Letters

First Amendment covers freedom of religious speech

In response to Bralio Mendez, Sept. 16 letters ["We Need an Atheist in the White House"].

My understanding of the First Amendment is that it is intended and designed to create an environment where various ideas and perspectives can compete in a marketplace of ideas on the same platform.

It might be good, however, to read the First Amendment once again, because it seems to me that in the past 50-60 years the concept of it has been forgotten and muddled by the majority of Americans and especially by the Supreme Court.

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech."

Doesn't it appear that the main concept here is "freedom"? The word separation is not used in the First Amendment, is it? "A wall of separation between church and state" is a phrase written by Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists. It's a metaphor and not the definition of the First Amendment. The First Amendment is about freedom. Freedom from a government that dictates who, how, where and what we worship. Also, freedom of speech. This means that if you want to be a Buddhist, Christian or atheist, then you are free to speak about it and practice it.

There is a restriction found in the First Amendment. But it's a restriction placed on the government and not on us, the people. The people are free! So why does the Supreme Court say that praying at a public high school football game is unconstitutional? They are praying FREELY! If atheists don't like it, then they don't have to pray. But please remember, Christians have the same rights as atheists: free speech.

Congress "establishing a religion" is not Christians praying at a football game or Bush reading the Psalms after Muslim terrorists murder our men, women and children in New York. Sorry, these prayers and scripture readings are exercises of free speech and for the benefit of others. If atheists don't like it, then they don't have to listen.

The First Amendment does not mean "religious people shut up!" but rather, "Government, leave religious people (atheists included) free!"

--T.C. Carroll

Need more cops? Check neighborhood bar and grill

Apparently we have a cop shortage in this city [Knappster, "Cop Shortage Key Reason for High Percentage of Traffic Kamikazes," Sept. 16]. Really? We do?

I work in my vehicle and I'm driving around this entire city 10 hours a day, which puts me at high risk with all the drunk and crappy drivers this city attracts. I see plenty of cops. Unfortunately, it has never been during the five or six times red light runners have nearly cost me my life.

If I ever do need a cop, I'll head straight to Maryland Parkway, where I'm sure to find plenty of cops protecting our city from those unruly hooligans who dare to travel three miles over the speed limit. These speed traps are raking in thousands of dollars a day. We all know the only reason for traps is to raise funds. Try going through a school zone at 17 mph; you'll have to take out a small loan to pay the ticket.

Why not use this money for more cops, if they are indeed necessary? Why take taxes out of our back pocket when you're already taking from our front pocket?

Also, for those of you who actually sleep during nightime hours, be assured that while you lay peacefully in your warm bed, and your car is being stolen, and your walls are getting tagged, your favorite bar and grill is being protected by countless numbers of cops who spend many hours relaxing and feasting on comped food. Maybe we actually do have enough cops if they were used more efficiently.

I'm not against adding more police, but let's figure out a better way to fund it, instead of always hitting us up for more taxes. Let's not turn into California, which has figured out how to squeeze every penny out of its residents.

--D. Goldstein

Second Bush term would continue litany of errors

The economy is in shambles--the budget deficit is at an all-time high, growing rapidly, and will take decades to pay off; the balance of trade has sunk to a new low as well; more Americans live in poverty; the rich have gotten hefty tax breaks while the middle class has gotten a pittance and lower-income families have gotten pocket change; unemployment is high in spite of the "official" numbers--millions no longer qualify for benefits and so are not counted; new jobs pay less or are outsourced to other countries; veterans' benefits are being cut--hospitalized vets must pay more for their own treatment; Social Security is in even more trouble; 45 million Americans have no health coverage and for millions more it is a daily struggle to balance paying medical bills and eating.

The cost of the war in Iraq in lives and money has passed even the most pessimistic projections--1,000+ U.S. soldiers are dead; more than 27,000 American troops have been seriously injured; tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead and more injured--most since the declared end of major hostilities; the U.S. has spent more than $133 billion so far; most of our antiterrorism resources are tied up in Iraq; former U.S. military leaders and diplomats are questioning our past and current tactics; and we still lack a coherent exit strategy even as Iraq slides into outright civil war.

Bush has alienated much of the international community; terrorism is far from dead and new terrorists have been bred by wanton and ill-planned U.S. military actions. We are less secure, not more.

Another Bush term will see more terrorism, more dead U.S. and coalition soldiers, more dead Iraqis, more poverty, more deficits, more unemployment, more divisiveness, less freedom, more wars, more eroded liberties, worse health coverage, more money for the rich, more struggling seniors, ad nauseum. And Bush II will do even more. I don't think that's a very good deal.

--Don Guizzetti,

Denver