What’s Wrong Today:
Yesterday, we wrote about the Supreme Court’s decision in Town of Greece, NY vs. Galloway. Since then, Interwebs have been ablaze with comments both supporting and hating the decision.
Here for your review are three letters to the editor in today’s NYT in response to their front page article on the decision:
To the Editor:
Politick in public, pray in silence; either way, say whatever you want.
ERNEST F. IMHOFF
Baltimore, May 6, 2014
To the Editor:
It always seems that the very same people (and justices) who believe that the Second Amendment is sacrosanct have no trouble meddling with the First. I have no doubt that if our country’s founders could see the unending string of tragedies resulting from a dogmatic interpretation of the Second Amendment and the repeated trashing of the First, they would make some changes to the Bill of Rights.
The Second Amendment would be dumped and replaced with the following: “Please reread the First Amendment!”
BOB ROSENBLUTH
Lincolndale, N.Y., May 6, 2014
And below is the Wrongologist’s favorite. Emphasis is by the Wrongologist:
To the Editor:
As recognized in the Constitution, the proper exercise of government does not require ties to religious practice. Nor is there a need to establish a certain tone before a town government meeting other than to call the meeting to order and to get down to business. Why should an American have to listen to a government-sponsored prayer before taking up issues such as zoning and other town laws and regulations?
When the Supreme Court defers to allowing a prayer to open town meetings, the court itself is in violation of its constitutional duty to protect the First Amendment rights of all Americans. If we have to pray, let’s pray that doesn’t happen again.
BRUCE NEUMAN
Sag Harbor, N.Y., May 6, 2014
Amen, brother Bruce!
Wrongologist,
I normally avoid commenting on your observations. However I could not pass this one up.
Your interpretation of the ruling is obtuse. The Supreme Court was in fact defending the First Amendment. The ruled that is is not unconstitutional to hold a prayer at the beginning of the meetings. They did not rule that it is required. The power of the decision has been handed back to the local government to apply as they and their constituents see fit.
When praising the singularly focused, liberally biased readers of the NYT you may want to consider that their view is that they are the victims that have been tread upon. Any position that they take will be skewed from that perspective.
The Constitution and the Founding Fathers ideals were upheld not thrown to the side.
The real beauty of this country and our God given rights is that we can both express our opinions publicly without concern of retaliation…no matter how Wrong yours may be.
Welcome back Jim! Agree that separation of church and state is a slippery slope, which makes it more important that the Supremes not focus on saying that this is just a local issue, to be decided by local governments. That is a wrong approach to applying the 1st Amendment.
I understand your antipathy about the NYT. But, responses by readers of the NYT are as valid as anyone else’s. I was “celebrating” their viewpoints, not their victimization.
Finally, I do really like your implied question: “What’s Wrong with the Wrongologist?”