LETTERS

God And Public Discourse

In December 2003, Church & State printed an article by Erwin Chemerinsky opposing the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance ("One Nation Under The Constitution," December 2003 Church & State). AU seems to be supporting that position. As a long-time supporter of AU, I appreciate all that has been done to maintain the wall of separation between governments and churches, thereby strengthening both. There are times, however, when that separation becomes more of a fine line than a wall. I think that changing the Pledge is just such a situation.

AU often quotes Thomas Jefferson as the father of the wall of separation as well as the primary writer of the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson often referred to God, both in the Declaration and elsewhere, without concerns of breaching the wall of separation or compromising church or state. His writings and words indicate that he felt God's existence is an undeniable fact of life, like gravity or love. In fact, without acknowledging God's supremacy as the Creator, the Declaration of Independence would lose much of its legitimacy and force. Who or what else could endow us with inalienable rights?

I hope that AU's current policy of opposing all references to God in public discourse becomes tempered by a realization that atheism is a belief system just like religion. While both the Constitution and AU are rightfully committed to opposing the establishment of any religion, removing all references to God in government can be reasonably viewed as establishing an atheistic philosophy.

-Steven Wennerstrom

Heathrow, Fla.

Editor's note: Americans United does not oppose all references to God in public discourse, but we strongly believe that public school children should not be asked to make a religious affirmation - that America is "one nation under God" - as the price of expressing loyalty to this country. That's quite different from recognizing that American historical documents make occasional references to God or "the Creator. " We believe Jefferson, James Madison and other religious liberty advocates among our nation's Founders would have opposed the 1954 congressional addition of "under God" to the Pledge as an inappropriate interference with religious freedom.

Chief justice Pat Robertson?

I am deeply troubled by the talk of amending the U.S. Constitution to prohibit marriages between members of the same sex, require that our school children pledge allegiance to "one nation under God" and other issues that the Religious Right is trying to cram down our throats.

In the 216-plus years since the Constitution was ratified, it has been amended only 27 times, 10 of which (the Bill of Rights) came only four years after ratification. all but two amendments have involved such rights as the right to due process, equal protection of the law, the abolition of slavery, the right to vote regardless of one's race or sex and other substantive issues.

One amendment, the 18th, ratified on January 16, 1919, was the hot issue of the day and attempted to legislate morality by prohibiting the "manufacture, sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors" within the United States. We all know from history class - and perhaps some from personal experience - what a boondoggle that turned out to be. Rather than turn America into a "dry," peaceful, church-going society that the religious forces behind the amendment thought it would be, it created countless speakeasies and gave real power to the Mafia and other criminal organizations. Things got so bad that 14 years later, on December 5, 1933, the 21st Amendment repealing the 18th Amendment was ratified.

We must not repeat this mistake. Morality and the imposing of religious belief upon others are not the proper topics of constitutional concern. Today it is gay marriage and pledging allegiance to a Christian God. Tomorrow it is the abolition of abortion. The next day it is permitting official prayer in school. Then it is allowing the display of the Ten Commandments in courtroom foyers or even in courtrooms themselves.

Eventually we trade in our Constitution and its amendments and laws enacted in conformance therewith in favor of the Bible and make Pat Robertson the Chief justice of the Supreme Court. What a frightening and sickening thought!

Let's keep the Religious Right out of the Constitution and save amendments for things that really matter.

-Alien P. Wilkinson, Esq.

Whittier, Calif.

Unwise And Unnecessary

The nationwide hoorah occasioned by the issue of same-sex marriage certainly is cause for concern on the part of every citizen. From the very early days of our attendance in school, if not sooner, we all learned that in our democracy "the majority rules" (except in presidential elections). However, as we grew older, we began to understand that our system of governance also provides for the protection of the rights of the minority.

In the current situation, the proposal by some to employ a constitutional amendment appears to be unwise and unnecessary. Indeed, outlawing such unions by means of defining "marriage" as a contract that may only exist between heterosexual couples would deny thousands of individuals their rights. Moreover the effort that is being mounted smacks of religious tampering in our secular affairs of government, a matter expressly forbidden by our Founding Fathers.