America is polarized because the right doesn't accept reality
Los Angeles Times Opinion
Sun, March 26, 2023
Supporters of former President Trump are seen in front of Trump Tower in New York on March 17. (Anadolu Agency / Getty Images)
To the editor: In addressing political polarization, columnist Jean Guerrero recommends that we have "more faith in our ability to connect with the other." The implication is that chasms can be bridged between Democrats and Republicans. "The only other options," she writes, "are national divorce or civil war."
Guerrero also acknowledges, "The two sides are not equally situated — Republicans have moved farther to the right than Democrats have to the left, and right-wing extremists are the most likely to embrace violence.”
She cites other differences, but fails to point out the biggest: The former president attempted to overthrow the 2020 election, and he still has a lot of support. Many members of Congress, all Republicans, voted against certifying President Biden's victory. Just last month, a Republican lawmaker actually proposed a national divorce.
As there is no common ground between arsonists and firefighters, a constructive conversation is not possible between those who value democracy, the Constitution and the rule of law, and those who do not.
Guerrero's aspiration is noble, but her effort will fail as long as members of one tribe do not accept the principles on which the nation is governed.
Mike Diehl, Glendale
..
To the editor: In Guerrero's column, I found a long discussion about polarization but no solution other than the obvious — we all need to be more open-minded and tolerant. Let me suggest a solution.
How about eliminating the ability for voters to register with a political party?
We create the polarization ourselves by self-declaration. We should not think of ourselves as a Democrat or a Republican. We are free to vote progressively or conservatively on any issue or candidate.
Of course, Congress would never allow this because we all would be thinking more about the election issues than what political party we subscribe to.
Dwight Abbott, Palos Verdes Estates
..
To the editor: Guerrero acknowledges that "right-wing extremists are the most likely to embrace violence."
Most likely? According to the Anti-Defamation League, in 2022 100% of extremism-tied murders were committed by right-wing extremists.
Don't ask me to "see them as equals."
Cynthia Carle, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: I applaud the effort by Guerrero to reverse polarity on the Democratic and Republican acrimony machine.
I cannot say how this wild ride of Mr. Toad's got started, but I know it is a lot harder getting off than it was getting on. Thanks to Guerrero for trying to light the path away from this collision that is taking place in our society.
Paul Skophammer, Malibu
Los Angeles Times Opinion
Sun, March 26, 2023
Supporters of former President Trump are seen in front of Trump Tower in New York on March 17. (Anadolu Agency / Getty Images)
To the editor: In addressing political polarization, columnist Jean Guerrero recommends that we have "more faith in our ability to connect with the other." The implication is that chasms can be bridged between Democrats and Republicans. "The only other options," she writes, "are national divorce or civil war."
Guerrero also acknowledges, "The two sides are not equally situated — Republicans have moved farther to the right than Democrats have to the left, and right-wing extremists are the most likely to embrace violence.”
She cites other differences, but fails to point out the biggest: The former president attempted to overthrow the 2020 election, and he still has a lot of support. Many members of Congress, all Republicans, voted against certifying President Biden's victory. Just last month, a Republican lawmaker actually proposed a national divorce.
As there is no common ground between arsonists and firefighters, a constructive conversation is not possible between those who value democracy, the Constitution and the rule of law, and those who do not.
Guerrero's aspiration is noble, but her effort will fail as long as members of one tribe do not accept the principles on which the nation is governed.
Mike Diehl, Glendale
..
To the editor: In Guerrero's column, I found a long discussion about polarization but no solution other than the obvious — we all need to be more open-minded and tolerant. Let me suggest a solution.
How about eliminating the ability for voters to register with a political party?
We create the polarization ourselves by self-declaration. We should not think of ourselves as a Democrat or a Republican. We are free to vote progressively or conservatively on any issue or candidate.
Of course, Congress would never allow this because we all would be thinking more about the election issues than what political party we subscribe to.
Dwight Abbott, Palos Verdes Estates
..
To the editor: Guerrero acknowledges that "right-wing extremists are the most likely to embrace violence."
Most likely? According to the Anti-Defamation League, in 2022 100% of extremism-tied murders were committed by right-wing extremists.
Don't ask me to "see them as equals."
Cynthia Carle, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: I applaud the effort by Guerrero to reverse polarity on the Democratic and Republican acrimony machine.
I cannot say how this wild ride of Mr. Toad's got started, but I know it is a lot harder getting off than it was getting on. Thanks to Guerrero for trying to light the path away from this collision that is taking place in our society.
Paul Skophammer, Malibu
Letters to the Editor: If we're a nation 'under God,' what about nonbelievers?
