Join the Discussion

Reply
Report this post

Mr. Bozell, I know that I went to a public school, though isn't the separation of church and state a key part of American Democracy? Didn't many colonists come to the New World to avoid an official or state-affiliated religion in England? Are you implying that America should have your specific branch of Christianity as its official faith, at the 'expense' of all others including those that choose not to pursue a faith? Isn't there supposed to be an avoidance of an official religion, of the appearance of an endorsement of a religion, or of prefential treatment toward a religion? Allowing a version of the Ten Commandments, a Nativity Scene, or a similar structure on public property via public funds at the very least implies recognition, acceptance, or an endorsement of the religion said symbols represent. Believe it or not, not all of your readers are of the same faith. Even if they were, many probably believe that governmental organizations can spend their scarce resources (that directly or indirectly come from tax dollars or my hard-earned money; the jury is still out on whether writing a column conotes 'hard earned' anything) on things other than religious symbols and the court cases to keep them on site. Were you aware that when one holiday is mentioned, supported, or publicized (especially in the absence of other holidays occurring during the same season), some Americans become somewhat frustrated or feel like outsiders; i.e. inequal, less welcome (of course organizations, schools, and the like that RESTRICTED us from attending or joining their functions didn't help. But, most were 'good Christians' so they get a free pass for their discrimination, now don't they). Your column suggests that plurality is over-rated, that prudent use of space and funds is for the birds, and that any attempt to maintain diversity and acceptance is equal to a so-called 'war on Christmas?' (Are you a soldier in the war on Christmas? Is your first theater of operations Hanukah or city government?) No one is out to wage war on Christmas or 'Crush a Creche.' Don't you think this verbage is excessive, melodramatic, and not demonstrative of a respectful, open-minded individual? Somehow, striving for equality or acceptance is a 'cardinal sin' in your book, though a 'pre-emptive strike' that is not "Brief, urgently necessary, and self-sustaining," (as we were initially told it would be) is without need for critique. You can tell a lot about a person based on what they choose to speak out on and what they choose not to speak out on. "Tell me whom you associate with and I will tell you who you are." It won't be something to be pleased with, let me assure of that right no Is your intent to slam or express disdain toward the people of the organizations you unfairly target or is it due to insensitivity, impulsivity, or the like that you are not aware of or concerned with the fact that Christianity is but one religion in the US. Further, like many faiths, some of the politicians, celebrities, etc. who proclaim to be devout Christians are busy emailing minor children (and its not about how the Bears did last week), stealing from their corporations or religious organizations, and demanding abstinence only education, making it somewhat difficult to prevent some unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. (Pro-life? or pro-quality of life?) Directions for the intellectual and sensitive individual 1. Expose one's self to a variety of opinions. 2. Consider all available information and arrive at a column topic. 3. Consider how this will be received, the appropriate verbage, and who may not take kindly to it. 4. Write column and have others review it. 5. (If you must) repeat.