MAILBAG:

I’ve been wondering why a large percentage of the Hollywood glitterati deign to share their exalted political opinions with us, the great unwashed.

Maybe they think that spouting someone else’s words in front of a camera somehow qualifies them to also foist their viewpoints on those of us who couldn’t care a whit whom they vote for or even if they vote at all. Is it that they think they’re so smart? Or is it that they think we’re so dumb? They live in an insular, incestuous society of hyper-millionaires who continually seek the approval and adulation of each other, afraid continually that their talent may wither and their fame flicker. They are literally preaching to the choir each time they spew some partisan platitude to each other, no doubt expecting and receiving high fives in return.

No problem there. But when they choose to hurl that drivel from on high at a TV camera during an awards show like the Emmys, they reveal themselves to be shallow, imperious and condescending dolts with too much to say and not enough sense not to say it. Since the country is pretty well divided right down the middle between the major political parties, for these two-dimensional people to be seen in public lockstep behind only one party and one candidate offering up mind-numbing invective is not only dumb, it has to negatively affect their pocketbooks.

The fact that they have to know this and do it anyway tells us all we need to know about their intellect. As my mom used to say, “It’s better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

I’m up to about 50 of these “stars” whose movies and TV shows I won’t see because of their very public and unwanted partisan political advocacy. Maybe if we all did the same they’d get the message and temper their commentary. One can only hope.

CHUCK CASSITY

Costa Mesa

Crosses can’t be pinned to one group

There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution (“In Theory: Can crosses be non-religious?,” Sept 19).

Nor can it be inferred. The Constitution does forbid a state religion because it would require making laws that restrict the free practice of other religions, which would violate the 1st Amendment.

Religion is a return to a perceived truth, coming together, and organized under one umbrella and espousing that perceived truth. The pettiness of religious leaders today of all perceived truths is amusing at best and destructive at worst.

The 1st Amendment forbids the federal government from making laws concerning established religions or the free exercise thereof. That would include restricting the teaching of religion, such as satori of Zen Buddhist or creationism of Catholics.

And now, the cross. The cross in all its many forms has a long and interesting history. As such, the cross can not be pinned to one group exclusively except for political purpose. For religious leaders not to know this is a level of ignorance or politics that is just not acceptable.

Stop writing and spend more time reading and research. It should be noted that I have not read the court case involving Soledad Cross. It would be my guess that the cause of action and the court decision is based on a writing in the Constitution that does not exist — a myth.

The fact that religious leaders, politicians, courts and educators can base decisions and public policy on a myth is disturbing, to say the least.

AUGUST LIGHTFOOT

Newport Beach