Letters

0 Comments | Gazette, The (Colorado Springs), May 18, 2007

GRADUATION DAY

Schools must take steps to avoid proselytizing

It is unfortunate The Gazette missed an opportunity for a valuable history lesson in its May 15 Our View, "Speaking freely." I, too, favor the idea of allowing a graduate to speak freely at commencement, but it must also be acknowledged that this is at least a quasi-official event under the aegis of a publicly funded entity. Thus, out of respect for the Constitution, some care should be taken to distinguish a graduate's personal views from those of the school, particularly so if the graduate is going to choose to directly or indirectly endorse positions that are selectively religious. History tells us that Founding Fathers such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would agree to the need for such distinctions, if government is to avoid religious promotion and guarantee that religious pluralism is given its full due.

The Gazette suggested including a program disclaimer addressing this distinction, which I think is a fair approach. But rather than explain in reasoned terms why such a disclaimer would be proper, The Gazette referred to it as a way to "stay on the right side of the ACLU" and then added that the need for such a disclaimer is "sad." On the contrary, it would be reflective of the ideals we are founded upon.

The Gazette is well known for an ultrasensitivity to government intrusions in nearly every aspect of our life and society, such as what it sees as judicial or regulatory over-reach to protect personal health, public safety, energy conservation, the environment, etc. The editors' antennae seem less attuned to such intrusion when it is religious assumptions or even preferences being promoted under government auspices. Yet preventing government favoritism toward select religions was one of the most pivotal struggles waged in our founding, and one that made us unique in the world. History gives us many examples of how easy it is for government to overstep in promoting religion. Therefore, it is proper to clearly distinguish personal comments from the public school entity at commencement. It protects religious pluralism and freedom of speech at the same time.

Ken Burrows

Manitou Springs

Restrictions honor separation of church, state

The Gazette knows full well that restricting religious speech at public school events which other students are required to attend is not censorship, but a constitutional shield against the establishment of religion.

The Gazette is on the wrong side of a host of Supreme Court decisions.

Quite apart from the legalities, it seems that Jesus, too, was opposed to public prayer.

Matthew 6:5-6 says: "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men.... When thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret."

It can be inferred that Jesus condemns prayers in situations where other people are present. Prayers are to be an intensely personal event between a person and their God and not be given in groups, whether at school, in church, in synagogue, or in a legislature.

Pride in one's religious belief is a wonderful thing. To proselytize one's faith at public events is not. If both your government and your God agree that school prayer is wrong, it's time to start paying attention.

Richard Baker

Colorado Springs

BACK TO THE FUTURE?

Voters need paper trail to ensure proper counts

This is in response to syndicated columnist David Broder's op-ed piece, "New voting bill Promises to be expensive, unworkable," in the May 14 Gazette.

We had better have a paper trail to verify the votes cast on all touch-screen and electronic voting systems, or we will be in the situation Josef Stalin described: "Those who vote decide nothing," he said. "Those who count the votes decide everything."

Untraceable vote fraud is a real danger with these new machines. Clinton Eugene Curtis, testifying before Congress, stated there are programs that can be used to secretly fix elections on electronic voting machines. He also testified that he wrote a prototype program for a congressman in 2000 that would give an election to whoever you wanted it to go to, by a 51 percent to 49 percent margin, and that county boards would never detect it. The only way it could be viewed would be through the source code, which all of the voting machine companies will not allow anyone to see.

We would be much better off with printed ballots to mark with a black pen and an old-fashioned ballot box.

Robert LaLanne

Colorado Springs

WHAT POSTAL SERVICE?

USPS drops ball on ZIP code directory

Perhaps the reason why "mail is still going awry long after the 2006 switch" is because the Postal Service itself doesn't even recognize the new ZIP code of 80923 ("Do you know your ZIP code?" Metro, May 11). When you go on usps.com to locate a nearby post office it does not recognize 80923 as a valid ZIP code -- even almost a year after the area was created. It is yet another example of the high efficiency of the U.S. Postal Service.