The U.S. is not a ‘Christian nation’
Pluralism now. Pluralism tomorrow. Pluralism forever.
America was not founded as a “Christian nation.” Our nation was founded, in part, in response to the religious tyranny Americans experienced in countries they’d left. Thus, our First Amendment protects religious liberty: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This means our nation will never establish a national church nor show preference for any one religion.
James Madison addressed this in 1785:
“The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right … because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men.
“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? … (P)ride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”
Note: The words “under God” were added to the Pledge of Allegiance (1892) only in 1954; on paper currency, “In God We Trust” was added in 1956 — reactions to the Cold War.
Some have pledged allegiance to someone who engaged in extramarital relations during his three marriages. Yet, he “foment(s) an ideology that holds conservatism, whiteness and Christianity as a holy trinity of the ‘real’ American identity, with himself as the object of worship,’” according to an opinion from Newsweek. False religiosity is often a cover for confidence tricksters. Consider Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggert, Ted Haggard, Jerry Falwell Jr., Doug Phillips, et al.
Are you a patriot and defender of our Constitution? Read the Bill of Rights. Become a student of history. Inform yourself with trustworthy sources. Support interfaith ministries.
Denise Fazio, Ed.D., Longmont
Iris road diet benefits everyone – including cars
As someone who primarily gets around Boulder by driving (when going somewhere that is not in walking distance), I’m invested in discussions about the Iris Avenue improvements. From my perspective, the best solution is to remove car lanes!
The next time you travel on Iris Avenue, pay attention to what causes traffic. Often, you’re stopped behind a car waiting to make a left turn across two oncoming lanes. Or, you’re stuck behind a cyclist who doesn’t have a separate bike lane to ride in. Perhaps you’re slowing down to let a car to merge into your lane — which creates a “butterfly effect” of cars behind you braking all at once, causing congestion. All of the above are symptoms of a multi-lane road with no dedicated turn lane or bike lane.
A redesigned road with one car lane in each direction — plus a protected left-turn lane and separated bike lane — would help traffic flow consistently without interruption, thus reducing chances of congestion or collisions. During emergencies, the center turn lane can be used for emergency vehicles or evacuation traffic. In one proposed “alternative,” the bike lane can be used by emergency vehicles as well.
Even if you have no plans to traverse Iris Avenue as a cyclist or pedestrian, a lane reduction would make the road safer for car drivers too. Think about how many distracted drivers you see using their phones. In the current four-lane configuration, you risk damaging your car (or your life!) as you drive side-by-side with aloof drivers. Wide roads with multiple lanes provides a false sense of security, thus enabling careless behavior. Adding traffic-calming measures can help “dummy-proof” the road. Perhaps it’ll also lower car insurance rates!
Essentially, a road diet for Iris Avenue benefits everyone — that includes car drivers, too.
Sean Haney, Boulder
