

Sincerely,

Randall Gorman

Return to Index

Letter regarding distribution of Bibles in a Texas public school

January 20, 2001

Johnnie Hauerland, Superintendent
P.O. Box 364
206 South Main Street
Venus, TX 76084

RE: Gideons Bible Distribution

Dear Superintendent Hauerland:

It has come to the attention of American Atheists, Inc. that at the end of each school year, all the fifth graders in your district receives a complementary Gideons Bible.

Given that this is a state run school, the distribution of the Bible is a violation of the separation between church and state. Please cease the distribution of these bibles. If it continues, we will be forced to pursue further action. The favor of a reply is requested.

Sincerely,

Shelly S. Hattan
Texas State Director
American Atheists, Inc.

Return to Index

Letter to state representative WIll Hartnett regarding recognition of sectarian prayer

Thursday, February 08, 2001

David Gladden
Irving, TX 75038

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT
Irving, TX 75060

The Honorable Will Hartnett:

I am writing in reference to H.B. No. 583 and H.B. No. 293.

First I wish to make clear that I am most certainly opposed to both.

I am a strong supporter of the separation of Church and State. For us to maintain a free and open society it is vital that one be able to exercise religious beliefs and disbeliefs free from the interference of government. Any attempt of the state to deny a person this freedom is in direct violation of the very principals that this great nation is founded on.

I remember as a child being forced with threat of penalty to stand and engage in a religious ritual that was in direct violation of my religious beliefs. This is not a situation any child or even any adult should be forced to endure.

Now as an adult it is being proposed that should I need to fulfill my civil duties and give an Oath of Witness, I will be compelled under threat of penalty to "Swear" an oath to a God (H.B. No. 293)

I would like to recommend that the bill be modified so one may chose to "Swear or Affirm". I would also like to recommend that the bill be modified so one will not be required to state: "so help you (me) God." so as not to impose a religious test (Section 6 of the US Constitution, Article 1 Section 4 Texas Constitution) or create an establishment of religion (Amendment 1 of the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 6 Texas Constitution)

I would like to recommend that the bill be modified to read:

Art. 20.16. OATHS TO WITNESSES. The following oath shall be administered by the foreman, or under the foreman's [his] direction, to each witness before being interrogated: "You solemnly swear or affirm that you will not divulge, either by words or signs, any matter about which you may be interrogated, and that you will keep secret all proceedings of the grand jury which may be had in your presence, and that you will true answers make to such questions as may be propounded to you by the grand jury, or under its direction."

Regarding H.B. No. 583, I am in opposition to it for the reason that it effectively creates and establishment of religion by promoting a religious ritual made popular by the more prominent religions in the United States of America and the State of Texas. In my view this bill is no different than a bill stating: "a day on which the people of Texas may turn to Satan in prayer and meditation", an idea most everyone and I would most certainly oppose.

The intended recipient of the prayer in this religious ritual is moot, the simple fact of the matter is that the State of Texas will be encouraging a ritual as opposed to simply promoting an open and free society as already outlined by Section 6 of the US Constitution, Article 1 Section 4 of the Texas Constitution, Amendment 1 of the US Constitution, and Article 1, Section 6 of the Texas Constitution. The underling intention of this bill is nun other than to create a "warm and fuzzy" feeling for those supporting and abiding by it, and to present a "Holy" and "Honorable" image of the State of Texas to the rest of the world. It serves no practical purpose in actually improving the moral and ethical condition of the citizens of the State of Texas.

I would like to recommend that the bill be modified in its character and spirit so as to promote an atmosphere of moral and ethical behavior to each another, without reference to religious rituals, or be dropped.

Every citizen of the US is already guaranteed the freedom of religion; to promote or deny more would be unconscionable.

Sincerely,

David Gladden

Text of Bills in question:

By Denny H.B. No. 583
77R3309 MCK-D
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to recognizing Texas Prayer Day.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. Subchapter C, Chapter 662, Government Code, is amended by adding Section 662.049 to read as follows:

Sec. 662.049. PRAYER DAY. The first Thursday in May of each year is Texas Prayer Day, to coincide with the National Day of Prayer, a day on which the people of Texas may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals.

SECTION 2. This Act takes effect September 1, 2001.

