In previous letters, Bill Bailey ridiculed religion. Now he references Jesus and Moses to try and make a point. Ironic? He did manage to make one of my points: the left’s hatred / envy toward successful people. Yes, I am proud to be a successful individual. Successful people create jobs, donate to charity to help feed and clothe the needy, invest in residential and commercial properties, fund the federal government, provide the money for banks to create loans, etc. You know who I find to be greedy? Individuals who received and kept a stimulus check yet did not lose any income. I hope those that fell into that category either donated that money to charity or gave it directly to someone that lost their job due to the pandemic. Those stimulus checks were provided by those of us that pay the majority of the income taxes. Actually, that is not entirely factual. The Fed printed money to fund the COVID relief bill(s). While I admire and respect Jesus, Moses, Einstein, and Ghandi’s (and Mother Teresa) contribution to mankind, money from the private sector is what greases the economic engine and supports charitable causes. Carnegie’s philanthropy, as well as ordinary (successful) individuals that have donated millions of dollars to charity. Einstein’s net worth at the time of his death in 1955 was estimated to be approximately $1M (inflation adjusted). Ironic? He was not some penniless pauper. Those who invest money (that they have earned) and turn a profit are capitalists, not greedy individuals. That’s the reason the Democratic Party despises us, we are not dependent on the government. The Democratic Party needs “victims” in order to promote their agenda of big government, socialism, and Marxism. Hitler will be remembered long after I am dead. Being remembered is not necessarily a good thing. You do not have to be remembered to have a positive effect on society.
Should public schools teach religion? Most folks, I suspect, will say, “No!,” but I say, “Yes!” Let me explain my answer. Religion can be taught in two very different ways. One way is to teach the superiority of one religion over others (or to teach one religion without mentioning others). I call this way “indoctrination.” Another way is to teach the basic tenets of several religions [Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Cosmic religious feeling (Einstein’s religion), etc.] without favoring one religion over another. I call this way “education.” Here’s an analogy: Max is teaching his son (Bob) to play golf. Re the grip to use when holding an iron club — not a putter — Max can teach the subject in two very different ways — Method 1 v. Method 2. Method 1 proceeds thusly: Max teaches Bob one grip (the one Max prefers) without mentioning another grip. Method 2 is to tell Bob that 3 grips have been used to win professional golf tournaments. They are: (1) overlapping grip (Ben Hogan), (2) interlocking grip (Jack Nicklaus), and (3) baseball grip (Art Wall). After demonstrating those grips, Max tells Bob, “Try each of the three grips; then choose the one that works best for you.” This analogy demonstrates perfectly the difference between indoctrination (Method 1) and education (Method 2). Einstein said, “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.” He believed that Galileo, Kepler, and others (including himself) who spent years of solitary labor trying to unlock nature’s secrets did so because of “Cosmic religious feeling.” So, in my opinion, public schools should educate — not indoctrinate — students about religion. Doing so, I believe, will broaden their perspectives and increase religious tolerance, a worthy goal.