Nicole R. Homich – 12/4/05

This page was last updated on December 4, 2005.

A founding principle; Nicole R. Homich; Beaver County Times; December 4, 2005.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“I response to Nov. 29 letters to the editor, I find it disheartening how completely people can miss the point of such a vital issue as the concern over religious displays on government property.

“Operating under the misconception that The Times’ readership is all Christian might have led to the strange conclusion that there are Christian people who fight against Nativity scenes because they feel that Christianity should be secularized.”

[RWC] Huh?

“The anti-manger group, in reality, understands that government-endorsed religion is illegal for a reason. America was founded on the principle of separation of church and state because our leaders saw how minority religions were persecuted when a government was run by the church. From the beginning, this land was a place to escape that persecution. It is a tribute to our history that we preserve the principle.”

[RWC] I know this will shock Ms. Homich, but the U.S. Constitution only bars Congress from establishing a religion. It does not bar state and local governments from this practice. I oppose government-endorsed religion; I’m just repeating what the Constitution says in plain English.

The problem Ms. Homich and others have is they apparently believe the so-called “separation of church and state” – which is nowhere in the Constitution – means government must be hostile to religion. Seriously, how does a Nativity scene, Menorah, et cetera oppress anyone who doesn’t have an axe to grind? How could this remotely be considered an establishment of religion by Congress? They also fail to recognize that most people who oppose Nativity scenes or other displays are themselves practicing a religion, a religion that opposes Christianity, Judaism, et cetera. In other words, this people are forcing the majority to adhere to the religion of the minority.

“Another revolutionary governmental device implemented by the founders was the separation of the government into three separate branches, each subject to scrutiny of the others. Part of the reason for this was so that the judiciary can protect the minority when the majority is wrong.”

[RWC] Ms. Romich doesn’t appear to have a clue as to the function of the judicial branch. The judiciary is there to settle legal disputes. It does not exist to “protect the minority when the majority is wrong.” I think John Roberts put it right during his confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Chief Justice when he said, “If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy’s going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy’s going to win.” It’s clear Ms. Homich needs to read Article III, Sections 1 and 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

“It is scary that people can see so little of the world around them. Diversity of belief and opinion are what allow free peoples to come together in discussion, each side of a debate evolving with challenges from the other. If your challenger is stifled, your own stance suffers. America is the greatest county [sic] in the world because we encourage questions, forcing people to bring forth only their best thought-out views into the collective.”

[RWC] “Collective?” Is Ms. Homich a Borg? <g>

It appears Ms. Homich believes a minority has a right to impose its position on the majority, but not the reverse.

“If the government begins to shut minority views down, America will slide backward into the very darkness with which we are warring.

“Happy Hanukkah!”

[RWC] I hate to break it to Ms. Homich, but there is no such thing as “minority rights” in this country. This is a fabrication of Democrats who don’t like increasingly being in the minority. If the majority of Americans approved of amending the U.S. Constitution to allow slavery, take the vote from men, et cetera, these practices would become the law of the land.