Also another bill authored by Representative Thompson, HB-293 prescribes a god-oath for grand juries.

A portion reads:

By Thompson H.B. No. 293
77R1863 JMC-F
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to grand jury proceedings.

[snipped]

Art. 20.16. OATHS TO WITNESSES. The following oath shall be administered by the foreman, or under the foreman's [his] direction, to each witness before being interrogated: "You solemnly swear that you will not divulge, either by words or signs, any matter about which you may be interrogated, and that you will keep secret all proceedings of the grand jury which may be had in your presence, and that you will true answers make to such questions as may be propounded to you by the grand jury, or under its direction, so help you God."

Legal References:

Texas Constitution
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 6 - FREEDOM OF WORSHIP
All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship. But it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect equally every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship.

Texas Constitution
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 5 - WITNESSES NOT DISQUALIFIED BY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS; OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS
No person shall be disqualified to give evidence in any of the Courts of this State on account of his religious opinions, or for the want of any religious belief, but all oaths or affirmations shall be administered in the mode most binding upon the conscience, and shall be taken subject to the pains and penalties of perjury.

US Constitution
Article 6, Paragraph 3
…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States

US Constitution
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an 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.

Return to Index

Letter to president George W. Bush regarding faith-based welfare programs

Friday, January 26, 2001

David Gladden
Irving, TX 75038

White House
Attn: President George Bush Jr.
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500

President George Bush Jr.:

I am writing in regard to the proposed faith based programs and reforms. To start, I wish to make it very clear that I do not support such actions. In fact, I find the very idea appalling.

The reason for this is that I am a strong supporter of freedom of conscience - the very foundation of the freedom of religion that is held so dear in this great country. As a people we have made the decision to allow others to believe and worship is they see fit without interfering with one another. "To each his own" as the saying goes.

Now I am hearing that soon I may have to pay a tax to support another person's religious beliefs, or vise versa. I can't help but think of an analogy in which a religious group moves into my neighborhood and constructs a place of worship. Everyone in the neighborhood takes notice and is pleased with the work and skill put into the construction despite the fact that they have beliefs that are contrary to each individual. (This is the situation America has grown accustomed to.) However, this group then sends notice to all of the nearby residents that everyone must now provide monetary and material support under threat of temporal and monetary punishments and a variety of other sanctions for noncompliance.

What you are proposing is no different! You are going to try to force me, and every other taxpayer to provide monetary and material support for something that violates our conscience! Via the IRS tax laws you will be threatening temporal and monetary punishments and a variety of other sanctions for noncompliance! This is disgusting and the actions of a tyrant!

The only alternative is to completely secularize all faith-based organizations that receive funding; something that few are willing to tolerate.

Also, in saying that these faith-based organizations need additional monetary and material support is a slap in the face to the deity(s) they may be worshiping - "I see that your omnipotent all-powerful creator is in need of a little charity, here is a little something to help…"

Please do not start mixing government and religion. If you do, you will shortly thereafter discover that the religions will start to play to the needs of the government instead of the needs of the people. Most worshipers like to think that their deity(s) play a direct role in the success or failure of their actions and projects related to their faith and otherwise. However, the reality is that the success or failure of their actions and projects is tied directly to the time, effort, and resources they are willing to invest, and inevitably the one making the investment is the one who will have the control. Please do not take the control from the people. I do not even want to think about where that will lead.

Sincerely,

David Gladden

Return to Index

The Oct. 5 piece by Jim Jones, "Persevering Faith," mentioned Christians, Muslims, one Jew, no Hindus and no Buddhists as inmates in the Tarrant County Jail. Jones went on to say that "most of the approximately 3,400 inmates come from Christian backgrounds."

What class of residents who comprise 7 to 9 percent of the U.S. population is missing from the jail population? The answer: atheists!

My, my, and the religious say you must have a god to have morals.

RANDALL GORMAN
State director, American Atheists Inc.
North Richland Hills

Response printed Nov. 3, 1998
A pretty poor gauge

Randall Gorman's Oct. 20 letter, "No atheists in jail," noted that none of the Tarrant County Jail inmates are (classified as) "atheist," the point being that it is not necessary to believe in "a god" to be moral.

That point holds only if we allow merely staying out of jail to be our gauge of morality. I think that is a somewhat doubtful criterion. Probably many atheists do better than that (I hope so), but atheism gets no credit for it.

