It, instead, is a government recognition of religion in general and of God, which clearly violates the separation of church and state doctrine reasonably inferred from the First Amendment, etc. The important distinction is that in the former, the government is not endorsing or forcing its subjects to urinate on religious symbols, while in the latter, there is a passive condoning by the government of religion with a place in government and thus the views of those conducting the prayers are forced upon those who do not wish to hear them with the consent of the government. It was not that these positions were markedly contrary to mine as well as to the spirit of the Constitution that drove me to write, however.
Wills entirely misses the point.
About the only area where the editorial got close to the truth is when it referred to the Clinton administration's lack of a coherent energy policy. This fits in well with the Journal Sentinel's liberal agenda. The fact that Iowa benefits from ethanol should have put a red flag on any of his comments. As to the real reasons for the higher gas prices, the old economic forces of supply and demand are at work. There is a greater demand for oil today, but there is also a tremendous supply.