Williston Observer

Of church and state

Oct. 29, 2009

By Mike Benevento

“Separation of church and state. Separation of church and state.”

Those that strive to remove religion from the public square recite that little ditty over and over again in nauseating fashion. They repeat the phrase so much so that you would think it is a truism dating back to the founding of the United States.

The long forgotten truth is the passage does not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. It never has. It never should.

Contrary to what today’s secularists want you to believe, the United States was founded with a firm reverence to God. The founding fathers were very religious men. They believed God bestowed special blessings upon America, making it an exceptional nation. As such, they were extremely thankful for the many gifts God gave the fledgling state.

Right from the start, the Constitutional framers recognized the importance of faith in everyday life. They knew that a strong spiritual upbringing goes hand-in-hand with being a good citizen. Thus, the government should not restrict religion.

Along with keeping religion free, the founders feared a state-sponsored religion like that which existed in Great Britain at the time. The United Kingdom had recognized the Church of England as its official religion — something the founding fathers wanted to avoid. While most colonialists were Christians, the framers wanted to ensure America did not favor one religion over another.

Wary of government intrusion, the founders limited its power in the U.S. Constitution. Economics professor Walter Williams of George Mason University recently wrote, “At the heart of the American idea is the deep distrust and suspicion the founders of our nation had for government …”

The Bill of Rights — the first 10 amendments to the Constitution — established America’s religious freedom. The First Amendment declares, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”

Concerning religion, there are two parts (clauses) to the First Amendment. The Establishment Clause prevents government from creating or recognizing a national religion. The Free Exercise Clause limits government’s restriction of religious activities. As long as people are not doing anything illegal, they are free to worship (or not worship) as they desire.

For over 160 years, the government — especially the courts — respected the spirit and intent of the First Amendment. It did not establish a national religion and religious freedom was not abridged.

According to Blavatsky.net’s Reed Carson, changes started in 1947 as of a result of the Supreme Court’s Everson v. Board of Education decision. Justice Hugo Black, writing for the majority, slipped into the opinion a view of his own entirely contradictory to the court’s ruling.

Carson noted that Black added a new and previously unknown legal principle: The first amendment erected a high and impregnable wall between the church and the state. Black based this new dictum on a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a Connecticut Baptist community. Written 14 years after the First Amendment was passed, Jefferson’s letter celebrated the fact the amendment protected the church from the state.

Jefferson wrote, “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”

Ironically, as Carson writes, Jefferson’s letter was intended to reassure the Baptists that the new federal government would not endanger the free expression of their religion. The purpose of the wall was to protect the church from the state. It was not, as Black misinterpreted, to protect the state from the church.

Since that fateful Supreme Court decision, government has slowly eroded religious freedom. Instead of the First Amendment, the mystical wall of separation between church and state is commonly cited in court decisions. In fact, many Americans wrongly believe the First Amendment did not protect religious freedom, but instead discussed the separation of church and state.

Today, while an overwhelming majority of Americans believe in God, many secularists are in charge of the country. Secularists, atheists and other non-believers aim to shut religion out of the public sector. They are greatly aided by an upside-down interpretation of the Constitution, which was supposed to protect the church. Thanks to the Supreme Court, the First Amendment is nowadays employed against religious organizations.

Unfortunately, government suppression of religion is one of the best examples of what Professor Williams meant when he wrote, “We are losing what’s made our country great. Instead of moving toward greater liberty, we’re moving toward greater government control of our lives.”

Michael Benevento is a former Air Force fighter jet weapon systems officer. He has a bachelor’s degree in Military History and a master’s in International Relations. Mike resides in Williston with his wife Kristine and their two sons, Matthew and Calvin.

[Read more...]

Thankfully, we're not a democracy

Oct. 29, 2009

By Steve Mount

“We live in a democracy!” is an often-heard cry from those who feel unheard in government. The statement, however, has a basic inaccuracy, an inaccuracy that could be described as simple semantics, but certainly is not.

