EDITOR’S MAILBAG

Published 9:11 pm Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Dear editor:

In the Saturday edition of the Moultrie Observer, Mr. Roger Hancock delivered a letter to the editor rebuking condemnation of politicians and businesses for the celebration of Christmas and postulating that the separation of church and state is illegitimate. His letter is littered with misinformation concerning the role of our founding fathers in the birth and development of our great nation.

Mr. Hancock is correct in noting that many presidents, in the past, have expressed clearly their connection to Christianity, but no one is condemning those presidents for their expression. It isn’t Christian affiliation that draws criticism, but the institution of any religion by the state through initiatives or legislation.

Clearly, our founding fathers saw the benefit of the separation of church and state in the explicit wording of the first amendment – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ”

That should seem clear to any reader. If one remembers history, one will no doubt recall that America was sought by the pilgrims to escape the union of church and state in England after the establishment of the Anglican Church as the official religious body of that nation.

Separation of church and state is incorrectly perceived as damaging or critical of religion. On the contrary, it is in place to protect religion and the free exercise thoereof. It is widely known that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. It is conceivable that it may someday be the majority religion of this nation. Will all of the Mr. Hancock’s of the nation be happy to have the union of church and state then? Will they support the words, “In Allah, we trust” on our currency? Or is Mr. Hancock truly arguing for the establishment in government of his preferred religion and no other?

I doubt he would argue that he believes in the revocation of liberty, yet that is exactly what he preaches in his letter. The direct results of allowing any particular religion take hold in government is clearly visible in the establishment of such regimes as the Islamic fundamentalist Taliban. I can’t imagine which American supports that idea.

In reality the separation of church and state is a fundamental requirement for the protection of freedom, specifically of religious practices. So, Mr. Hancock, what will you choose to defend, the desire to have your religion forced upon the nation, whether or not we choose it, or that most precious of values by which our founding fathers stood – freedom?

Brian Gray

Moultrie