Atheism could hardly inspire genuine respect for the rights of other people -- how could it? Belief in divine creation and providence certainly could; that our county's prisoners do profess some religious belief is, however, no proof to the contrary.

Arthur Robertson
Fort Worth

Return to Index

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But, when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." -- Matthew 6:5-6.

If Matthew accurately records the words of Jesus, why do Christians violate his teachings by participating in the public prayer event known as "See You at the Pole?" This event reportedly is scheduled for Sept. 16.

As anyone can read, Jesus himself said not to pray in public. I would say to the event's promoters to keep religion out of our schools and in their own homes and in America's 350,000 churches, temples, mosques and synagogues where it belongs.

See You at the Pole is nothing but a sectarian, evangelistic, proselytizing event working on a captive audience of diverse cultures and beliefs. It is divisive and doesn't belong on our public school campuses. Please, please, leave our kids alone.

Randall Gorman
Member, American Atheists Inc.
North Richland Hills

Response printed Sep. 27, 1998
No one is dragged

"See You at the Pole" unites our youth for one day in prayer. It is encouraging to see this kind of fellowship of our kids in a day and age when they are dying from overdoses, gang shootings and drunken driving.

Randall Gorman, in his Sept. 10 letter, missed the point that in the United States, we have freedom of choice. It is not called "Drag You to the Pole."

In the Pledge of Allegiance, we have the line ". . . with liberty and justice for all" -- not liberty and justice for adults only, or a few selected individuals, but for all.

Why should we restrict freedom of prayer any more than freedom to not pray? Freedom, by definition, is the liberty to exercise the right to believe in what we want, whether we believe God or not. As long as there are exams in school, there will be prayer in school. So, please, please leave our children alone.

Rachel Callaway
Hurst

Return to Index

Letter printed August 2, 1998 in The Fort Worth Star Telegram
Don't count on me

The United Way has begun its annual fund raising drive. I've contributed to the United Way since its beginnings.

The United Way supports Boy Scouts of America. The Boy Scouts of America practice discrimination against atheists.

Until United Way removes support for BSA or until BSA stops excluding honest and good citizens who happen to not believe in the supernatural, I will no longer contribute to the United Way.

Randall Gorman
North Richland Hills

Response printed August 6, 1998
Short sighted

In response to Randall Gorman's Aug. 2 United Way letter, the Boy Scouts of America do not discriminate against atheists. It is a religion based organization. If you do not believe in the creed of a group, then do not join. Find a group that has your beliefs. If you cannot find a group, then start one. You join a group to aspire to its values. If you are an atheist or agnostic, why would you want to belong?

Look at all the terrific things that the United Way does. Would you really not support the 99 percent it does wonderfully and forget about the BSA? I believe this is a classic case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Brent Beal
Fort Worth

Needless to say, Brent Beal is not a member of Metroplex Atheists

Return to Index

Letter printed March 6, 1998 in The Fort Worth Star Telegram
Litmus test?

Like Elaine Sapp, I too am a native Texan and a Republican. We differ, though, in that I am an atheist and it was I, along with other members of American Atheists, who carried the signs outside the Huntsville Walls Unit that day when Texas executed Karla Faye Tucker--the signs that Sapp's Feb. 18 letter described as "insensitive and cold-hearted." I would like to clarify just why American Atheists went to Huntsville that day.

We were there to speak out against those who called for mercy on behalf of Tucker, not on grounds of rational, secular morality but in hopes of achieving a "religious litmus test." We raised our concerns, particularly, about the Christian Broadcasting Network, Pat Robertson and his political allies on the religious right who, after displaying a long record of enthusiastic support for capital punishment, were now asking us to establish a different standard for those who happen to embrace fundamentalist christianity.

Would Robertson and others have spoken out against this death penalty had Karla Faye Tucker been Karl Tucker, or if she had been black, or had converted to Islam or Roman Catholicism, or even embraced no religion at all? We doubt it.

If the death penalty is wrong, it is wrong for everyone--not just those who happen to become "jailhouse converts" and embrace Robertson's (or someone else's) particular flavor of religious doctrine.

