Wayne Laugesen Vs. Richard Baker: The Debate

Mr. Baker:

Thank you for your letter. A few thoughts:

1. Avoiding establishment is not the same thing as “separation.” A president who declares his love for Buddha does no enshrine Buddhism as the established religion of the land. The belief of a politician does not become an established religion unless a law is passed that says as much, and any such law would violate the First Amendment. We don’t have “separation.” If we did, then nobody could carry religious beliefs into public office, which is an impossible notion to begin with. Elect a Rabbi president and you’ll have a president who’s guided by Jewish law and belief. No way around it.

2. Roe v. Wade will be overturned. The volumes added to the Fourth Amendment were fabrications concocted for political expediency and to uphold personal agendas. Roe v. Wade represents a blatant violation of states’ rights, and it won’t stand up to the scrutiny of today’s court.

3. We did not suggest that Christians have some special “franchise.” By “disenfranchised” we obviously meant that some would try to keep Christians from particpating lawfully in the political process, simply because they don’t like Christians. This is a common usage of the term, so you either misrepresent it intentionally or lack knowledge of this common word. Millions of Americans despise Christians and would be happy to deprive them of their rights in order to satiate their hatred. Your last paragraph reveals some of this intolerance, and your desire to end an “undisturbed run” by Christians. Please explain how Christians have had “immunities” that aren’t afforded to others, and exactly what you mean by an “undisturbed run.” I’m afraid you would like to “disturb” the run by eliminating the religious freedoms of Christians, probably because they annoy you. It sounds like you would like to deprive them of their First Amendment rights. This is dangerous stuff.

Avoiding establishment IS separation. As to a president who declares his love for a deity, it would be fitting that his faith be neutral. But as you are well aware, our president has said “I believe God wanted me to be president.”

Mr. Baker:

>It may be fitting, from your perspective, but it is not required by law. Personally, I agree with you that it’s unbefitting of a president to say things like “God wanted me to be president,” and “God told me to bomb Iraq.” This means that you and I look forward to a new president. I have strongly opposed the war in Iraq, and it’s my belief that if God decided to choose our president it wouldn’t be George Bush. I merely defend his right to be a religious fanatic, and Americans have the right to elect a religious fanaticsof any faith. Presidents have the righ to beleive that God communicates with them.

In addition he has stated that he consulted God many times as to the direction of his presidency and the Iraq war. He has said God told him to invade Iraq. This, my friend, is a puposeful, if not pathological, display of the insertion of faith in public business, which I think we could do entirely without.

>Again, I don’t dispute your assertion that we may be better off without purposeful insertions of faith in public business. My point is that Bush has the legal right to wax religiously all he wants. And we have the legal right to elect such people. My defense of one’s right to speak does not equate to agreement with the message.

Add to this the blatant disregard for the constitution, faith based initiatives
that infused millions into Christian Organization coffers, favoritism of all sorts to Christian organizations,

>I don’t personally like faith-based initiatives, initiated by Bill Clinton, mainly because they threaten the autonomy of private, non-profit organizations. Take a government check and you answer to government. However, I have to challenge your characterization of an infusion of millions into their coffers. In the case of Cahtolic Charities of Colorado Springs, the federal money has gone straight to poor families in need of housing. The govenment merely used the private organization as a way to avoid the cost of establishing public bureaucracy to manage grants. Only a non-profit that’s breaking the law could possibly be enriched by federal money that’s directed at the poor. Most social charity is private, and our govenment has used private non-profits for the sake of efficiency, not to enrich non-profits. If you look into it, you’ll find that the vast majority of homeless shelters, soup kitchens,public clinic and AIDS hospices are funded and run by churches.

the installation of so-called “Born Again” department and agency heads, incuding the very first director of religious affairs in the White House, Jim Towey, who further bastardized the intent of constitutional law by holding Christian Bible studies in the white House weekly.

>Who cares if someone studies the Bible in the White House. We cannot scour reading material because of the nature of the content. That’s would be censorship. Elect a Muslim as president and he/she may study the Koran. So what? We get what we elect.

I am glad that you are a clairvoyant Christian. Your confididence is admirable but sadly, misplaced. Those volumes in Roe V. Wade you feel were concocted to uphold personal agendas were part and parcel of the same procedures which now favor the right wing of the SCOTUS. But there is the matter of “settled law” which I think, following the election of a somewhat more moderate administration, will remained settled.

