Paul Halley writes that this is demonstrated by the group's letter telling a Haddon Heights school to stop saying "God Bless America" in unison.
To the Editor:
Concerning the article "N.J. ACLU tells school 'no more 'God Bless America,' " asking a Haddon Heights public elementary school to stop having students repeat the phrase after reciting the Pledge of Allegiance:
In this great nation, the American Civil Liberties Union is free to promote its postmodern views -- in effect, its own religion --in any legal way the organization sees fit. But for this group to impose its "postmodern religion" on the whole community of Haddon Heights is completely inappropriate.
People have been told that if God, as defined by Jews and Christians, is not mentioned in school, then religion is not being taught there. Not so. Religion is that which you hold to be of ultimate value, which may or may not include the word "god."
ACLU-type postmodern religion has become the de-facto religion of government schools. If a school's mission statement is not "To teach students how to glorify and enjoy God, and how to serve their fellow man" -- some other "religion" is being followed.
The ACLU cites the Constitution. The Constitution limits Congress - not principles of schools, or parents or children. Parents should determine what their children should learn and do, not some elite Common Core committee or ACLU group.
If a school district has parents who are aligned with the ACLU, they should attend board meetings like any other concerned parents. I suspect that the ACLU just wants to promote its religion while suppressing what it believes to be an inferior religion.
Tyranny, no matter how well-intentioned, must be oppressed.
The Haddon Heights district was not forcing the kids to say anything that their parents don't want them to say. However, if a student refuses to memorize the Gettysburg Address, he or she may get a lower grade in civics class. Oh, I forgot. Civics is no longer taught in New Jersey.
Paul Halley
Bridgeton
Ranch standoff unrelated to race
To the Editor:
The Star-Ledger "Another Viewpoint" editorial "Those armed, anarchist ranchers are criminals, not cowboys" and an accompanying cartoon in the Times' Jan. 6 print edition are a good example of the divisive nature of todays news media.
What is the connection between race and the Ammon Bundy land standoff in Oregon? None that I can see. Both the editorial writer and cartoonist conflate a historical federal-land-use grievance by ranchers who happen to be white with "Black Lives Matter" protesters. This in an apparent effort to gin up racial divisions that have no relationship to this issue.
I don't agree with Bundy and his clan, but why are they described in the editorial as "white ranchers," as if race had any bearing? The editorial then asks us to imagine how armed black men would be shot on the spot if they challenged the federal government on the same issue. How inflammatory and irresponsible can you get?
Can't the writer come up with more facts from the actual standoff story? Or, is it just easier to just make up a "can you imagine if..." spin that essentially profiles both whites and blacks racially?
R. Lyons
Thorofare
Send a letter to the editor of South Jersey Times at sjletters@njadvancemedia.com