The United States is not a democracy, and we should be thankful for that. What we are, instead, is a representative democracy. That one word makes all the difference in the world.

A democracy, in its purest form, is rule by the people. Every issue of importance is put to the people for a vote, and the majority rules. The system sounds good — everyone has an equal vote, an equal voice and the will of the people is the will of the majority.

There are, however, many difficulties with such a system, a couple of which I will detail.

The first is one of practicality. It is impractical to put every issue to the people in any but the smallest of societies. It’s often been said that the closest we, as modern Americans, come to pure democracy is that staple of March in Vermont, the town meeting.

While I agree that the town meeting is an important institution, it is notable that even small towns have learned that the town meeting is only effective as a method of governance to a specific point. Most obviously, town meetings are only held once per year. The rest of the year, the town is invariably run by representatives. More to the point, most people simply don’t want to be involved in the everyday decision-making of the town.

Western society has a rich history, dating a thousand years, of delegating authority. The authority must be kept in check, however, and in the United States we have devised institutions to do that. Elections are the most basic check, but we also have term limits, checks and balances and separation of powers.

So basic is the shift from democracy to representative democracy that we see it at every level of government. Not only in the U.S. Congress, but also in the Vermont Legislature, in the Selectboard, even to the FAP Advisory Council in our schools. Representative democracy is all around us and, unlike pure democracy, it works.

Another major problem with a pure democracy is “majority rule.” Most of the time, majority rule works just fine. When we are selecting a representative, the candidate with the most votes should be the winner. If the question of a roundabout on U.S. 2 is put to a vote, then the majority should carry the question.

But some things should not be subject to majority rule — basic human rights, for example. The ability of a person to speak his mind or to worship as she wishes should not be subject to a vote. If a people voted to institute slavery, the fact that a majority voted for it would make it no less a violation of human rights.

The Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution and the similar Declaration of Rights in the Vermont Constitution lay out for all to see those principles that we hold dear and which are not subject to a vote.

“The people have a right to freedom of speech,” the Vermont Constitution says. There is no exception that reads, “Unless the people of the state vote to remove that freedom from any person or group.”

This entire discussion came to mind because of a conversation I’ve been having with someone who is unsatisfied with our current national government. He advocates the abolition of the Congress and its replacement with the votes of the people. The idea sounds great in sound-bite format: “Your voice will be heard! Your vote will really count! Take the influence of lobbyists out of the government!”

These slogans are rooted in democratic principles, and might be true in a pure democracy. As noted above, though, it is impractical. We do not all want to be part-time politicians. We want to elect people to do that for us.

Democracy is a great idea in principle but a lousy one in practice. What we have done is taken that principle and tweaked the system to make it work for each of our levels of government. It can be improved, no doubt about that, but our attempts to improve the system should not include throwing it out and replacing it with something we know will not work.

Steve Mount has been a Williston resident since 1996. He is a software engineer at GE Healthcare and is devoted to his family, his country and his Constitution. You can reach Steve at [email protected] or read his blog at http://saltyrain.com/ls.

[Read more...]

Oct. 29, 2009

Thank you, Williston!

Whitcomb's Land of Pumpkins would like to thank everyone who participated in and supported our Annual Giant Pumpkin Display/Weighoff and Williston School Fundraiser.

We displayed and weighed some very nice and big pumpkins, which included a 736-pound pumpkin grown by Williston's Matthew Daily. It was a sunny and beautiful day and fun was had by all. A total of $785 was raised by pumpkin purchases, maze admissions and a bake sale.

A special thank you to our local business people for your generous prize donations.

The Whitcomb Family, Williston

Please sign new petition

There seems to be some confusion about the petitions being circulated about a vote for or against a roundabout at the intersection in the village.

In the spring, the Selectboard approved a roundabout where we now have a four-way stop. Petitions in the spring were circulated to get the Selectboard to rescind their vote.

