I read the "Goodbyes" in the May/June issue and felt the need to reply. Though I don't always agree with Liberty's opinions and articles, I do value the forum fo the exchange of ideas and diverse opinions. The greatest danger to our society is not diverse opinions, but rather the silencing of opinions that do not comport with the powers that be, whether those powers be those of government, religion or state religion.

I see no greater argument for protecting the freedom of religion by maintaining the separation of church and state than those various letters. Which of those many views should be supported by government or taught in our public schools? Thankfully, the establishment clause protects me and my family from having any of those "correct" views imposed upon us by government of the public schools.

Might I also respond to Mr. Dene's comments about the sanity and safety of our society before and after 1962. In my opinion, and facts not hyperbole support this opinion, if you are a working person, an elderly person, a poor person, a woman, a child, a person with a disability or, an ethnic, racial or religious minority, our current society is saner and safer than prior to 1962. Not that we don't have problems. We do, but maintaining separation between church and state did not create the problems, and most importantly tearing down the "wall of separation" between church and state will not solve the problems.

Keep up the good work!

AL SMITH

Helena, Montana

101 Gets A

A friend of mine sent me a copy of Liberty, Vol. 94, No. 3, May/June 1999 because of the article "Christianity 101." For eighteen months I served on the Lee County (Florida) School District's Bible Curriculum Committee. As a matter of fact "one dissenting member wrote to the local newspaper questioning whether religion should be taught in the schools" was me.

To bring proper closer to your article, the Tuesday, June 8, 1999 edition of the Fort Myers News Press has the following headline. "Lack of interest cancels Bible class." There just was not enough student interest to offer this course.

I was most impressed with "Christianity 101" as it was very accurate and really reflects what went on during the two years of Lee County's "worst nightmare." As a member of the committee's "minority" I never received negative emails, phone calls, letters or "letters to the editors," but some "minority" members did. This issue really did split out community apart. The "minority" worked very hard to create a curriculum that would educate our children as well as protect Lee County from the legal ramifications that did occur, but we were fought at every step by what I believe were committee members who representing the "Christian coalition."

In closing I would like to point out that there was a "minority" report concerning the Old Testament portion of the curriculum and that the committee did not vote unanimously for taht portion. Also Ms. Terry Wampler, who became the candidate who was elected to the Lee County School Board in the first primary, defeating the seated Chairman, was also a member of the "minority."

Your article was factual, accurate and, I believe, very fair.

MICHAEL H. JENKINS

Cape Coral, Florida

End of Dialog

I have patiently read many issues of your magazine, and occasionally sen you a few contributions, explaining the historical origins of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses in the 16th Article of the Virginia Bill of Rights and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, explaining the meaning of Jefferson's phrase "separation of church and state" in his Danbury Baptist Letter by reference to the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, explaining the propriety an importance of teaching religion in public schools as a n essential element of education by reference to the Northwest Ordinance reenacted by the same session of Congress as framed the Federal Bill of Rights, etc. I have explained the foundations of the United States Constitution by reference to its premises of the Laws of Nature and Nature's God announced in the Declaration of Independence, and corresponding passages in Blackstone's Commentaries. I have done everything I could to steer the focus of debate away from the perversions demanded by the fanatical secular humanist bigotry of your editorial staff, published on the false pretense of a Christian denomination.

Each successive issue of Liberty becomes more extreme, irreverent, outrageous, atheistic, strident, unhistorical, intolerant, and absurd. The magazine lacks any scholarly merit, supplies no intellectual nourishment, and overthrows even the faintest pretense of objectivity.

Having heard your message, and tried to enter into a reasoned exchange, only to witness more profound distortions coming from your pages, I have now come to the end of the road.

JOHN REMINGON GRAHAM

St-Agapit, Quebec, Canada

Virulence Revealing

At the outset, let me say that I am not a member of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination, and ACLU member, nor anti-Catholic, and in fact have voted Republican more often than anything in the last 25 years. The purpose of my letter is to comment upon the several letters that appear in the Op. Cit. Section of the Liberty magazine issue of May/June 1999. The zealotry, even virulence, of the collective letter writers condemning Liberty magazine's stances regarding church/state separation proves exactly the opposite point these writers were attempting to make. Views expressed by these writers demonstrate the need for constant vigilance to assure state/church separation.

