There are readers who value their religion and just political system

There are readers who value their religion and just political system

As one who was raised in the Christian church, it was with great confusion that I read Mac Cutchins’ latest column. He seems to conclude that there is no danger in a Theocracy; the real danger is in the “Atheistocracy” that now controls our court decisions and schools.

One cannot help but wonder: 1) what type of Theocracy Dr. Cutchins would find fair and just to all, and 2) what country Dr. Cutchins is referring to (the Washington Post reports that only six members of the 110th US Congress are “unaffiliated” religiously; only one confirmed Atheist)?

But Dr. Cutchins’ inaccuracies are beside the real point – that separation of church and state protects both entities. I am hard-pressed to find a cogent argument against ruling on rational principles that transcend most all mainstream cultures and religions (e.g. the golden rule).

I think Dr. Cutchins would be quite upset to find himself in a Theocracy in which his particular religious views were not the majority. I am disappointed when Dr. Cutchins and others espouse that we are in grave danger unless we continue moving toward a Christian Theocracy. Hopefully Opelika-Auburn News readers are not so easily misled! If you do not see the value in this separation of church and state, ask yourself what you would do if your particular religion fell out of vogue and schools/courts “taught” some other religion.

If Christian Science or Jehovah’s Witness were the majority rule, who among us would not be outraged by the denial of medical treatment to a loved one in the throes of a heart attack in lieu of heavy prayer and laying on of hands only?

Perhaps in the future Dr. Cutchins will be more reasonable and not alienate those intelligent readers who value their religion and a just political system.

Matthew Goodwin
Auburn

Comments on responses to Evans’ column are necessary
Responses (Feb. 28) to Jim Evans’ column of Feb. 23 require further comment.

1. Why doesn’t Al Gore debate climate change with renowned scientists? Because it would be next to impossible to find a reputable climatologist on the other side. Even nonscientists can tell that climate patterns are changing as a result of global warming. The only thing left to debate is the extent of human influence on those changes. Since that is the only factor humans can control, it would seem wise to do what we can. I attended the Gore luncheon, too. Four of us carpooled to Atlanta. I did not see a preponderance of gas-guzzlers in the parking lot.

2. Who is a prophet? In the Old Testament it was as ordinary mortal who felt God had given him (or her) a message of such great importance that he proclaimed it even when his life was endangered (remember Elijah, Daniel, and Jeremiah, to name a few). There were others who claimed to speak for God by telling the powers-that-be what they wanted to hear. In the Biblical accounts describing them, the adjective occurring before “prophet” is “false.”

The rich folk and amoral governments Amos excoriated in his prophetic sermons probably did not appreciate his remarks any more that Americans unwilling to change their comfortable but wasteful ways and the corporations they support appreciate Mr. Gore’s, but both of them kept on preaching.

The nation of Israel fell to foreign conquerors. It remains to be seen if our world will fall to forces of nature we might have held off. Incidentally congratulations on your newest columnist. Brittany Branyon speaks with wisdom beyond her years. Thank you for giving her a forum.

Charlotte Ward
Auburn