The issue of separation of church and state

I want to thank Mr. Wilkins in his letter in the Feb 3 edition, for being more intellectual and interesting in his response. He is correct that the specific wording of the 1st Amendment, when interpreted by a strict constructionist, would seem to limit the required separation of church and state to the legislative branch.

Unfortunately for the strict constructionists, well over 200 years of legislative, executive and judicial analysis and judgment has again and again established the precedent that the Establishment clause, along with the other clauses of the 1st Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights, applies to the executive and judicial branches as well.

This was not whimsical folly; in developing thorough understanding of and ruling on the meaning of the Constitution — which after all is a Constitutionally-defined job of the federal courts — judges have relied on not only the Document itself but the other writings of the Framers to flesh out what often is incomplete, confusing or conflicting wording in the Document itself.

People railing against the separation issue like to say that there is no such thing as the “wall of separation between church and state.”

Again, these people have conveniently forgotten or intentionally avoided learning actual history, for the person who coined that exact phrase was the man commonly known as the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, in his writings in the Federalist Papers.

Madison and his brethren, in those Federalist Papers and elsewhere, made clear that their intentions were to respect religion but keep it out of government — all parts of government.

The courts have clearly understood that and made sure that the interpretation of the Establishment clause applies to all three branches of federal government.

The people themselves, through the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment, made sure that these interpretations apply to state and local governments as well.

So, sorry, Mr. Wilkins, but your personal interpretation of the Establishment clause does not in any way match over 200 years worth of widely-accepted interpretation.

It’s also interesting to note how carefully you pick and choose which things you want strictly interpreted and which are OK to be loose about.

Your interpretation of the 1st Amendment is a good example: As you note, the 1st begins “Congress shall make no law”, which you want applied to Establishment clause so its application is limited to the legislative branch … but if you’re going to be strict about wording, then the exact wording of the 1st would require that limitation to also apply to the other rights enumerated in the 1st, including free speech, free press, free assembly and redress of grievances.

Something tells me that giving the courts and the executive branch the right to arbitrarily limit your freedom to speak your mind or meet with your friends would not fly with you.

You can’t have it both ways, sir — either all of those rights are protected across the board, or they’re all limited to the legislative branch and open to willy-nilly twiddling by the courts and bureaucrats.

I understand that Christians would be more comfortable with a Christian nation, but the wall of separation is part of the price you pay for those other freedoms guaranteed in the 1st.

As for Mr. Germeroth and Ms. Petry’s letters, I want to say: Thank you both. Far more thoroughly than I ever could, you proved my point about people who get their history from preachers and pundits rather than from historians.

Wishing a thing were so doesn’t make it so.

Repeating a lie again and again doesn’t make it the truth, even when the lie is told by people we’ve been taught (or brainwashed) to trust.

People who wish our Constitution was more like their own narrow viewpoint can make up a thousand excuses, twist every syllable until it screams, and create fantasy interpretations out of whole cloth and attempt to sell them as if they were true … but history doesn’t care.

History knows the reality is there for all to see. Some are just too afraid to look.

Steve Sneed
Mechanicsville

Cross on hill can’t stay at site

I can’t believe that I’m getting in the middle of this discussion, and despite all of the previous comments, everyone can agree that the “cross on the hill” is a religious symbol.

Having said that, if you want a cross in your yard, church or private property — have fun. Have all you want.

The “cross on the hill” is on public property and simply doesn’t belong there.

I contacted VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) some time ago to have the cross removed but after a week or two they indicated that they “could not find it.”

If it is not their responsibility to remove, then it would be the responsibility of Hanover Public Works.

Sadly, to some it is a symbol of intolerance and several letters to the editor clearly support this perception.

As much as some may be “enlightened” when they see the cross, others may be chilled to the bone.

Symbols, by design, have a powerful effect and the “cross on the hill” clearly has demonstrated divisiveness.

Hopefully everyone could agree that a huge white swastika is not appropriate “on the hill” (the reference is provided solely to compare powerful symbols and not ideologies).

I simply do not understand why it is acceptable to force one group’s ideology, majority or not, on those who might have painful reflections.

Again, display the cross proudly on your property, at your church and in your heart. It simply doesn’t belong on public property — “on the hill”.

Harley Bradshaw
Mechanicsville

Nurses say thanks for transportation

(Editor’s note: The following letter was submitted by Rachel Hockman, PHR, nursing retention officer, at Bon Secours Memorial Regional Medical Center.)

The nursing staff of Bon Secours Memorial Regional Medical Center would like to thank the community for volunteering to transport staff to the hospital in the snowy conditions.

Your generosity allowed us to relieve fellow staff members and focus on taking care of our patients and families.
Opportunities like this demonstrate the community’s support for their local hospital.

Thank you again for your generosity.

The nursing staff of Bon Secours
Memorial Regional Medical Center
Mechanicsville

PETA: welcome pets in shelters

In the wake of the major snowstorm that buried much of the Mid-Atlantic region under two or more feet of snow and left thousands of people without power, PETA urges emergency shelters to allow people who are seeking warmth to bring their animal companions with them.

As the brave people who chose to stay behind after Hurricane Katrina rather than evacuate without their beloved animal family members showed, many people would rather risk their lives than leave their animals to face uncertain fates.

Animals aren’t any better equipped to survive a disaster than humans are, and domesticated animals who are left behind in an emergency may be stranded in dangerous conditions for days or weeks without food or water if conditions prevent their guardians from returning to care for them.

 Our animals depend on us for survival.

Please visit http://www.HelpingAnimals.com for tips on how to keep your animal companions safe during emergencies.

Lindsay Pollard-Post
Research specialist
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
Norfolk