Cultural beliefs-- fad or fact?

I enjoy Richard Carpenter's appearances in our paper and look forward to reading his opinion when he does appear. His latest observations were cogent but flawed. Richard argued against pushing one's religious beliefs onto others, and I can't disagree with that, however, he failed to take into account the fact that those of a more liberal bent also seem to often see no problem in pushing their beliefs onto those who hold more traditional beliefs.

Why is it permissible for liberals to push the idea that all cultures and all beliefs are equal onto Christians but not for me to defend the correctness of my beliefs. I would be happy to keep quiet about my beliefs if they weren't under attack by those trying to change them.

Take the idea that all cultures are equally worthy of respect. It is patently, demonstrably false. A culture that puts the state before the individual, that subordinates religious beliefs to secular economic theories, that encourages the destruction of the family so the state can control the children is bound to fail. For proof look at the Soviet Union. It endured for 77 years but fell into ruin because such a culture cannot last, it sows the seeds of its own destruction the day it is created.

Such a culture cannot equal a culture that cherishes individual freedom and promotes a strong family and strong morality. Such a culture is more durable because the values underlying it are the result of thousands of years of practice, not some foolish fad that evaporates after a year or two.

Asking that those of us who follow a more traditional belief system to change is imposing an outside morality -- or lack thereof -- just the same as if I said people shouldn't have instrumental music in their church because that is the way my church believes.

The thing Richard needs to understand that just because the fad has changed for some doesn't mean that it did for everyone. The fad now is to try to seperate the state completely from any religious influence. That is not the principle our country was founded on. Citing 'separation of church and state' is meaningless -- that phrase comes from a private letter, not one of our founding documents.

Most of the founders were Christian and most of our founding documents reflect that. The first sentence in our Declaration of Independence mentions God: "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Those who say we cannot mention God in a public forum are going against tradition and trying to impose secularism on us, something that the Constitution specifically prohibits. Everyone talks about the First Amendment saying that Congress can't make a law respecting an establishment of religion but they always leave off the second part of the reference to religion -- the one that says Congress cannot prohibit the free excercise of it: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Richard cites the example of Eric Rudolph but the problem is that Eric Rudolph is a nutcase, his mania would be no less crazy if he decided that the environment had to be protected from human desecration. There are those who take things too far on all sides but for the other side to tar their opponents with objections to a small subset of that group, a subset that does not represent the majority in any way, is wrong.

If Richard complained that Rudolph was getting support from mainstream conservatives --and they were in fact giving him help-- then he would have a valid complaint but the only ones giving Rudolph succor are those as wacky as himself.

Richard is also wrong when he says that there is a dramatic increase in the use of the death penalty. In fact, the opposite is true, death penalty sentences are down. I agree that there has to be a way to ensure that someone is truly guilty of a crime where death is an optional sentence but I would balance that with an offsetting change to make it much faster to put someone to death whose guilt is beyond question.

If someone is videotaped committing a crime which is punishable by death and there is significant other evidence to support conviction that person should be executed within 24 hours. As one comedian puts it, the state should put in an express lane for killers.