This did not happen. The petitions out now are to give the town’s people a chance to vote “yes” or “no” for the roundabout by having the question put on the ballot in March 2010.

In addition to last week's list of where the petitions can be found, there are now petitions at the Sunoco next to exit 12.

Please sign soon, as the petitions need to be picked up by end of the month. We did not wish to do this petition drive during holidays or cold weather. Thank you.

Ginger Isham and Marie Lareau, Williston

Grandfather clock is Williston opportunity

I favor the acquisition of this important town treasure.

I am referring to the Williston Observer’s Oct. 22, front page article regarding a significant work of original Williston art in the form of a "larger than life" grandfather clock.

If you have not read the article, please do. In any case, upon reading it, please contact me with your advice for the Williston Historical Society Board of Directors with your opinion; acquire or not. I will forward your answers to the board.

I am not on the Historical Society board, but my wife Lucy and I have been members for many years. I participated in the preservation and moving of the Stove Pipe Corner School house to our Town Green. That process was as good for our community as possibly the preservation itself. I believe the Munson Grandfather Clock presents those same opportunities for our community.

Time is of the essence! Contact me at [email protected] or at 878-2180 before 9 p.m.

Rep. Jim McCullough, D-Williston

[Read more...]

Debunking the myths of teenage drinking

Oct. 29, 2009

By Dayna Scott

“All teens drink alcohol!”

That is, if you believe what you see and hear in movies, TV commercials, magazine ads and storefront displays. But don’t be fooled — this is just a profit-driven illusion on the part of the alcohol industry. Not all teens drink — in fact, 66 percent of our Chittenden South eighth through 12th graders didn’t drink in the past 30 days, according to the 2007 Youth Risk Behavior Survey.

The myth that all youth drink alcohol (or even that most do) is just one of many promoted in our culture. Here are a few other myths related to underage drinking that Connecting Youth would like to dispel.

MYTH: In Europe, youth drink more responsibly than in the United States.

FACT: First, there is no such thing as “responsible” use by teens here since they are under 21 and alcohol is illegal. Allowing teens to break the law should not be viewed as responsible. In addition, consumption and binge drinking rates are actually higher in most European countries than in the United States. According to the American Journal of Public Health, the national rate of binge drinking among 12- to 18-year-olds in Germany and the United Kingdom is double that of what it is in the United States (55 percent vs. 25 percent). According to researchers from the PIRE Prevention Center in Berkeley, Calif., data collected from 15- and 16-year-olds in 35 European countries (from Greenland to Turkey) indicated that European teens drink more often, drink more heavily and get drunk more frequently than American teens.

MYTH: It’s better for kids to start drinking at a young age, so they learn how to “handle” it.

FACT: The adolescent brain is still developing — especially the front part of the brain that is responsible for judgment and reason. Many recent studies show that alcohol can have a negative impact on healthy brain development. In particular, it can lead to reduced sensitivity to intoxication, adverse effects to cognitive thinking and the actual reduction in the size of the hippocampus, the region of the brain responsible for memory and learning. Early drinking is also associated with a higher risk for academic failure, depression, suicide, sexual assault, teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted infection and other substance abuse. Young drinkers are also four times more likely to develop alcohol dependence.

MYTH: Teens are practically adults and are old enough to make responsible decisions.

FACT: Many teens can and do make responsible decisions; this is, however, in spite of the fact that their brains are not fully developed. Teens are more prone to risky behaviors and often make impulsive decisions. This is due, in part, to the fact that the brain does not fully develop until the mid-20s. Adults make decisions using the frontal cortex, which controls rational functions. The frontal cortex of a teen’s brain is the last part to develop and, therefore, teens rely on the back part of their brain (the amygdala), which controls the instinctual, emotional and impulsive functions. Teens are also more prone to peer pressure as they seek approval from their friends, which can interfere with good judgment.

