Military chaplains exercise faith freely
Regarding “Gay-marriage debate is ‘all about the children’?” (AJC.com, April 29), Jay Bookman made the false claim that military chaplains “operate under a different set of rules than civilian religious leaders,” and “as a condition of service they agree not to use their position to proselytize to what amounts to a captive audience.” This is simply untrue. None of our service members forfeit their First Amendment rights “as a condition of service.” As senior counsel and director of military affairs for Liberty Institute, I have successfully defended our troops’ constitutional right to freely exercise their faith numerous times. Our service members, and especially our chaplains, have an undeniable right to free exercise in accordance with their faith traditions. In fact, one federal court ruled that the right of military chaplains to speak in accordance with their doctrinal tenets actually overrides military regulations. Also, Congress recently reinforced this principle by enacting explicit protections for military chaplains’ religious freedom. So the bottom line is: No, the government may not compel even military chaplains to say or do anything that violates their beliefs.
MICHAEL BERRY, SENIOR COUNSEL AND DIRECTOR OF MILITARY AFFAIRS, LIBERTY INSTITUTE
Slow pokes, just keep to the right
I am a supporter of the ‘Slow Poke’ law and was glad to see people are being ticketed for violating it. Every time I get behind someone in the left lane — which by the way is a passing lane — the slow poke is usually on his or her cell phone paying absolutely no attention to what is going on around them.
This law isn’t meant to punish people driving the speed limit. It is a law to enforce the signs we all see on the interstates that read, “Slow Traffic Keep Right.” No, I’m not advocating that our roadways become race tracks, but I do know after navigating Atlanta interstates for many years that people driving slow in the passing lanes have caused many accidents when people using that lane to pass suddenly have to slam on their brakes. Use common sense, folks. If you are in a lane of traffic with nobody in front of you and a line of cars behind you, I think out of courtesy you need to move over to let them pass you. If you don’t, you are breaking the law.
JIMMY MILLARD, KENNESAW
Empathy for others isn’t solely ‘liberal’
The “honest” answer by the writer of “Why support a liberal agenda?” (Opinion, May 21) is probably the most sanctimonious, self-righteous piece of journalism ever written. The answers might just as well have been to the question of “Why I support a conservative agenda,” except the author wants people to believe only liberals think of other people, only liberals believe children should have a good education, only liberals believe everyone is created equal, only liberals believe in decent health care for those who can’t care for themselves, ad nauseum. All citizens of this country should believe in these things, and it should never be implied that only liberals feel such empathy. This seems to me another step in separating one group from another, and it certainly doesn’t help our common cause to restore values in this country.
MEL MATUSZAK, DACULA
Privacy concerns don’t go far enough
Lost in the debate over the Patriot Act and the collection of phone records is the fact all the data in question already exists in the hands of private corporations — that is, phone companies. Extensive consumer record-keeping by private corporations is already a fact of life, though scarcely appreciated by most citizens. Anyone who doubts this should take the time to examine their credit reporting files and the database specific to them on data concentration sites like Acxiom.com. The debate over government’s use of phone records is worth having, but where is the debate over the control and oversight over the vastly greater data kept on us and used by private corporations?
JERRY SEUFERT, ALPHARETTA
