Regarding the Jan. 5 editorial “Scalia dissents on 1st Amendment”: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s critics have gone bananas over their view that what he said flies in the face of the “establishment” clause.
Why are people trying so hard to explain what the First Amendment means or doesn’t mean, when for 227 years nobody has tried to wrestle with the meaning to the extent that we do at this time?
Who raised a red flag when every single president since George Washington invoked the guidance and influence of God and our dependence as a nation upon him?
Why today do some twist the “establishment clause” to mean that our nation has to be divorced from religion? Is it because they are uncomfortable with the phrase that follows it, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”?
For the U.S. government to ensure that the last phrase is honored, it must, of necessity, recognize that religion must be protected. Why does the government care if a cross is on public land if, for the sake of protecting the free exercise of religion, it would be construed in some twist of logic to “establish” religion?
How safe are the other freedoms mentioned in the First Amendment when this one is questioned in this way?
Steven J. Hovey