Letters

The Danbury Letter And Common Sense

As I read the article on the Danbury letter, ("Priority Mail," January Church & State), I kept thinking how odd that the central issue was what Thomas Jefferson's opinion "really was," rather than what common sense really dictates. Jefferson clearly, to his credit, spoke up for common sense. But by our mentally binding the issue of separation of church and state to the perceived opinion of one historic personage, however revered, we divorce principle and truth from their true and fundamentally indisputable authority dispassionate, obvious, reason.

Whether with tongue in cheek or with covert sentiment, I could say,."I might tolerate some influence on the state by MY church and religion, but GOD FORBID FOREVER it be ANYONE ELSE'S!"

In the interest of fairness, however, I would forgo the universal benefits I believe mankind would garner from greater influence of MY religion as a small price for insurance that society be forever shielded from still, more of the horrors of greed, bigotry, bloodshed, war, torture, and terror for which virtually all the "old time" religions have so often been and continue to be the ready pretext.

-Tobey Llop

East Amherst, N.Y.

Roy Moore And The Constitution

I am a proud native of Alabama, but I fear I am far from proud of Roy Moore, the chief justice of the Supreme Court of my home state. In fact, I find it totally incredible that any jurist in this country could be so ignorant of the supreme law of this land, the U.S. Constitution.

I refer specifically to the First Amendment's establishment clause, which guarantees all citizens freedom of religion. And don't forget its inextricable corollary, freedom from religion, which Chief Justice Moore in all his puzzling, unbounded religious fanaticism chooses to ignore.

Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and other founders sought to erect by that clause what has been termed a wall of separation between church and state in this new republic. American historical documents make it abundantly clear that the drafters of the U.S. Constitution firmly had in mind the horrible, and indeed often bloody, consequences ensuing from religious and political leaders within certain European countries who were sleeping in the same bed, as it were. So, they wanted to prevent it from happening here.

Time has proven them to be very wise. Let us all beware of clerics and public officials trying to persuade us that their political ambitions are not being served by their stated religious piety - for example, their Muslim counterparts in Iran.

-Reginald Jones

Honolulu, Hawaii

Vouchers And The Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Ohio school voucher case could open the floodgates to similar laws in other states. This would have a fundamental and long lasting effect on our society and begin the breakdown of the separation of church and state.

However, it would not only violate the part of the First Amendment to the Constitution which says that no law respecting the establishment of a religion shall be made, but also the part of the amendment which says no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion shall be made.

I belong to a Unitarian-Universalist church. One of the things we try to teach our children and young people is the way science establishes knowledge, the nature of that knowledge and respect for the findings of science. This is one of the bases of our religious principles. An explanation of our fundamental principles says they derive in part from "... teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science..."

There are many churches in our society to which we would never contribute money because they stand in firm opposition to science. Many fundamentalist Christian churches teach that evolution is a myth and that our hard-gained knowledge of how the universe developed is false. Not a penny of my tax dollars should go to such churches.

Vouchers would not only make me contribute to such churches, they would also involve me in supporting teaching children and young people things which I think are false. Both of these are violations of my religious freedom.

-James C. Kimberly

Lincoln, Neb.

Questions About 'In God We Trust'

Concerning state and local decisions and proposals requiring the posting of "In God We Trust" in public schools, reported in the March issue of Church & State ("People & Events"): Proponents who consider such postings constitutional as merely the posting of the national motto should be reminded that the moral message they want "In God We Trust" to project needs to be explained by the teachers in these schools. The fact that this entails religious instruction renders such postings unconstitutional. Besides, some teachers may rightly object to adding any form of religious instruction to the duties for which they were hired.

Legislatures intent (whatever the legal risk) on requiring such postings in public schools should feel obligated to appropriate the funds, not only to pay for the postings, but also to ensure that teachers are properly instructed in how to interpret those hallowed words in a totally nonsectarian manner (if such a standard is possible). In the absence of religious interpretation (unconstitutional), "In God We Trust" would end up getting as much meaningful attention as it does on our currency - as much as those other inscriptions on the dollar bill: "Annuit Coeptis" and "Novus Ordo Seclorum."