Rehnquist’s Court

* David Savage’s article (“Supreme Court Rulings Herald Rehnquist Era,” July 2) provides, in general, an excellent analysis of the Chief Justice William Rehnquist court’s recent rulings. But it treats the court’s most egregious decision far too lightly. Savage states that the court (in Rosenberger vs. University of Virginia) “opened the door for religious-rights activists to get public funding on the same basis as other groups.” This makes the decision sound entirely benign.

The decision says, in brief, that the university must fund an evangelical religious publication. The ruling is a blatant violation of the principle of separation of church and state. Whether religion is good or not is beside the point. Deep in the very bones of the Constitution, religion is not permitted to interfere with the government, and the government is not permitted to interfere with religion.

For 206 years, no one was ever required by American law to support any religion against his will. But the Rehnquist court has ruled that Jefferson and Madison were wrong. It has decreed that everyone in Virginia (at least) must pay to support evangelical Christianity. TOM HART

Costa Mesa

* Your July 4 editorial on the Supreme Court ruling regarding subsidization of a student-run Christian magazine made a claim that this violates the First Amendment that calls for “separation of Church and State.” This is a falsehood. The First Amendment makes no such proclamation.

I take exception to your claim of the court’s long tradition of upholding such a separation. Quite the contrary, Supreme Court rulings until 1947 upheld our nation’s religious roots in its laws.

MARVIN SELLERS

Tustin