Mixing Religion and Government

* At the end of a week in which the Los Angeles Times has run stories on the agony of places that have melded religion and government, along comes Ken Khachigian with his lament that the American Civil Liberties Union has fought for, among other things, the separation of church and state. (“Perpetrators’ Rights Come First at ACLU,” July 19.)

One only needs to look at Iran, Israel, Northern Ireland or Saudi Arabia, all highlighted in stories in The Times, to recognize the folly of the volatile mix of religion and government.

Iran, where a medieval theocracy cruelly dispenses “justice.” Israel, a nation where Arab and Jew war over every “holy place.” Northern Ireland, a place where “Christians” burn little boys in their beds because their mother is Catholic and their mother’s boyfriend is Protestant. Saudi Arabia, where religious intolerance is so high that the practice of no other religion, save Islam, is tolerated.

The Gordian knots created by the intertwining of church (or mosque or temple) and state in these sad places will never be undone. How many Americans would like to live in any of those places?

The founding fathers of our nation called America “the New World” not just for reasons of geography. The United States would be a place free of the rule of either royalty or religion. Old hatreds and privileges of class would not be allowed. There would be no Divine Right of Kings, no popes, no jihads and no Inquisitions here. The free expression of all religions would be protected--not just the religion of the majority.

THOMAS W. WALTON

Laguna Niguel

* I do not agree with everything the ACLU does. Nor do I agree with every lawyer who tries to defend a child murderer, a rapist, a bank robber, a pickpocket.

Nor do I agree with every lawyer that ever defended a bank, an insurance company, a white-collar criminal or a politician who gets his or her hands caught in the “cookie jar.”

However, I do with every breath available defend the right of the ACLU to take the positions they do, as well as the right of a criminal to have a lawyer and the accused, even presidents and politicians (even former Reagan, Nixon, and Clinton officials) to be able to defend themselves within the framework of the Constitution.

Why is it when the ACLU, the only voice for those who cannot find a voice in the legal or democratic process elsewhere in America, asserts a position in court that Khachigian and others like him oppose, the ACLU stands for nothing but “moral incongruity.”

Why is it that those who have never been in combat, who have never served in the military, who have never gone to Vietnam and who come up with every lamebrain excuse possible (from “bad eyesight” to “flat feet”) to stay out of the war and fighting for our country are the first ones in line pounding their chest for the old “red-white-and-blue” and find it a moral outrage when young people question saying the Pledge of Allegiance?

As the U.S. Supreme Court stated the last time the Flag Desecration Act was declared unconstitutional, “Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered and worth revering.”

Allowing one to burn the flag is not something that should be applauded, but changing the Constitution to add such a prohibition is not something to be applauded either.

Unpopular ideas, disagreeable people and “un-American” expressions ought not to be banned and branded with the stamp of “moral incongruity,” for doing so dilutes the very freedom that such emblems represent.

JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL

Anaheim Hills