My Letter

Today there was a debate on the editorial page with a local reporter named Jon Clark taking the position that displays of the Ten Commandments should be removed from all public property. He was very anti-Christian in his opinion, with a diatribe against "holier-than-thou" Christians dictating to the rest of the citizens how they should behave.

So, anyway, I was inspired to write the following response, which I emailed to him directly at the newspaper.

Hello Mr. Clark:

Reading your editorial today, I couldn't help but wonder, why so angry? If somewhere in your past you were abused in some way by people you perceived as Christians, please accept my apology on their behalf.

Because there must be something that has so incensed you against religion that your editorial does not mask that antagonism. I sincerely hope that you will come to understand that the Christian faith is not one of lectures and "holier-than-thou put-down"'s, but of love, understanding, and forgiveness.

In the meantime, I respectfully submit the following for your consideration.

1. The Ten Commandments is actually not uniquely Christian, but is core for all of the Judeo-Christian world and even respected by Islam.

I disagree with your point that they have nothing to do with our system of laws, as all of the Commandments have been codified into law by Western Civilization at one time or another. Modern laws represent the logical conclusion that only the admonitions against murder, theft, and lying can or should be objectively enforced.

I also disagree with your apparent contention that we are a secular society, but that our founders had the wisdom to found a country based on Judeo-Christian values that was at the same time tolerant of other faiths and determined not to force anyone to join or support a specific sect.

2. If citizens who subscribe to Eastern religions that do not subscribe to the Ten Commandments feel marginalized by the 230-year practice in America of posting them on public grounds, why not change the debate to whether we should permit them to erect a monument that represents their particular rules for living? Wouldn't an argument based on inclusion be more consistent with religious freedom than your argument of exclusion?

But then, all of the objections I have ever heard regarding public acknowledgement of religion have come from Atheists, and not from members of eastern or other religions.

3. In effect, this ongoing crusade against religion in the courts, particularly Christianity, ignores the true intent of the constitution by attempting to change the concept of "Freedom of Religion" to "Freedom from Religion".

Based on the religious ferver in which the Atheist community rails against all religious expression, I would have to conclude that the objective is to establish Atheism as the official State Religion.

4. There can be no denial of the fact of a direct correlation over the past 30 years between the incremental removal of religious expression from our society and dramatic increases in crime, drugs, violence, STD's, and divorce, as our culture becomes coarser and disdains anyone with the temerity to suggest a return to objective morality.

I for one believe in the concept of freedom of religious expression, and much prefer a society that honors its people's attempts to rise above our baser instincts than today's anything-goes narcissism.

Again, Mr. Clark, I sincerely apologize for whatever offense some in the Christian community may have given you. But please consider whether the greatest good in our society is served by removing God from public discourse.

Sincerely,

etc.