LETTERS: READER RESPONDS TO RELIGIOUS CONTROVERSY

To the editor:

We are still reading Editor R. Joe Sullivan's letter in Sunday's opinion section with several questions: Is it that you do not like the Freedom From Religion Foundation because they are atheists or do you disagree with their tactics? Are you upset because they came to Cape Girardeau? Or are you proposing that their actions and agenda are so absurb that you feel Americans everywhere will suddenly flock to Sunday school singing Kum-Baya?

You begin with a brief description of the group's agenda, which includes opposition to Christmas displays on courthouse lawns and opposition to prayer at school graduations. Would you be opposed to these things if you were of a non-Judeo-Christian background? Would it be okay to worship Buddha on the steps of the courthouse, pray to Shiva, Shatterer of Worlds before commencement, or enscribe on our currency "In the pagans gods we trust?" Are you arguing against atheism or against any group that is non-Christian? And when you charge the atheists are out to remove the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, shouldn't we remind everyone about how that phrase came to be added? I recall reading something of a Senator named Joseph McCarthy and the Red Scare.

As for their tactics, it appears you disagree with the atheists again. Is it because they attempted to peacefully and lawfully change something with which they disagreed? We don't think we read anything in the Missourian about how they took a chainsaw to this cross, shot down an abortion doctor or gave a sermon on WPSD's "The Pastor Speaks" segment about the shortcomings of Christ in a capitalist society.

So the ahteists came to town because they disagreed with a cross on the side of the highway -- is this what upsets you? Or is it because this "clever" group is armed with the "Constitution and 200 years of rulings on their side"? Mr. Sullivan, as a member of the media, you are claiming the atheists are hiding behind the First Amendment? We fail to see your point.

The "religious fervor" you await may be misguided. Bear in mind that the doctrine of Christianity, although widely held in this area, has not always owned the moral highground. It has also been responsible for some less-than-virtuous historical events. Anyone care to remember the Inquisition or the Crusades?

As the noted philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote: "There is something feeble, and a little contemptible, about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths ... Moreover, since he is aware, however dimly, that his opinions are not national, he becomes furious when they are disputed. He therefore adopts persecution, censorship, and a narrowly cramping education as essentials of statecraft. In so far as he is successful, he produces a population which is timid and unadventurous and incapable of progress."

Sincerely,

Jon C. and Jude R. Keck