Newspaper should learn difference between ‘law’ and ‘right’
The arguments presented in your July 14th editorial — “Law, not personal beliefs, should guide judges’ actions” — actually prove the opposite of your conclusions.
The law in this case clearly gives certain elected officials the right to perform weddings or civil unions . . . it does not require them to do so. Let’s be sane about this. For example, the law may make skydiving legal … does that require everyone to take the plunge? If “adult entertainment” is legal, does that mean a church has to allow a stripper at a wedding reception? Of course not.
Your statement that judges making decisions based on personal conviction is “dangerous” is tacit proof that you have no such convictions of your own, since you obviously do not understand how strong they can be. In the case of the officials you have taken to task, they were elected by voters who approved of their “personal convictions” and wanted those beliefs applied to the administration of their duties.
I personally applaud the decision of many to take themselves out of this equation because they disagree with the governing law. They have decided, in fact, to place themselves in a position where they will not be forced to break this new, judicially-imposed law by being true to their beliefs.
Your paragraph which includes references to Baptists, Catholics, Muslims, Methodists, and others should be viewed as an insult to every one of our elected and appointed judges. Your implication that these men and women would use religion to make legal decisions is a slap in their faces and is a wild, unfounded accusation. These officials have agreed to administer the law only in areas where they are required to do so, and I believe most of them interpret the law honestly and impartially.
As a journalist, you should know full well that the words “right” and “required” are not the same. You should also pay close attention to the order of the first four rights guaranteed in our First Amendment: “… no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; …” God comes in first and believers finish second … The Dispatch is out of the money in fourth.
As to your characterization of the officials as “petulant,” I would call your attention to the definition of the word and note that they had nothing defamatory or insulting to say about the subject. That came from you. (And, yes, is now coming from me.)
I, for one, am willing to risk incurring your pious, linguistic wrath by saying many of us would prefer leaders with “personal convictions,” rather than the petulant rantings of someone who appears to have none.
William Henry “Billy” Harris, Jr.
West Point
The Dispatch Editorial Board is made up of publisher Peter Imes, columnist Slim Smith, managing editor Zack Plair and senior newsroom staff.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 36 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.