Letter: Displays threaten religious liberty

Saturday, July 2, 2005 | 12:06 p.m.

WEEKEND EDITION

July 2-3, 2005

Regarding George Will's June 30 column, "Separation anxiety":

Keeping religious displays off public property is not "moral exhibitionism" but rather staying true to constitutional values. The Constitution was never meant to be a static document and its original intent to preserve religious liberty has not been constricted, but expanded over the years.

Government endorsement of religious displays restricts the religious freedom of millions of Americans who identify with no religion, as well as faithful Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans and others who don't subscribe to monotheistic displays. All of these Americans have the constitutional right that the drafters of our Constitution intended for them to have -- the right to not have the religious beliefs of others forced upon them as well as the right to not be forced to support religious displays with their taxes.

George Will calls it "moral exhibitionism" to be "indignant about minor encounters" by expressing concern over government endorsement of religion. I suggest that Mr. Will read the Supreme Court's majority opinion in the 1963 case of Abington v. Schempp where the school district suggested that Mr. Schempp was overreacting to a minor encroachment.

Justice Jackson wrote that "it is no defense to urge that the religious practices here may be relatively minor encroachments on the First Amendment. The breach of neutrality that is today a trickling stream may all too soon become a raging torrent and, in the words of Madison, 'it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.' "

Call us "moral exhibitionists" if you will, Mr. Will. We are proud to be in the company of men such as Jefferson and Madison who refused to refrain from being indignant about government endorsement of religion.

MEL LIPMAN

Editor's note: The writer is president of the American Humanist Association.