Amend Pledge of Allegiance after court’s ruling
In light of the recent Supreme Court Ruling, a portion of our Pledge of Allegiance needs to be deleted: “One nation, under God, indivisible. …” Take this part out. If we keep the Pledge of Allegiance as it is, we are not telling the truth about our country. Plain and simple — that the United States of America is no longer under the rule of God.
MIRA D. BERGEN, ATLANTA
Good Samaritans in DeKalb
Last Sunday morning my car just stopped running on North Druid Hills Road near the Toco Hill Shopping Center. I was in the right lane and was able to pull up onto the sidewalk. A sweet young mother loaned me her cell phone to call AAA and even asked me if I wanted a ride home. In the next 45 minutes, while I waited for the tow truck, six people stopped to check on me. One young lady pulled in behind my car because she had noticed me when driving the other direction. The last person was a man on the sidewalk across the street who called out, “Do you have help on the way? ” and when I pointed to the truck at the stoplight, he paused and made certain that it was my driver. They all were concerned for my safety and comfort.
It was very, very heartwarming and I hope they will all read my thanks. Thanks a million, y’all!
SHARON KRAMER, DECATUR
Sowell is no legal scholar
Thomas Sowell, a far right spokesman, condemns the Supreme Court decisions on both Obamacare and same-sex marriage (“Viewing disasters brought to us by Supreme Court,” Opinion, July 1). Sowell argues that the decision ignores the words of the Constitution and therefore was not constitutional. The problem is that the “words of the law” are not clear … they depend on the mindset of the interpreter. Constitutional authority has identified at least six different interpretations of constitutional law. The two most prominent today are the “original meaning” concept and the “living document” concept. Chief Justice Roberts was applying the “living document” concept. This interpretation holds that the Founders intended for the constitution to be appropriate into the future. In his reasoning, Sowell relies on the “original meaning” concept. Thus he interprets the constitution as meaning what he (Sowell) thinks the Founders meant. Justice Roberts was within his rights to interpret the constitution as he did. Sowell’s failure to explain this to the reader is dishonest. The living document interpretation is often seen by opponents of the decisions as the making of law by the courts.
DONALD E. GALLUP, ATLANTA
Pitts and his ilk sow discord
The recent column by Leonard Pitts Jr. was, as usual, full of hyperbole, mistruths and outright anti-white bigotry. Pitts, like other race profiteers Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama has made a quite-comfortable living by inciting racial discord. Since Pitts wants to cite Winston Churchill, perhaps he will also want to cite Winston’s statement that the American Civil War was unavoidable because of the vast differences of ethnic background and religion. Or perhaps Pitts will want to cite the statements of Union generals Grant and Sherman that they would not have fought if they thought the Civil War was about freeing the slaves. Obviously Pitts will never quote Lincoln’s statement that blacks would never be the equal of white people and that Lincoln’s sole purpose in waging the war was to preserve the Union.
For Pitts to compare the Confederate battle flag with the Nazi swastika is ignorant and purposefully bigoted, but Pitts is not known to be intellectually honest. The unfortunate fact is that the modern-day educational system is dysfunctional, based on misinformed political correctness, and is incapable of addressing the truths of history except through the rose-colored lenses of enforced modern-day political correctness.
ERNEST WADE, LOGANVILLE
