Readers Write: Separation of church and state, religious freedom, mining in northern Minnesota

Opinion editor’s note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Grr. When Louisiana passed the Ten Commandments bill requiring their display in all public school classrooms, I just shivered. In 1956 the country adopted the national motto “In God We Trust” and placed the motto on our currency. Together, with the Ten Commandments bill, these tend to exclude any other ethnic, religious or other identity.

I suggest we change the motto for our currency and nation to “In Allah We Trust” and pass a national bill requiring all public schools and institutions to post the Five Pillars of Islam in every room. Why not? It makes as much sense as “In God We Trust.”

Or maybe “In Buddha We Trust”?

It just doesn’t make any sense to inject religion into any secular government institution. It should be outlawed. Check the U.S. Constitution. Surely one can find at least one provision or amendment which should prohibit such blatant endorsement of religion to the exclusion of all others. Just sayin’.

Thomas Dault-Beauchane, Farmington

•••

In the congregations I served before my retirement, we intentionally chose to avoid locating the stars and stripes in the worship area. Our rationale was that we gather in worship primarily to express our loyalty to God, not to demand allegiance to the American flag.

For the same reason, it would seem ill-advised to mandate the placement of the Ten Commandments in all public school classrooms, as is now the case in Louisiana. We expect our students to be educated, not proselytized.

Let the church be church; let the classroom be classroom.

The Rev. Alan C. Bray, St. Peter, Minn.

The writer is a retired pastor of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

According to a front-page article in Sunday’s paper, avowed Christian nationalist Republican congressional candidate Steve Boyd has “no desire to try to legislate or force people to believe the way that I do” (”Campaigning as ‘spiritual battle’”). The abortion issue, however, puts this claim to the test. What is his goal of a federal ban on abortion, if not to impose religious doctrine on those who reject it?

He admits that his opposition to abortion is religiously grounded. Presumably, he merely hopes that as a candidate and congressman he will be able to fashion a popular consensus to end abortion rights. However, since the Dobbs decision, whenever reproductive rights have been on the ballot, voters have supported them. The prospect of the people choosing to end the right to legal abortion seems to be slim and diminishing. Most Americans, at least, do not share the belief that a microscopic agglomeration of fetal cells deserves legal protection.

Is Boyd willing to accept the decision of the majority on abortion? Most Christian nationalists are not. They believe that U.S. law should have a higher allegiance to God’s law than to the will of the people. They believe this justifies imposing restrictions on reproductive rights. They boast that they are champions of religious freedom, but they would deny that freedom to others.

Boyd supposedly advocates for decisions to be made as locally as possible and so supports reducing the size of the federal government. Why not leave this decision at the most local level, with only the mother?

A companion article on Louisiana leading in Republican states across the nation on legislation to advance conservative Christian values shows the same opposition to the traditional American understanding of religious rights. The legislative agenda of conservative Christians to rescind reproductive and LGBTQ+ rights and to require Ten Commandment posters in Louisiana classrooms reveals them as opponents to religious freedom.

George Francis Kane, St. Paul

•••

I thought the article reviewing Boyd’s candidacy was balanced and thorough. It can be even more clearly stated, based on historical reference, that we are not a Christian nation but rather a nation of many faiths and the goodness reflected therein. Rep. Michelle Fischbach, with whose politics I don’t generally agree, seems to better understand the intent of the founding fathers when they wrote the Constitution. Some of them were Christians and some were Deists. They mostly leaned toward Deism. Deists believe, in summary, that the universe was created by God and that all religions, including Christianity, began as a basic belief in God that got perverted by clergy.

So, it is an admirable goal to use the teachings of the Christian faith to guide one’s desire to improve the lot of all people, but it is not acceptable to try to create a Christian nation that would exclude those who do not adhere to that same belief system. Try rereading the First Amendment, the Jefferson Bible and the writings of James Madison to better grasp the thought process that was used to inspire us to be an all-inclusive nation.

David Lee, St. Paul

•••

If GOP candidate Steve Boyd wants to run as a Christian against godless Democrats, he needs to clarify a few things:

1. Does the candidate believe everything in the Bible? Does this include putting people to death for ignoring the sabbath or punishing people for eating shellfish?

2. Which denomination would he like us to follow? There are many thousands, and there are major discrepancies between many of them.

3. What is the candidate’s opinion of the Holy Scripture preaching about turning the other cheek and loving and forgiving our enemies?

4. What is the candidate’s opinion of what Jesus meant when he said “blessed are the poor” and “it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven”?

I’m not sure we need anyone to tell us how to be spiritual, especially someone using religion to appeal to the intolerance of intolerant people. By declaring his political enemies as godless, he is doing exactly that.

Frederic J. Anderson, Minneapolis

The interview with Rep. Pete Stauber in the June 23 Star Tribune about his hope for mining and logging in the Superior National Forest along the shore of Lake Superior was perfectly timed to make me apoplectic (”Stauber has hope for mining bills”). I had just returned from a magical family vacation up there in Cook County. I am trying to picture hiking beside a river on my way up to a waterfall, viewing and hearing mining operations somewhere in the woods near me. I would be passing big new roads for the logging trucks and mining equipment. We would also see increased truck traffic along Hwy. 61, thundering by the resorts, gift shops, restaurants, campgrounds and historic monuments. It sounds like a waking nightmare.

Minnesota and the nation must preserve and nurture our national parks, for all of us and for future generations. National parks are economic engines in the states where they are located. The National Park Service reported that in 2022, 312 million park visitors spent an estimated $23.9 billion in local gateway regions. But national parks are more than that. We need to pass energetic climate legislation to preserve the trees that store carbon and clean the air, and preserve wildlife and the birds that migrate here to nest in the spring and summer. Sen. Tina Smith has spoken out opposing Stauber’s proposed legislation threatening the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and Superior National Forest, and we should all let our representatives and senators know that his plan is unacceptable.

Laura Haule, Minneapolis