MYTH: It’s OK for teens to drink, as long as they don’t drive.

FACT: Only one-third of underage drinking deaths involve auto crashes — so taking away the car keys doesn’t make underage drinking safe. The remaining two-thirds of youth alcohol-related deaths involve alcohol poisoning, homicides, suicides and unintentional injuries such as burns, drowning and falls.

MYTH: “Clean cut” kids or athletes are less likely to use alcohol or other drugs.

FACT: All kinds of kids are susceptible to use. These include athletes, drama students, national honor society members, students from all socio-economic levels — substance use can affect anyone. Beware of developing the attitude that “My kids are good kids — they wouldn’t drink or do drugs!” The labels “good” kids and “bad” kids put a moral judgment on what should remain an issue of health and safety. That said, sometimes the so-called “good” kids are more likely to get away with using because people don’t want to believe that they would do that.

MYTH: Kids are going to drink no matter what — it’s a rite of passage.

FACT: Remember, two-thirds of teens in Chittenden South do not drink alcohol. Parents can help raise that number by creating more healthy rites of passage for teens. Do something special to acknowledge major milestones and make sure it doesn’t involve alcohol.

LEARNING TO COMMUNICATE

Here are some tips on how to better communicate with your teen:

>  Listen, do not judge or lecture.

>  Have short conversations that allow your teen to share situations. Ask open-ended questions about pressures they may face socially. Have conversations regarding your values, rules and boundaries involving alcohol, tobacco and other drug use.

>  Work with your teen to develop a contract outlining the consequences to drinking — be sure it is something you can both sign off on.

>  Be available during times when your teen is socializing.

>  Volunteer to supervise or chaperone events at other homes in the community and through school.

>  Educate yourself about alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, be a credible source of information for your teen and be willing to learn with and from your child.

Dayna Scott is the CY coordinator and grants administrator. CY, or Connecting Youth, is a community-based organization dedicated to creating a safe and healthy environment for young people. Operating out of Chittenden South Supervisory Union, CY serves Charlotte, Hinesburg, St. George, Shelburne and Williston and is located online at www.seewhy.info and on Facebook at www.facebook.com/connectingyouth.

[Read more...]

Oct. 29, 2009

By Tim Simard

Observer staff

A young Williston entrepreneur’s fiery snack received national exposure Monday morning. That’s when daytime talk show host and Food Network star Rachael Ray highlighted Alec’s Spicy Pretzels on her nationally syndicated Rachael Ray Show.

It was a quick mention, but one Alec Distler and his family hope will introduce the popular snack food outside the Champlain Valley.

Alec’s Spicy Pretzels started out last year as a small, family-run business. It was the brainchild of Alec, then a Williston Central School eighth grader. He now attends Champlain Valley Union High School.

Based on a family recipe, the pretzels are baked with a blend of spices that give the snack a kick and have garnered countless fans in the Williston School District and at CVU.

Alec’s mother, Lynn Distler, said the show’s producers expressed interest in the product and asked Alec if he’d be willing to send in free samples — 150 large bags of pretzels. Each audience member received a bag after the taping of Monday’s show, Lynn Distler said, as did Ray and her staff.

“It was a great little segment,” Lynn Distler said.

The Distlers hope the national exposure will help the business grow. In recent months, the pretzel snacks have been selling in more Champlain Valley convenience stores, as well as at Colchester and South Burlington high schools.

The company has also created a blossoming Internet business at www.alecsspicypretzels.com. Lynn Distler said the company has shipped pretzels all over the country.

The company expanded over the summer by hiring four part-time helpers and moved its baking operations to Burlington Bay Market, where the Distlers more than quadrupled their production capacity. Lynn Distler hopes Alec’s Spicy Pretzels will further expand into the New England market. She said her son wants to sell the snacks at Fenway Park next baseball season.

“This has been fun for us so far,” Lynn Distler said. “We’re just playing this one day at a time.”

[Read more...]