Los Angeles Times Opinion
Sun, March 26, 2023
Attendees of a Neighborhood Council town hall meeting in Los Angeles recite the pledge of allegiance in 2019. (Dania Maxwell/Los Angeles Times)
To the editor: Thanks to Nicholas Goldberg for addressing an issue that I contended with throughout my years in public school. As a lifelong atheist, I have always objected to forced public displays of religious belief. ("Is the Pledge of Allegiance just an empty, performative ritual?" Opinion, March 20)
The words "under God" should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. And, as Goldberg argues, perhaps we should remove the entire pledge and replace it with an ode to the Bill of Rights.
Frances Segal, Rancho Mission Viejo
..
To the editor: Goldberg could not be more wrong about the Pledge of Allegiance. I have always interpreted "one nation, under God," to mean "one nation, under a power greater than our individual selves." This applies to everyone, regardless of religion or lack thereof.
We must value the national rituals that bind us together. Reciting the pledge and singing the national anthem are the opposite of performative, empty symbolism — because without them we're a nation fractured into millions of myopic, quarrelsome individuals nursing their personal grievances.
I'm not sure what will put us back together, but it sure doesn't help to keep attacking reminders like the pledge that this nation, with so much progress still to be made, remains something larger and better than any of us.
Let's stress our commonalities and celebrate our country, which allows for broad criticism while striving always to become better.
Ann Bowman, Santa Monica
..
To the editor: During my tenure as a teacher in the Fontana Unified School District, I taught several students who did not recite the Pledge of Allegiance due to their Jehovah's Witnesses faith. The students would stand at attention, would not place their hand over their heart, and remain silent.
The Supreme Court decision in the 1943 case West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette, which Goldberg cites, centered on Jehovah's Witnesses. As a result of this decision, my students' right not to recite the pledge was protected.
Rather than question my students' loyalty to the U.S., I welcomed the chance for my classroom to serve as a laboratory where daily successful experiments were conducted protecting my Jehovah's Witnesses students' constitutional rights. In the process, students of other faiths exercised their rights and observed how the Constitution should work.
Emilio Alvarez Jr., Fontana
..
To the editor: Goldberg writes, "As a nonbelieving American, I'm put off, to say the least, by the reference to God in the pledge."
As a believing American — a born-again Christian — I refuse to pledge allegiance to the flag of a temporal nation because my primary allegiance is to the Lord Jesus Christ.
While I am willing to stand with my fellow Americans as they recite this litany of performance patriotism, I choose to remain silent because such a pledge is contradictory to my Christian faith.
Emery J. Cummins, San Diego
Los Angeles Times Opinion
Sun, March 26, 2023
Attendees of a Neighborhood Council town hall meeting in Los Angeles recite the pledge of allegiance in 2019. (Dania Maxwell/Los Angeles Times)
To the editor: Thanks to Nicholas Goldberg for addressing an issue that I contended with throughout my years in public school. As a lifelong atheist, I have always objected to forced public displays of religious belief. ("Is the Pledge of Allegiance just an empty, performative ritual?" Opinion, March 20)
The words "under God" should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. And, as Goldberg argues, perhaps we should remove the entire pledge and replace it with an ode to the Bill of Rights.
Frances Segal, Rancho Mission Viejo
..
To the editor: Goldberg could not be more wrong about the Pledge of Allegiance. I have always interpreted "one nation, under God," to mean "one nation, under a power greater than our individual selves." This applies to everyone, regardless of religion or lack thereof.
We must value the national rituals that bind us together. Reciting the pledge and singing the national anthem are the opposite of performative, empty symbolism — because without them we're a nation fractured into millions of myopic, quarrelsome individuals nursing their personal grievances.
I'm not sure what will put us back together, but it sure doesn't help to keep attacking reminders like the pledge that this nation, with so much progress still to be made, remains something larger and better than any of us.
Let's stress our commonalities and celebrate our country, which allows for broad criticism while striving always to become better.
Ann Bowman, Santa Monica
..
To the editor: During my tenure as a teacher in the Fontana Unified School District, I taught several students who did not recite the Pledge of Allegiance due to their Jehovah's Witnesses faith. The students would stand at attention, would not place their hand over their heart, and remain silent.
The Supreme Court decision in the 1943 case West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette, which Goldberg cites, centered on Jehovah's Witnesses. As a result of this decision, my students' right not to recite the pledge was protected.
Rather than question my students' loyalty to the U.S., I welcomed the chance for my classroom to serve as a laboratory where daily successful experiments were conducted protecting my Jehovah's Witnesses students' constitutional rights. In the process, students of other faiths exercised their rights and observed how the Constitution should work.
Emilio Alvarez Jr., Fontana
..
To the editor: Goldberg writes, "As a nonbelieving American, I'm put off, to say the least, by the reference to God in the pledge."
As a believing American — a born-again Christian — I refuse to pledge allegiance to the flag of a temporal nation because my primary allegiance is to the Lord Jesus Christ.
While I am willing to stand with my fellow Americans as they recite this litany of performance patriotism, I choose to remain silent because such a pledge is contradictory to my Christian faith.
Emery J. Cummins, San Diego
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
No comments:
Post a Comment