‘Religion and the Court’

The tone of your editorial (July 2), “Religion and the Court,” on recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions is jubilant, which is understandable since they agree in general with The Times’ editorial position. I likewise support and benefit from our constitutional protection from encroachments between church and state, but unlike The Times I am not celebrating the Aguilar vs. Felton decision.

This decision causes particular consternation since it affects a program that appears as neutral as any instructional program can be, both in concept and in implementation, and has a record of helping economically and academically deprived children for more than 15 years on precisely the same basis irrespective of what school they attend, including being offered at the school they are enrolled in.

Providing the instruction there makes sense from the standpoint of efficiency as well as convenience, and it requires a rather healthy leap of the imagination to conclude that tutorial help in reading and mathematics at the school advances religion in general or any religion in particular. On the contrary, it seems to help children function more effectively as citizens, a benefit to all. Obviously, this is a point on which reasonable people differ.

The Times concludes that the court has found the Constitution to mean “just what it says.” If the meaning were that clear or obvious, the decision would not have balanced on a single vote. As a result of the decision, children enrolled in parochial schools will be deprived of the program at locations equivalent to those at which it is offered to other children who qualify, deprived specifically because they are religious.

As a citizen, I hope that this point is not lost in the celebration and that no one, The Times included, finds reason to rejoice in it.

JOHN A. MIHAN

Los Angeles

Msgr. Mihan is superintendent of elementary schools for the Department of Educatio n of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.