Letters to the editor

Posted on Oct. 23, 2003, at 12:00 a.m.

* God rides on in school

In the Oct. 16 edition of The Maine Campus, Matt Shaer professes his undying support to liberal demagogues, such as Michael Newdow, the champion of completely removing God from all facets of life starting with our public school system.

These men maintain the ludicrous argument that the “founding fathers wanted God out of politics and politics out of the church.” It is obvious that Shaer and Newdow have no clue what the “founding fathers” really wanted. In the Declaration of Independence there are four specific references to the dependence of the United States on God. Shortly after signing the Declaration of Independence, George Washington is quoted as saying “It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the Providence of God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and to humbly implore his protection.” In 1863, Abraham Lincoln concluded his Gettysburg Address, by saying “Under God this nation will have a new birth of freedom.” The founding fathers wanted to acknowledge the Author of all life.

Shaer goes on to imply that little “Jenny Atheist” is unfairly forced to deal with the Judeo-Christian references in public school systems. I contend that it’s unfair for “Suzie Baptist” to be forced to deal with the removal of Judeo-Christian references in public school systems across the United States. Why is it that the majority of American parents who want God in their children’s schools are condemned by the Michael Newdows of the world?

What Shaer can’t deal with is the fact that our founding fathers, much like the vast majority of American parents today, want God to be an integral part of their lives. People like Michael Newdow, Matt Shaer, and left wing judges hoping to make a name for themselves, should be feared. It is my humble prayer that the Supreme Court will make the right decision.

Timothy Surrette

Graduate student in education

* Dury lacks thought

Marshall Dury, in his editorial, “The Day Nothing Changed: Memories of 9-11 Quickly Fade Away” says that he has been “rather silent on the issue of ‘life after Sept. 11′ and that [he is] “sure that [he] has gotten a large majority of the people reading this article upset.” As a reader of his article, I wish he would have kept silent longer, perhaps even thought out what he had to say before he wrote. This article does not upset me because I like all the flags on people’s vehicles, or because it says something “disturbing.” it upsets me because it is sophomoric, poorly conceived, and poorly written.

Mr. Dury states that “In America, we seem to think that if we fall in line with how everyone else is grieving then we think we’ve done our part.” How simple and ignorant a summary of Sept. 11 and its impact on the American people that is. Like many Americans, I watched in horror as the planes crashed into the Twin Towers. I not only felt instant empathy with those experiencing this, and its reverberations, but I also had a personal angle as well. I thought of my uncle who only six months before had retired from his job in the WTC, as well as friends I had in NYC.

Not only does Mr. Dury reduce genuine emotion to “falling in line.” but he never indicates just what “our part” might be. As a public school teacher, I also was watching this happen with students, and feeling something I had rarely felt before: a complete inability to explain anything I was experiencing to them. I also felt as if they “had to see this” but I wanted to shelter them. Every person who experienced Sept. 11 has a genuine experience of grief and horror, but Mr. Dury casts that aside.

Mr. Dury does have some advice: “Don’t swallow the traditional forms of creativity or remembrance that the media or Hallmark have dreamed up for us.” On one hand, what is wrong with “traditional forms” if they work for the individual? On the other hand, I have not been aware of Hallmark having touched this issue, and as far as the other “easy” enemy – “the media” – I will never forget newscasters swallowing their own pain and disbelief to report Sept. 11 to a frantic public. Perhaps if Mr. Dury wants to give some real advice he might mention Hallmark’s and the media’s abuses of Sept. 11 to strengthen his case. Ah – but then again – that might take some thought. Or facts. Or real information instead of the express line of “sweeping generalizations.” But, we do get some parting advice in his last paragraph: “Sitting idle while the corporate hands that have become our institutions of politics and education will only let the terrorists know that we aren’t looking – once again.”

What might be worth reading is Mr. Dury explaining to us exactly how corporations controlling politics and education created terrorism and 9/11, and also what exactly the average citizen should do about this (rather than sit idle) so that he is satisfied that “something has changed.” Perhaps Mr. Dury might also include how the terrorists will be affected by the American public’s actions.

Maybe for Mr. Dury, Sept. 11 was a day after which nothing changed, and it has all faded for you. But you are one voice – ill-informed and disdainful and most limited in scope. For many, nothing has faded, and they are doing what they can. Respect that. Respect all people and their ways of grieving, their ways of experiencing events. If you want to change them, teach them, begin with respect for what they feel and how they express themselves, and then teach them – give them some facts – not mere drivel. And yes – please tell me – how has Marshall Dury changed as a result of Sept. 11?

Kristin Leithiser

Alumnae, English teacher

Old Town, ME

This entry was posted on Thursday, October 23rd, 2003, 12:00 am. You can follow any responses to this article through the RSS feed.