Dear Editor:
Let me get this straight. On Sept. 11th, nearly 3,000 lives were lost in the attacks on the World Trade Center. The diversities of religious beliefs, and the ethnicities of the victims were immensely varied. During this carnage no one stopped to ask each other "do you believe in God?" or "what god do you worship?" Nor, did they ask, "What language do you speak?" At this time of terror, human beings extended his or her hand to help their fellow fallen victims. Human response is not to think or judge, but to react. And react they did! It did not matter their race, color, or creed. In these horrific minutes of obvious death, all lives were equal. It is incomprehensible for me to believe that all were not praying to God, any god, to spare their lives. This word, "God", had to have been murmured by all of these poor souls as the reality of death grew closer, as it was by all of us who watched in the safety of our homes.
Let's now discuss the "cross-shaped" beams that so many of us wished to keep as a memorial to the lives lost. Though, because of some agnostics, atheists, and those who respectfully believe in their own gods, this idea was not to be. Out of respect to all religious sects, it was decided that it would be best removed intact to be displayed at another location.
Now we should talk about "The Pledge of Allegiance" issue. To satisfy the Constitution's separation laws of Church and State, we're prohibited from using the words "under God". These words were instituted in 1954 and have not caused a problem for 48 years. Do not the majority of us believe in God or some other Supreme Being? And those of the minority who do not, can't they refrain from reciting these two small words? What's next? Should we remove "In God we trust" from our currency? Do we discontinue swearing on the Bible in court?
Let's not forget, finally, the recent Federal Appeals Court ruling to remove the two religious ceramic tiles painted and installed by families of two slain students of Columbine High School. What about the First Amendment rights of the families of these victims?
With all that is going on today in this country, these matters seem ludicrous and inane to this reader. Loss of religion means loss of values. Loss of values means loss of a decent society. In my God I trust. In others', I respect.
Elaine Flood
---In her Aug 18th letter, Elaine Flood, takes offense to my criticisms of her July 21 statements, and accuses me of cynicism and negativism. Well, I�m crushed she feels this way about me, but I could take Elaine more seriously if she were more honest. She says she was "merely suggesting that most of the victims of September 11th" prayed to someone." Sorry, Elaine, but that�s not what you had said. What you said was, "It is incomprehensible for me to believe that all were not praying to God." Now you�re backpedaling, referring to your earlier statement as a "suggestion," and alleging that you thought "most of the victims" prayed, when in fact, you said "all" of them, which suggests that atheists� outlook is a fa�ade, and that deep down, everyone is a theist, "just like you." Indeed, making a good point usually involves expressing a new perspective, going out on a limb, or saying something controversial. Finding it incomprehensible that not everyone prayed on September 11th qualifies. Saying afterwards that "most" people believe in a god doesn�t, because it�s factually true. After all, you�re not really going out on a limb when you�re saying something that most people already know to be statistically true.
---I�m not particularly cynical, Elaine. I just don�t like it when some imply that atheists are morally inferior, confused or ambiguous. I don�t like it when someone makes one statement that I find questionable, then backpedals after I call them on it, falsely asserting to have made a completely different one. I don�t appreciate the hypocrisy of people who do this and then accuse ME of being "cynical" or "negative" when I simply point it out to them. To me, THAT is cynical and negative, Elaine and quite self-serving.
---Elaine then takes offense at my "suggestion" that she invoked September 11th to make a point about school prayer, and asks if Mr. Nanfro did so with the Lucci family. First, I didn�t "suggest" your invoking September 11th to comment on school prayer was irrelevant and cheap; I�m saying it outright. The Pledge of Allegiance has nothing to do with God, period, and even less to do with September 11th. To include "under god" in the Pledge, but have atheists omit it would create different versions of it for different religious persuasions, marginalize those who don�t believe in God, and make the Pledge a divisive activity, defeating the entire purpose of a NATIONAL pledge. I am quite tired of people trying to use September 11th to make a point about an entirely unrelated matter, and it is THAT which I find "insulting" and "disrespectful." As for this Mr. Nanfro, I�m not familiar with him or his letter, and it�s irrelevant. Whether someone else used a similar cheap tactic has no bearing on whether or not you did. Discussions on subjects like the separation between church and state, and how the Pledge of Allegiance should reflect this, should be done with common sense, reason, logic, consistency, and equality. Invoking tragedies for the sake of emotionalism isn�t needed.
---Elaine suggests expressing one�s opinion be done in a more respectful manner. I�m gratified you feel this way, Elaine. I�ll tell all the atheists to whom I related your statement that you couldn�t comprehend that all were not praying on September 11th that you�ve resolved to do so. They�ll be pleased.