"The Power Choice" article states that many evangelicals are moving away from supporting Separation of Church and State. The primary reason for that shift is that the humanist-dominated courts, media and politicians have redefined that term. When Jefferson coined the phrase in a letter to Baptists he meant that Church and State were separate entities which should be run by and supported by their respective members.

Today that term has been twisted to mean that religious and moral values should be divorced from government. How strange that, in view of George Washington's statement that "it is impossible to rightly govern the universe without God and the Bible." Washington was president of the Constitutional Convention.

Christmas mangers and Christmas carols are banned in most public venues. Government schools teach evolution as a fact and bar any presentation of the creation position.

I am a fundamental Baptist and believe strongly in Separation of Church and State. In fact, it is widely taught as a Baptist distinctive. I do NOT support the secularization of our government, the shunning of Biblical values by most in government or the use of tax-supported institutions to promote humanism, sexual perversion, abortion, and other sovial and moral evils.

EARL F. DODGE

Denver, Colorado

——————————————————————————–

Caution on Home Schooling

As a Juvenile Court Judge in the State of Georgia, I had to respond to your article on home schooling. I know people who take great pride in their home schooled children and those children are well above grade level. Unfortunately, because of the adamant refusal of parents who want to home school, to agree to much if any regulation of same, the concept is mostly used as an excuse for legalized truancy. All you have to do in this state is say you have at least a high school diploma or GED and turn in attendance for your child. There is absolutely no oversight, no testing, no assurance that the child is actually being schooled, or achieving any measurable level of competency in his/her education. I do not dispute that those who are willing and able should be allowed to home school. But every day I see parents who work twelve hour shifts in the mills claim to home school their children. These are the children I then see in court for all sorts of delinquent acts because they run unsupervised day in and day out. They typically use drugs and alcohol, and frequently engage in other dangerous behaviors, including early sexual intercourse. Frequently, they are required to work in violation of child labor laws. Those who truly are educating their children by home schooling, should not fear some government oversight of the process so that we can be assured that children who want and deserve an adequate education are given same. We as a society pay dearly for the trouble many of these children encounter, and we will pay for their lack of employability as adults.

CONNIE BLAYLOCK

Dalton, Georgia

——————————————————————————–

What We Tolerate

I recently watched a program on the History Channel titled "The History of Christmas," and was surprised to learn that for the first six years of our government's existence, Christmas day was not a holiday for Congress. This seemed to offer a message to me that the government was not going to alter its business for religious reasons. I would be interested in research on this issue to determine why it was that our government refused to treat Christmas day as a holiday in its first few years.

I enjoy your publication and argue its position on separation with my partner who believes that a public prayer or a moment of silence cannot interfere with anyone's religion, maintaining that if the prayer is not from one's own faith, one should be able to tolerate another's expression of belief. I maintain, on deaf ears, that his "toleration" concept would disappear if Muslim prayers happened to be the prayer of choice at the public gatherings he attends.

JERRY VENABLE

via E-mail

——————————————————————————–

An Easy Read

Today I received January/February issue of Liberty. As I paged through it I was immediately struck by the beauty of the type and layout. IT IS READABLE AND CRISP AND INVITING!

Most of the church publications that I receive now days I am disappointed by the light type, dark backgrounds, overscreens and the unreadability of the material. Your magazine has struck gold with me. In addition, the articles I read so far in this issue are very good and meaningful. I look forward to reading the rest of the issue.

GLENN & DONNA BEAGLES

Hagerstown, Maryland

——————————————————————————–

Basic Rights

Your piece in the January/February 2000 issue "Freedom Under Fire: The First Amendment in Time of Crisis . . . " by Nicholas Miller was very interesting. However, I must point out one slight, but understandable, error.

That right of the president to suspend the writ of habeas corpus during war is incorrect. The president, under Art. I, Sec. 9 of the Constitution, may only suspend it during time of rebellion or invasion. For example, President Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War, however unwarranted, would have been constitutional. Had President Franklin Roosevelt did the same, that would have been unconstitutional since the United States had not been invaded.

As a side note, though President Clinton has not suspended the right, he has seriously damaged the writ of habeas corpus by restricting it to one year. This flies in the face of good sense when one examines how many (more than 70) people have been freed from death row after many years. They used habeas corpus after their innocence has been proven. Clinton has endangered innocent lives and curtailed a right that Thomas Jefferson urged to be in the Constitution in its strongest form.

Ultimately, even in times of insurrection, one must question the central authority's desire to suspend a basic right such as habeas corpus.

THOMAS J. LUCENTE JR.

