From time to time, I think you should read some viewer e-mail. I have pulled a few for you to read -- and the selection is totally random. The first ones are about the Supreme Court case involving the phrase "under God" in the pledge and about our segment on the issue last night on the show.
E-mail No. 1
Subject: Michael Nudow
I've been trying to make sense out of this guy since I first heard of
the case on Fox News and I just can't. There's something fundamentally
wrong here. Put aside the dispute between whether we have an
anti-establisment or a separation clause. Nudow claims to be an atheist,
which means he just doesn't believe 'in' God, but rather he doesn't
believe there is a God. (That's the agnostic v. atheist POV.) If we
accept Nudow at his word, how could, "under God," be offensive to him?
How can something that doesn't exist, or any reference to something that
doesn't exist, be offensive? Doesn't it take a physical presence of some
sort for something to be offensive? Even the words themselves should
have no meaning for Nudow because of his beliefs. He has no reference
point from which to determine whether or not they're offensive.
It would seem that all he's really trying to do is overlay his beliefs
on the rest of us and that's exactly what he says he's trying to keep
the government from doing.
E-mail No. 2
My Husband and I watch your program most every evening and enjoy it very much. I have only one question for you. Why would you give press to the athiest that has been trying to do away with "under God" in the Pledge? He has the right to believe or not believe as he chooses, but he has no right to take away everyone else's rights. It is getting so bad here that the "minority" is taking over the laws and taking away the "majority's" rights. Hopefully, that will stop. I was very disappointed that you gave him that time. That is all he wants....to have his face on TV. Just like the "Juror" who was trembling and just couldn't wait to get his face on TV as soon as the Martha Stewart trial was over.
It is rare that we see something on your show that we dislike, but that was one time. Hopefully, we won't have to look at him anymore.
E-mail No. 3
Greta, I was stunned to hear your comment, "maybe some day the court will get it right." (perhaps a word change here or there)
Mr. Newdow was never married to his daughter's mother. She lives with her mother; they go to Church and Sunday school each Sunday. The mother does not object to her saying the pledge.
He was not the custodial parent and did not have the right to speak for his daughter. It is good he is allowed ten days a month.
The daughter is not required the say the pledge.
Muriel Howell Flake
MY ANSWER TO MURIEL: I did not say "maybe some day the court will get it right." What I did say is that I wished the Supreme Court would have decided the case rather than dismiss it by saying that Michael Newdow could not bring the case since he does not have custody. My eagerness to have it decided is because it costs lots of money to bring these matters - including for us, the taxpayers - and this is a topic which will come back before the Supreme Court by a parent who does have custody. This issue will not go away until the Supreme Court issues a decision on the matter. Why not decide it and put an end to the debate? And, frankly, I think it rather wasteful for the Supreme Court to have "taken" the case months ago and then later say what amounts to "never mind."
E-mail No. 4:
Enjoyed the show, though I missed part because of a phone call. (Don't these people know when OTR airs? But that's better than when they call me at 10:30 or later and I think something's happened to my son. He runs around with alternative rock bands and they play in some sketchy areas, to use the vernacular.)
Re Geragos, can a judge fine him for contempt for insulting the intelligence of the bench and jury? :-) For a guy who claims he wants a speedy trial, he sure does everything he can to drag things out, whether by changes of venue or mistrials. To make such a big deal about an unrevealed exclamatory comment, regardless of Peterson's reason for saying it or the policeman's interpretation of what it meant, deserves chuckles from the gallery. Adults should laugh at such childish behavior as a way of giving audible, nonverbal feedback. After all, the judge would've thrown them out had they shouted, "Grow up!" :-)
The segment with Bill Gertz was tops.
Did you see Geraldo's interview with Mark Furman this weekend? If what he said is true, it's mind-boggling.
Congrats on your milestone birthday. A lot of people won't admit to that one, men included. I hit mine 8 years ago and have no complaints. In fact, I have no nostalgic desires to relive my years under 30, even though I grew up in the "don't trust anyone over 30" generation. Life just got going good when I turned 30. The wierd thing is, other than injuries taking longer for recovery, I don't feel at all like I thought I would at this age. Thirty years ago I thought I'd be all creaky and decrepit at this age and except for an AWOL hairline, everything's working OK.
E-mail No. 5
The Scott Peterson trial is setting a bad president. When you try to base guilt on the way one's demeanor is very dangerous to our society. I am angry because noone questions how the State can take someone to trial based on demeanor. The news has publised that the State has no idea how this woman died and really no proof Scott Peterson killed her. If the jury short of a confession convicts on demeanor or the evidence I have heard you talk about on their program they are ignorant as to what president they would set. All a person would need to do is act in a way that law enforcement doesn't deem correct they would be in trouble. What the State is trying to say how one should act in a crisis.
email # 6 (and this IS funny!! make sure you read the "ps" on #6.)
"Happy Birthday # 50"
(Sorry to be late, I just read your blog.)
PS: I printed this large in case your vision is starting to go. 8)
Do you have something you'd like to say to Greta? Please write to her at email@example.com!
Watch On the Record with Greta Van Susteren weeknights at 10 p.m. ET