Letters on nation divided, replacing Scalia, abortion, Clinton e-mails

America one nation or irreconcilably divided?

When I was a child, they told us that America was “one nation under God with liberty and justice for all.” It is now beyond argument that there is little liberty and no justice for many in America today. And as for “under God” – can that be anything but an American anachronism, defined as “belonging to an earlier time”?

The only real question left is whether America is still “one nation” – but isn’t that the point? The only way to enjoy the benefits of being “one nation” is if “the people” belong to the same time, hold the same desire for liberty and agree to the same level of responsibility, see the role of law and the fruits of justice the same way, and understand God (or the absence thereof) in harmony with one another. It is ultimately shared human beliefs and values that support a nation, not the proximate power of a federal government to hold it together by force.

The death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia simply highlights what we all know: America is already irreconcilably divided into at least two nations, and probably more. In our unwillingness to admit this, we will attempt to hold America together awhile longer by increasing the levels of federal force, but this will only increase the levels of frustration and futility now that Americans are so deeply divided on the underlying foundations of social life.

Replacing Scalia

One can but hope that conservatives are eventually able to muster the integrity to admit that, were the shoe on the other foot, they would assert that their conservative president is fully expected by the Constitution to nominate a justice to replace Justice Antonin Scalia. Surely Scalia, as a “strict constructionist,” would affirm the rightness of the president nominating a new justice.

We must pray the president has the wisdom to offer a principled legacy by nominating someone who is truly a moderate; then his opposition can show its true colors. We the people might not expect that of either party, but we have every right, and duty, to demand it.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., deceivingly states that “the American people should have a voice in selecting their next Supreme Court justice.” He is right; the people do have a voice – that of our duly elected president, and that of the senators who can confirm or reject.

As for Donald Trump, his advice – as the “outsider” he trumpets himself to be – is to play Washington politics to the hilt: “Delay, delay, delay” approving any possible nomination. That’s precisely what Washington has been practicing “in service to the nation.”

God’s timing?

With regard to the death of Justice Antonin Scalia: It seems to me that we should be hearing someone like Pat Robertson, or the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, advising us that God obviously is trying to tell us that he wants President Obama to select the next Supreme Court justice. Why else would he take Scalia at this time?

Not middle ground

Columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. described an apparent middle position in the abortion debate defined as pro-choice yet anti-abortion (“Pro-life and pro-choice are not the only options,” Feb. 15 Opinion). Though it seems to offer a nuanced balance between women’s rights and unborn life, it truly affirms neither.

This is evident in its mistaken priority of quality of life over life itself. For instance, Pitts claimed that his pro-choice beliefs are rooted in concern for the well-being of women. Yet he admited that unborn babies are people. For instance, he described having wondered in awe at tiny relatives still developing in the womb, asking “who this new person will turn out to be and what things she will bring into life.”

With both of these propositions in hand (women have a right to quality life; unborn children are people), Pitts then argued a “middle” ground that includes that sometimes those unborn children should die if that preserves or brings about a better quality of life for women. Thus, he argued that sometimes having life is less valuable than having a certain kind of life.

Pitts is correct that there is a middle ground in this argument, but his is not it. Rather, it consists of saying “no” to abortion while saying “yes” to practical, timely and respectful support of women in unwanted and crisis pregnancies. There are numerous agencies that do this kind of thing that would greatly benefit from even a fraction of the funds that our government currently provides to entities that perform abortions.

Let us think clearly about all matters bearing on human welfare, even when uncomfortable and difficult.

Law doesn’t apply?

The FBI regularly releases more of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s e-mails. If it is illegal to use a private server, regardless of what it contained, why is she allowed to run freely?

Clinton said the e-mails were not marked as “secret.” That is beside the point. They were to be classified.

Is this another case of laws not applying to politicians?

This story was originally published February 17, 2016 at 6:04 PM with the headline "Letters on nation divided, replacing Scalia, abortion, Clinton e-mails."