RANDALL GORMAN
North Richland Hills

Above letter written in response to this letter, printed Feb. 18, 1998
Grace and death

I am a native Texan, a Republican, a Christian, a person who had always thought that the way we acted on capital crimes in Texas must be the right thing to do. I came face to face with reality on the night of Feb. 3. That evening, I did not feel as if I lived in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Having resided for two years in a socialist country, I can truthfully say that I recalled all of the fears that permeate a police-state environment in Huntsville during the hours leading up to the execution of Karla Faye Tucker.

Mockers jeered. Young people made crude jokes. An adult carried a sign that read, "There is no God!" Another sign bragged, "I am an American Atheist!" One said, "This is about Christian Control!" The TV cameras and reporters from Italy, Mexico and Great Britain and from every known news media in the United States brought the reality to modern day.

I was faced with the stark reality that I had more to fear from the insensitive, cold-hearted humanity around me than I ever would have from the new creation that was Karla Faye Tucker. Standing in the midst of the fray, awaiting the final countdown to her death, with helicopters circling and filming overhead, I thought of grace -- the unmerited favor of God. Tears streamed down my face as I witnessed the brother of one of the victims tell how Christ had come into his heart through his relationship with Tucker. And I thought of grace again.

Because of grace, I cannot ever support capital punishment or anyone who does support it. Yes, when people sow weeds, the weeds come up. But God did not give me the right to make that person pay. Who am I to cast the first stone? I have been made a steward of his grace. I must recycle grace.

ELAINE SAPP
Hurst

Return to Index

Letter printed January 25, 2001 in The Dallas Morning News
Be careful what you wish for

I am very troubled by the speech, bordering on sermon, given by our newly appointed president. Just minutes after swearing to uphold the Constitution, he violated the First Amendment by announcing his plans to ignore the constitutional ban on establishment of religion. Further, he violated the First Amendment by proclaiming the day following the inauguration "a day of prayer and thanksgiving" and urging citizens to go to church or pray at home. He would have been better advised to allow people to decide for themselves how and when to pray, if at all. It certainly would not have violated the Constitution.

He further intends to entangle church and state by giving public money to churches in the form of school vouchers and funds for public service. Many Christians seem to support this notion but they have failed to consider a couple of things. If government money is being given to churches, then churches will have to be accountable to government. Their accounting would be made public and their expenditures scrutinized. Given what I've seen in the news about certain church leaders, this should be cause for much worry on their part.

What should also be worrisome to the religious right is that if they receive public money, they are subject to anti-discrimination legislation. No more "no women at the pulpit" bullying. And should an atheist decide that he or she wants a job at any church receiving public money, they could not be turned down on the basis of being an atheist. Be careful what you wish for...

VIRGINIA READ BARNETT
Dallas, Texas

Virginia's letter brought about several similar letters and responses, some from folks who "get it", and some who don't.

Constitution ignored after pledging to defend it

To quote the Constitution of the United States of America, Article II, Section 1:

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Never in this entire august and spare oath is there a mention of any god, Christian or otherwise, and there has never been an amendment to change this. It would seem that both our chief justice and our new president have ignored a document they pledged to defend.

REV. J. HOLDER BENETT, College Station, Texas

Invocations of Jesus' name don't unite us

How are we to achieve unity as pledged by President Bush when pastors Kirbyjon H. Caldwell and Franklin Graham proclaimed, in their prayers, that we are under the guidance of Jesus Christ?

We were declared "one nation under god" by the Eisenhower administration, are we now to have a national religion "Christianity"? We had one religion in this country, "Puritanism," and it did not bode well for those of other persuasions or for free thinkers.

Whatever happened to separation of church and state as proclaimed by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution?

RICHARD STOWELL, Argyle

I'll pray for all you nonbelievers

Re: "Invocations of Jesus' name don't unite us," Letters, Jan. 23.

Might I suggest Richard Stowell try something new and different and actually READ the Constitution. Now, kindly point out where the phrase "separation of church and state" is printed. Gosh, it's not there. What the Bill of Rights says is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." That means we can talk about God, pray in public AND in school, reference God in all areas of government (just as the Founding Fathers did) so long as no LAW establishes a national religion.

How sad for all of you nonbelievers. I'll pray for you and so will our wonderful new president.

