Letters to the Editor
This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.
Misinterpreting the Establishment Clause?
Not a constitutional lawyer, I nonetheless would make the following points to Abraham H. Foxman regarding his “In Concurring In Part and Dissenting In Part” [Opinion, December 16, 2004]: Mr. Foxman asserts that the Establishment Clause reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting the Establishment of religion…” Actually, the clause reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” which gives a different meaning. From this, he argues, “Government may not support religion of any kind nor interfere with anyone’s religious observance,” i.e., the “wall of separation” Justice Scalia cannot find is there.
A better reading is that the clause prevents the establishment of a national church or preference as between churches and prevents the disestablishment of the then-existing state sponsored churches (whose existence is hard to reconcile with Mr. Foxman’s view).
The phrase “wall of separation,” originates in Thomas Jefferson’s 1803 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (Jefferson was not in America when the amendment passed). Not in the text, Justice Scalia would have no use for it. Not in the text and so informally stated, it is nonetheless, for many, a premise from which analysis of church-state questions start.
We, the people, may feel Mr. Foxman is right as a policy matter, i.e., strict separation is appropriate. But the Constitution doesn’t compel that result and Justice Scalia’s analysis didn’t warrant Mr. Foxman’s swift dismissal.
CHRIS REITZEL
Manhattan
‘Shake-Up at Turtle Bay’
The New York Sun gives short shrift to the proposed January 24, 2005, General Assembly special assembly on Auschwitz, an initiative that America, Israel, and 72 nations to date have endorsed [“Shake-Up at Turtle Bay,” Editorial, December 24, 2004].
Secretary-General Annan has called it an “important” event that he wants to attend. Last week, Israeli Foreign Minister Shalom phoned the secretary-general to thank him for encouraging United Nations member states to ratify what will be the first such event in U.N. history.
Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel and congressman Tom Lantos, both survivors of the Shoah, have similarly praised Mr. Annan for his unprecedented leadership in this regard.
The U.N. special session on Auschwitz is one of several positive developments where U.N. detractors should refrain from knee jerk rejectionism and take “yes” for an answer.
EVE EPSTEIN
Vice President
National Committee on American Foreign Policy (www.ncafp.org)
Manhattan
Dov Hikind’s U.N. Comments
After reading Assemblyman Hikind’s comments highlighted in The New York Sun’s article titled “N.Y. Lawmakers Deal A Blow to U.N. Expansion” [Meghan Clyne, Page One, December 3, 2004], I was quite surprised by his unprofessional choice of words and display of unchecked anger when publicly describing the United Nations. Frankly, I find his representation of the citizens of this great city embarrassing.
One might disagree with the actions that the U.N. and some of its member countries have taken in the past and may also be frustrated with the oil-for-food scandal, which, I agree, was a terrible display of corruption on many levels. However, to use phrases like “go to hell” or comparing countries like Mozambique to hell demonstrates an ethnocentric American point of view that is not representative of Mr. Hikind’s constituency and is an embarrassment to all New Yorkers and Americans.
Maybe Mr. Hikind is unaware that the U.N. Secretariat is only one part, one organ, of a very large and diverse organization. Maybe he hasn’t seen the incredible good that the U.N. – which includes the World Health Organization, Unicef, and the U.N. Development Program – has done for the world’s most unfortunate people and instead he has focused only on the current headlines. There are people within the U.N. that actually go to places like Mozambique, Rwanda or Sudan and stand between two warring parties or provide care, risking their own lives, even giving their own lives – to help people who are starving or being senselessly slaughtered while the most of the world, including America, turns its back.
If Mr. Hikind is disappointed with the U.N.’s recent decision to withhold the results of the oil-for-food investigation (run by an American), then that is his right. But his aggressive and mortifyingly embarrassing comments were unprofessional, xenophobic, and downright shameful.
E. LEE SORAL
Manhattan
Please address letters intended for publication to the Editor of The New York Sun. Letters may be sent by e-mail to editor@nysun.com, facsimile to 212-608-7348, or post to 105 Chambers Street, New York City 10007. Please include a return address and daytime telephone number. Letters may be edited.