Atheist writer's argument doubted

Having read Mr. Wackrow’s letter of May 11 several times, I have to think even rational atheists would not agree with him. Maybe one could think that the Supreme Court’s decision on invocations could be endorsing Christianity, but on the other hand one could just as well see it as a decision that it just does not violate the Constitution, period. 

He goes on to say that if you are anything other than a Christian you are well advised to participate or pretend to do so to avoid being treated as a troublemaker by Christians. Really Mr. Wackrow? Just where and when are you talking about this happening? 

You go on to say you have to be or pretend to be religious to be elected to public office and that Americans vote for people based on their religious beliefs. Do you really expect us to believe Kennedy was elected because he was a Catholic or Nixon because he was a Quaker, and when you get to G.W. Bush if I remember correctly he only claimed God spoke to him after he was elected. Romney made no secret of his belief in Jesus Christ and it did not help him get elected. I don’t remember Clinton expressing his beliefs one way or the other in his campaigns and yes Obama had a long-time spiritual adviser who cursed America, and it’s hard to consider that as being true Christianity, and he got elected twice. 

We have had a lot of political races going on the past few months here in the state and the county, and I am not aware of even one ad that states a candidate’s religious or nonreligious beliefs. I would be one of the first to stand up and say this country is going to hell (if you believe in hell) or the dogs if that suits better, especially in the past five years, but unlike you I still believe there is a lot more practical difference between us and Iran, Saudi Arabia, Nepal and Tibet than the holidays. 

Glen Hook, Kalispell