DEANDRA GRANT, Dallas, Texas

Return to Index

Letter printed October 7, 2000 in The Fort Worth Star Telegram
Religious Freedom

In a recent Fort Worth City Council meeting, Christians argued that if the council made it illegal for them to discriminate against gay people, the council would be imposing on their religious freedom.

According to the Bible, it is permissible to stone a woman to death if she has committed adultery. If the council makes it illegal to stone women to death, the council will be infringing upon Christians' rights to religious freedom.

The Bible also says that a believer can handle venomous snakes and drink poison without being harmed. So let us discriminate against gays, let us stone women to death, let us handle poisonous snakes, and let us all be Christians.

SHANE LITTLE
Fort Worth

Return to Index

Letter printed September 1, 2001 in The Dallas Morning News
A little more balance

I have noticed over the years that the Science section in the newspaper has been progressively dwindling. This is a terrible development, since science is how we understand the natural world. Conversely, the Religion section has gotten larger. Many religious folk routinely believe in talking donkeys (Numbers 22:28-30), that humans are animated dust (Genesis 2:7), that the world was created in six days and that the dinosaurs died in "the flood." It seems to me that if you have a section of the newspaper devoted to fantasy and wishful thinking, it would be a wonderful counterbalance to have a section of the same size devoted to a realistic and objective view of the world around us.

Ginny Barnett, Dallas

Disrespect spurs conflict

Re: "A little more balance," Letters, Sept. 1.

I agree with Ginny Barnett of Dallas that the science section is an important contribution to The Dallas Morning News. I read it regularly. However, I believe one can be an advocate for worthwhile subjects without tearing down other subject matter that may be of interest to other readers (the Religion section). Her words describing religious writings in that section as "fantasy and wishful thinking" were inappropriate and unworthy of one who is an advocate of science. No wonder we have the so-called "conflict of religion and science" still alive. I guess there is still ignorance on both sides of that issue. What a pity.

Jim Martin, Granbury

I like science coverage

Imagine my surprise to find a letter complaining about science coverage in The Dallas Morning News - especially since my opinion differs so ("A little more balance," Letters, Sept. 1).

I am delighted with the new format of the Discoveries section. I think it is much better to cover one topic in depth rather than try to cover many topics briefly. Thank you for this and for all the other changes you have made.

I am 71, an avid reader of newspapers, magazines and books and I welcome changes that make sense. I believe your recent changes, including the science coverage, were well thought out and well executed. Number me among satisfied and delighted readers of The Dallas Morning News.

Sally Jackman, Garland

(Ginny's response to these - unprinted)

I must respond to the mail received by the Dallas Morning News in reference to my letter of September 1. My goodness. My rather innocuous letter which cited my (gasp) opinion on, of all things, the Opinion page, spurred comments that I am ignorant, misinformed and disrespectful. I personally do not believe that religion serves a useful purpose. That is not to say that religious people do not do useful things.

Mr. Cundiff asks if it is any more ridiculous for scientists to teach a gorilla sign language than it is for the Lord to give the power of speech to a donkey. Well, gorillas are primates (just as we are) and Koko the gorilla doesn't actually speak. Still, there was a great deal of human interaction to make it possible to communicate with her in sign language. If you want to believe in talking donkeys, that's fine. I don't and that's fine as well. He said that I gave incomplete examples to belittle religion. The Bible has done that alone. That is precisely why I provided the biblical text. Nobody has to take my word for what the Bible says.

My unworthy words, according to Mr. Martin, are simply my opinion. I am a staunch advocate of science but my opinion of religion has been stated. It's not an either/or situation. I never said to get rid of the Religion section of the newspaper. I just find it abhorrent that the Religion section is so much larger than the Science section.

Return to Index

Letter printed September 2, 2001 in The Fort Worth Star Telegram
Regarding a jeer directed at Shelly Hattan, state director of American Atheists, in the Cheers & Jeers of Aug. 18

Shelly deserves a great deal of credit for defending the separation of church and state. She had to endure endless insults, taunts and single-finger salutes and even had ice thrown at her by people attending the prayer rally because she peacefully protested in defense of our Constitution.

I would like to know how the prayer rally attendees would have reacted if, when they arrived at the school stadium, they had been asked to pray while bowing to Mecca. The attendees speak of accommodation rather than establishment of religion, but I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that they would not have been as accommodating had a group of Wiccans been saying the prayers at the rally.

