The response to Julie Muhlstein’s column on the “Ave Maria” decision is not an unexpected event. (Sunday letter, “Religion ruling is quite clear.”) The writer neglects that zealots come in many stripes, one of which is characteristic of his views. It neither discourages nor surprises me, yet should not go unanswered.
The writer believes that he is speaking about religious freedom. He is not.
He is speaking of the stifling of religious expression, especially Christian expression, which has more right to the public square than any alternative, “God is dead” T-shirts not exempted.
If it seems good to some to say, “I am not religious, or I am not a Christian,” so be it. They may say and believe whatever they choose, but if a youngster decides they wish to celebrate their graduation through music which they personally believe edifying, or beautiful, or worthy to be shared, then none should have the right to prevent them.
More lives have been blessed by a religious experience than not, more have become more productive and enlarged to the benefit of others than not.
My father was a religious man, and died in the air war over Europe.
He left family, friends and country to secure a right to life for huge numbers of people, both living and those not yet born.
Those who are afraid of “religious freedom” shame themselves.
Gary Bovey
Everett
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
