Readers Write: Religion in the public square, Pledge of Allegiance

There's an implicit and dangerous assumption about the place of religion in the public square that seems to be showing its ugly head more and more in the press these days. A recent letter writer in "Don't tell me your beliefs — tell me you understand the Constitution" (Readers Write, June 27) expresses it well, with his view that a person expressing their position on a public matter on a religious basis is somehow doing something inappropriate or even illegal. The writer's dismissal of "personal religious beliefs," as if those were minor idiosyncratic opinions, picks up on a thought trend that misunderstands the role of religion in life.

Religious traditions are in fact one of the few arenas of public life that have attempted to develop consistent and thoughtful approaches to the larger moral issues and quandaries of human life that embody more than just the urges and fears of an immediate moment. Whether a particular individual or corporate body of the moment lives up to the moral understandings their tradition espouses is a separate issue from the depth of insight and intellectual rigor that has provided deep underlying principles for addressing the human condition and the human struggle.

Freedom of religion and freedom of the press appear together in the First Amendment because they're both about the free intercourse of ideas in the public square. It is precisely the public encounter of different moral positions and arguments that enables and enriches us as we work our way through to well-thought-through solutions for our moment.

To dismiss from the conversation precisely those voices that have had the track record of deep ethical thinking about matters moral is to weaken the conversation.

We don't have to agree with the insights of a particular religious tradition to appreciate that their reminders of the larger underlying issues that may be at stake in a particular battle are a blessing to us all.

The writer is a retired Episcopal clergyman.

Thank you, city of St. Louis Park, for driving voters into the arms of President Donald Trump's re-election ("Pledge of Allegiance cut from council meetings," front page, June 27). It's knee-jerk, unthinking, ultra-left actions like excluding the Pledge of Allegiance that make moderate/common-sense voters pull the lever for windbags like Trump.

Saying the Pledge of Allegiance at a council meeting doesn't intimidate anyone; if you don't want to state the pledge, then don't state it. My condolences to the residents of St. Louis Park for having such obtuse elected officials.

It sets a dangerous precedent when constituents encourage public officials like Attorney General Keith Ellison to choose which laws they want to defend and which they will ignore ("Ellison to defend state laws regulating abortion," June 25).

You can argue about the structure of our democracy and how well it represents its citizens, but our current system is what we've agreed upon as a nation to represent the will of the people. To allow representatives to pick and choose which they will follow basically nullifies our democracy and allows a select few individuals to shape our laws.

In Tim Harlow's story about commute times in Minnesota ("Want a shorter commute? Move to Morris or Int'l Falls," June 25) narrates a lot of numbers from studies but doesn't really touch on the geographic (economic and human) and the intangible reasons that people live where they do. It's no surprise that most people in Morris, driving to work in ... well, Morris, have a shorter commute than people in Zimmerman going to work in the Twin Cities, for example. And it's no surprise that people who choose the relative tranquility of living in the outer, outer ring of the metro area and the economic benefit of working in the city will put up with the longest average commutes — up to a point.

In 1970 my parents moved from Golden Valley, where my dad had a 15-minute commute to Minneapolis. They moved to near Marine on St. Croix (one of the top 10 worst commutes, according to the study), where he had a 60-minute commute before the interstates were completed. He said that sometimes as he was driving home he wondered why he had chosen to take on such a long commute. Then he would get home, step out of the car, look around and have no doubt he had made the right choice. Despite the long commute, he enjoyed his leisure time and his work more after the move.

The studies and numbers don't mean everything, and people are more than commuters. Their commute is one result of choosing among other things they value. We all find our own balance.

A June 25 article ("Tenants get hard-fought payouts") described the ongoing battle against a landlord of low-income apartments in Minneapolis with infestations, inoperable appliances and many other problems. It's comforting to hear the 4,361 tenants and former tenants united to form a tenants' rights group to create the class-action settlement against this landlord to be compensated for this action of fraud and unlivable conditions for these individuals.

It is an injustice to be forced to live in places that put tenants and their children at risk for health conditions. Place matters, and no one should be forced into a lease of uninhabitable conditions for the remainder of one's lease for the distress it causes.

The fight shouldn't stop here. It is inevitable that some low-income housing will have dangers in their environment, and groups should be actively looking out for these uninhabitable locations for the well-being of communities.

Could we see a comparison between the cost of providing soap, showers, warm blankets, clean T-shirts, underwear and other such necessities for detained children to the cost of Trump's almost weekly trips to Mar-a-Lago to golf and schmooze with his wealthy sycophants? It's my guess the latter costs more.