Religion by definition assumes that the believer's faith is the only true and correct belief; conversely all others are errant. Once any group with a particular religious point of view comes into alliance with the government (beyond guaranteed protection of the right to practice) then the rest of us are in trouble. It is unfortunate that the most zealous adherents to any faith cannot limit themselves to mere proselytizing. As history has proven over an over, as soon as religious zealots obtain the power of the state, pograms, inquisitions and ethnic cleansing are not far behind.

I find it alarming that in contemporary discussion of the subject those who are most insistent that the church have a role in state affairs, seem to also engage in name calling and judgmentalism against others who do not agree with them. Those who find "multi-cultural" an obscenity, are exactly the ones who intend to impose their views on everyone else. Once the power of the state would fall under their control, the use of that power to stamp out heresy would surely follow.

KERRY B. OLSON

Glencoe, Minnesota

Another Kingdom

I read your magazine yesterday and I totally agree with you. I believe the "powers that be are ordained of God" and do not belong to government. We are told to "pray for all in authority." As for getting involved in the political process that is not our calling.

The Lord said when He was here, "If my kingdom was of this world then would my servants fight." We are a heavenly people and the most we can do is pray for the Authorities. As for getting involved in the Political Process, that is not our calling.

My father and mother had a very real conversion when I was eight and everyone knew there had been a dramatic change. My Dad would not vote. He said, "My Man is not running in this election, He was crucified here."

Our children go to school to learn to read and to write. Let's keep religion out of the schools. That is what the home is for and no one is entitled to restrict us.

SARAH FROWNFELTER

Sun City, California

Compassionate Conservatism?

Is tolerance the gospel by which we live? Or is it truth? In a recent letter, "Tolerance is the Key," the writer suggests that to teach a child that his other parent's religion is a sin is to deny freedom of religion to the other.

Take that to the logical extreme and the weaknesses of that idea are exposed. Shall we be tolerant of Satanism, or white supremacy? Shall we be tolerant of religions that practice human sacrifice or the selling of girls into sexual slavery? Shall we as Christian parents tell our child that his other parent's choice of religion is as valid as ours if such things are the tenets of their religion? No serious Christian would do so, intolerant or not.

As Christians we are to respect people as made in the image of God. Within the family we teach our children respect for their "other parent" based on that fundamental truth and that we are told in the Bible to honor our parents. But that does not extend to the embracing of their religion anymore than it extends to approving of immorality.

As citizens of this country each one of us is free to practice his religion within the limits set by the law. That is tolerance. But we are not required to approve of their religion even thought we allow them that freedom. Tolerance does not mean approval.

There is a higher law than either the popular law of tolerance or the law of this land or any land. That law is God's law. When I must choose between obeying the law of the land or the approval of another's religion or practice, as a Christian I have no choice but to obey God. When I have the responsibility under God to rear my children in the faith, as I have, I also have the responsibility to warn my child of the dangers of false and destructive religions.

DON R. CAMP

Cove, Oregon

Question on Liberty Laws

I am very concerned, not only with the way our government is putting forward so-called "Religious Liberty" laws, but also the way in which some church groups are proclaiming these as triumphs for Religious Liberty.

I recently read this comment is a publication put out by my own church. It was part of an article titled "Religious Freedom Act Passed in South Carolina." "Regardless of the amendment, the act which was passed is still an excellent example of what states need to be doing to pass Religious Freedom Acts."

The amendment spoken of is in itself enough to make one cringe in horror at the idea it is an "excellent example" for "Religious Freedom Acts." The amendment restricts the use of the acts privileges by prisoners. What of those who might be imprisoned for their faith? These people will then be without any protection at all. . . . and this is hailed as an "excellent example" of religious freedom?

Second, the so called "Religious freedom Act" is in itself a law enabling government to persecute. The act states that government cannot interfere in religious practice UNLESS there is a "compelling public interest."

I find such a law as this horrifying.

RICK ANGELIN

email letter