>I’m not clairvoyant, but please mark my words: Roe v. Wade will be overturned. It has no legitimate constitutional basis. This, of course, is merely a prediction on my part. The prediction, however, is based in fact: Strict onstructionist justices hold a majority on the bench, and they are rabidly anti-abortion/pro states’ rights. Most states will maintain legalized aboriton on demand, and certainly Colorado will. Frankly, I’m saddened by the wanton destruction of unborn life and will be glad to see some states impose more restrictions on abortion when Roe gets overturned.

Your meaning vis a vis “Christian disenfanchisement” was not clear or obvious. Frankly it sounded as if Christianity had some kind of leg up on other religions and non-beliefs.

>I regret not being more clear. I hope you understand what I meant, now that I’ve explained it. For the record: I believe Christians have the same rights to participate in the political process as does anyone else.

And try to buy a car or bottle of booze on Sunday.

>I and the Gazette have editorialized many times in favor of liquor sales on Sunday, and come July it will happen. It infuriates me that I can’t buy wine on Sunday. Modern opposition to Sunday liquor sales comes not from churches, but from liquor store owners. They like having a day off. Your point, however, is understood. Christians have successfully made laws that reflect their morality. This can’t be avoided, and it’s fair. Most laws are based in morality. Laws against murder, rape and speeding are based in morality. It is impossible to legislate without legislating morality. Poeple who like to drink probably shouldn’t live in Utah, where Mormons succeed in making most laws.

Over 800 priests, Monsignors, Bishops, Cardinals and even the Pope, himself, were implicated in the widespread sexual assaults on children and resultant coverups.

>Child predators find their way into all institutions that put them close to children. The public schools harbor the largest percentage of perverts, by far, and are also far more guilty than the Catholic church of orchestrating institutional coverups. The Associated Press made this perfectly clear in a thorough series that, unfortunately, was mostly ignored by the AP’s clients. Those who are genuinely concerned with child welfare will honestly admit that churches are the least of the problem. The facts simply don’t support efforts to malign the church as a purveyor of perverts. But yes, the church has mishandled child abuse in the past, just as most institutions have. It is egregious.

It is the Dominion Christian Community, which I fear you appear to be championing, that would enforce a “Christian America,” one in which Christians reign supreme and all others are relegated to second class citizenship or worse.

>I have no interst in a “Christian America.” I’m merely defending the law. Majorities have rights. In our constitutional republic, in which some democratic processes are employed, majorities will in some circumstances have influence and clout. Majorities tend to win elections, for example. Fortunately, we are a nation of laws in which majorities can’t do certain things. For example, majorities can’t stifle unpopular minority views. They can’t stop you from saying nasty things about Christians or Christianity or the president. Majorities can’t force everyone to worship the same God. Majorities can’t decide guns are bad and take away the weapons of fanatical right wing hillbillies in Idaho. But majorities can elect religious wingnuts to public office, and those wingnuts can say stupid things like “God made me president.” This is freedom of speech and freedom of religion. What’s great, however, is that you are free to grab a microphone, go on the radio, or publish a book to say Christians are evil, they need to shut up, and nobody should vote for them. I become concerned when people start looking for ways to use force of government, rather than lawful process and persuasion, to silence the people who they find annoying.

There is a ring of Christian Supremacy to your editorials, that exceeds
normal debate. Yours is less a defense of Christian doctrine than a promotion of it. I’m afraid, my friend, that you may be mired in the muck of religious mediocrity and as such, are disqualified from objective debate.

>My position has nothing to do with favoritism of one religion over another. Because of my personal religious beliefs, the average Colorado Springs evangelical would believe I’m destined for hell. My position is one of concern that some people, frustrated with majority opinions and beliefs, want force of law to silence an annoying majority. This is not what our country is about. Our country is not about equality, it’s about equal opportunity in individual rights. Members of majorities have the same rights to exercise their freedoms of speech and religion as do members of minorities.

As an aside, I notice you use the term “we” when describing your positions. Is this the “royal” we or do others co-author your editorials?

>We co-author editorials. Our unsigned editorials represent the compromised views of an editorial board. Our editorial board has pledged to uphold and defend the libertarian values of Freedom Communications founder R.C. Hoyles. However, these e-mail communiques are simply my own words.

PS. Please excuse any spelling errors as my spell checker has joined the Christian Right and refused to correct any liberal documents.