Lima, Ohio

——————————————————————————–

School Prayers for All

My governor, Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, in his article "Why I am Against Instituting School Prayer," November/December 1999 Liberty magazine, made the point that big-brother tactics should not be used to push a certain religion on others. However, many in the religious right just want the freedom for students to initiate prayer in their home rooms at their local public schools.

For instance, if a school is in Utah then maybe 75 percent of the students will be Mormon, and the homeroom prayers will reflect that. In the south I am sure the case will be different where most are confessing Christians.

Let's get the government off the back of these kids and let them pray. I grew up in Memphis as a Southern Baptist, and my pastor, Adrian Rogers, was fond of saying something like this: "Why not everyone pray in the public schools. What harm will it do? The Muslim, Hindu, and Mormon prayers aren't getting above the ceiling anyway!"

EVERETTE HATCHER III

Little Rock, Arkansas

[Everette tends to underscore the hazards in state-sponsored prayer. Very quickly such activity could degenerate into a vehicle for the religious biases of the community as well as the state.-Ed.]

——————————————————————————–

A Constitution Republic, Right!

Roland Hegstad's article, "Tough Love," was excellent and insightful as is Liberty in general.

However, one statement caught my attention: "Under our system of government, the majority rules in the political process-but not in matters of conscience."

While I agree with the latter portion, the former is troubling, in that at first blush Mr. Hegstad's statement appears to inadvertently perpetrate a common misconception that this country is a democracy with majority rule.

In fact, we live under a Constitutional Republic which is supposed to safeguard us all from the tyranny of the majority. I realize the former editor of Liberty knows this well; perhaps the question boils down to what he defines as the "political precess," and perhaps I read too much into one sentence.

In any case, one almost never hears about a Constitutional Republic in the media as the favored by inaccurate term seems to be "democracy." This is a tragic and potentially harmful misconception, although appearing innocuous. As Joseph Goebbels was credited with saying: "Repeat a lie often enough and people will begin to believe it."

Keep up the outstanding work and excellent writing!

LIAM J. LANG

Louisville, Kentucky

——————————————————————————–

Kudo for Liberty

This letter is written in appreciation for the relevant and timely article that Liberty continues to bring to us. Without a doubt, this magazine is one of the finest! I appreciate the excellence in writing that is always present.

"Freedom Under Fire" by Nicholas Miller in the January/February 2000 issue is an article that identifies fanaticism without labeling and presents truth with articulate foundation. Each article presented timely truths for us right now! I was also most interested in Dennis Carlson's letter in response to Governor Jesse Ventura's comments.

Keep up the good work and I pray that you will continually be lead by our God in this intriguing and important ministry.

E. JEAN OSTLUND

Grand Rapids, Minnesota

——————————————————————————–

A Personal Right

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee separation of church and state. All it does is put restrictions upon the Congress of the United States. It prevents Congress from passing a law establishing an official religion and also from passing any laws denying your right as a citizen to worship anywhere, anytime, and anyplace you want to and to worship any religion or deity of your choice. And only Congress and Congress alone can violate the First Amendment. No individual citizen nor the Supreme Court nor the president of the United States can violate it when it comes to matters of a religious nature. In 1965 the Supreme Court violated the Constitution when it declared prayer in school illegal. Because they became a law-making body a privilege not granted them by the Constitution. Only Congress has the power to make and enact laws. By ruling that school children could not pray the Supreme Court denied them their free exercise of religion. We still have organized prayer on military installations, the halls of Congress, the White House, and in the chambers of the Supreme Court, all government property. The only government property where you cannot hold organized prayer is on school grounds. Congress cannot set aside any national days of prayer, declare any legal holidays of a religious denomination such as Christmas or Good Friday, Yom Kippur, etc. or pass one law that gives preference to any religious denomination. Any attempt to do so would be an act of treason because it subverts the U.S. constitution, setting up a religious form of government and overthrowing the democratic form authorized by the Constitution.

Religion is between an individual and his or her God alone. And no government agency can regulate it, nor interfere in it.

YESHUA BAR YOSEF

Silerton, Tennessee

——————————————————————————–

Unity Please!

I respect your attention to separation of church and state. I do not appreciate your new-found excitement for separation of articles. In the January/February 2000 issue, the first page of the Beach article is on page 14 and the rest appears at page 27. You are toying with the loyalties of your dogmatic linear-thinking readers who are most annoyed at articles inside other articles so one must jump about trying to find the rest of the story. You have a tradition (that should be honored, if it isn't) of allowing your readers to enjoy an issue cover to cover without losing ones train of thought (or place, when one must be interrupted). Do not allow this insidious cancer to spread. Give us back one-article-at-a-time journalism. I am still trying to forgive the Readers Digest for giving similar treatment to their one long article per month. I don't think I am able to stretch that to cover both of you.

MIKE REDMAN

via E-mail

[Touch