Separation of church and state has protected the religious and non-religious alike. There is a reason that our country has the highest percentage of people who believe in God. People are not coerced by the government to do so. That seems to be changing in the current administration, so people like Hattan are a critically important safeguard of our freedoms.

Ginny Barnett, Dallas

Return to Index

Letter printed September 23, 2001 in The Fort Worth Star Telegram
Beware religion

Citizens should not surrender civil liberties as the price for combating terrorism, and government leaders must avoid using religion as a rallying point. President Bush and other political leaders should not be trying to use religion to unify the country. Their "God" didn't do any good on Sept. 11.

Bush, Gov. Rick Perry, and other state and local officials should refrain from organizing prayer vigils. If people want to pray on their own, that's up to them, but perhaps they should consider doing something more tangible, like giving blood or writing a check to a qualified relief agency. Political leaders should be cautioned about excluding millions of citizens who profess no religion.

Religious intolerance is one of the things that motivates Osama bin Laden. Many citizens are atheists, freethinkers and secular humanists who profess no religious beliefs. Atheists, too, are appalled by this tragedy and directly affected by it. Our elected officials should be trying to bring us together, not divide us by using public religion to marginalize atheists.

RANDALL GORMAN
North Richland Hills

Response printed September 25, 2001
Putting God back

In reply to Randall Gorman's Saturday letter, "Beware religion":

I am a 16-year-old high school student, and I thank President Bush for putting God back in the public's eyes. We all have rights to our own opinions, but you, sir, are forgetting what America was founded upon. All the officials of whom you speak deserve the right to pray to and/or speak of God. That is what we, as citizens, need in these times of sorrow.

Just think back when the schools were allowed to have open prayers - how much safer they were. The major worries then were chewing gum and talking in class.

In my eyes, our elected officials are bringing us together through God's love. And as for where our God was on Sept. 11: Well, he was right there, watching over us and protecting us. Are you forgetting the numerous miracles that took place that day? As for right now, he is in the hearts of millions of citizens, bringing us together to show our support for all those affected by the tragedy.

And oh, yes - I will be praying for you.

Lacey Geary, Azlez

Return to Index

Letter printed October 1, 2001 in The Dallas Morning News
Do not use religion to unify us

Citizens should not surrender civil liberties as the price for combating terrorism, and government leaders must avoid using religion as a rallying point. President Bush and other political leaders should not be trying to use religion to unify the country. Their "God" didn't do any good on Sept. 11 when thousands of people were being murdered.

President Bush, Gov. Rick Perry, other state and local officials should refrain from organizing prayer vigils and other sectarian events. If people want to pray on their own, that's up to them, but perhaps they should consider doing something more tangible like giving blood or writing out a check to a qualified relief agency. Political leaders should be cautioned about excluding millions of citizens who profess no religion.

Religious intolerance is one of the things that motivates Osama bin Laden. Many citizens are atheists, free-thinkers and secular humanists who profess no religious beliefs. Atheists, too, are appalled at this tragedy and directly affected by it. Our elected officials should be trying to bring us together, not divide us by using public religion to marginalize atheists.

I am asking all nonbelievers to donate blood and support the work of qualified relief agencies. It's a tangible thing to do, and helps make this world we live in a better and safer place for everyone.

Randall Gorman, North Richland Hills, Texas

Return to Index

Letter printed October 3, 2001 in The Dallas Morning News
'True religion'

To hold that there is a true religion that a David Koresh or an Osama bin Laden strays from is self-serving. "True religion" is just the religion that you and your friends practice. Anyone can legitimately claim to be a member of a religion, and no one has a monopoly on interpretation of scripture. David Koresh was just as Christian as Billy Graham, although their conduct was differentiated and judged by human standards.

Islam and Christianity have both generously contributed to human misery through oppression and massacre. The same instinct that drives the fearful together for safety in numbers is easily manipulated into the anonymity of a lynch mob.

As I watch the rising religious surge – all the prayer, all the sermonizing, the equating of God and country – I have a sinking feeling that the inevitable next step is the death of innocents overseas, and a pervasive loss of civil rights stateside. One thing leads to another.

David Penn, Arlington

Return to Index