Religion and the Constitution

* In “Religious Right Deserves its Turn at Table” (Column Right, Aug. 17), Ernest W. Lefever rewrites the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. The Constitution reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . “ Lefever wants us to believe that it prohibits “only the establishment by law of a particular region.”

Lefever starts with the belief that everyone believes in some God or other, and so to him the only thing the Constitution could possibly be talking about is preventing the establishment of a particular religion. But there were Founding Fathers who did not necessarily believe in some God or other, and there are people today who also do not believe in some God or other. These folks do not recognize that “this nation and every nation stands under divine mercy and judgment,” as Lefever would like. To them, the way the establishment clause was written is just fine.

ARTHUR SMITH

Laguna Beach

* Lefever has got it 100% wrong. This country was not founded on a “belief in the majesty of God.” It was founded on a belief in the majesty of personal freedom. “Divine Providence” as stated in the Declaration of Independence (which by the way is not a legal document and has nothing to do with the governance of this country) is such a nebulous concept as to be nothing more than rhetoric to a king who believed he ruled by divine right.

The so-called “liberal” agenda Lefever decries was a reaction to the oppressive and freedom-stealing era of post-World War II-McCarthyism, mandatory prayer in schools (always Christian prayer, ignoring all other faiths), oppression and lack of opportunity for women and minorities. The rate of unwed mothers has risen in absolute terms; so has the population. And what is the problem with unwed mothers? Do we attach the same stigma to women who marry and then lose a husband to accident or disease?

If this kind of bigoted, oppressive, authoritarian society is what Lefever wants, he can get it some place else. If preserving my freedom means a little more crime, or a few more unwed mothers, it is a price I, and most freedom loving Americans, will gladly pay.

JAMES H. STEWART

Panorama City

* The radical religious right’s proposal to amend the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, the religious equality amendment, for the first time in its 204 years, holds dangers for all Americans. The Founding Fathers knew best how to guarantee religious liberty for all: Keep government out of religion and vice versa, i.e., the separation of church and state.

The Revs. Lou Sheldon, Pat Robertson and other such religious-right leaders are pushing a radical answer to pretty simple problems of ignorance about what is and is not permissible religious expression in schools and other public places.

I attended the House Judiciary Subcommittee’s hearing on religion and the Bill of Rights in Oklahoma City, July 14. (The subcommittee scuttled hearings in L.A. on July 17.) Each instance of aggrieved religious expression that the religious right brought up could have been solved quickly, cheaply and satisfactorily to all parties if the schools and the community at large were aware of current law on religious expression and public schools.

President Clinton is right to direct the Department of Education to supply each and every school district and board with guidelines on current law. Neither Sheldon, nor Robertson, speak for the majority of Christians, much less the rest of the citizenry.

KRIS OCKERSHAUSER

Steering Committee, Unitarian

Universalist Project Freedom of Religion