Letters

I was pleased to see mention of John Leland in Rob Boston's article, "Priority Mail: Why President Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists is Still Being Read By Americans After 200 Years" (January Church & State). It was disappointing, however, to read only of Leland's part in delivery of the giant cheese to President Jefferson.

Leland's contributions to church-state separation are substantive and deserve much more attention. At age 21, John Leland went from his native Massachusetts to Virginia where he found immigrants from England (Separatists) in a struggle for religious liberty. Church and state were then united in Virginia, and civil authority was used to enforce rules of the Established Church. Preaching by other than Established Church clergy was viewed as "disturbing the peace." In 1768, four of these preachers were arraigned and imprisoned in Fredericksburg on charges of disturbing the peace by preaching. Leland also observed preachers being threatened, beaten and their religious services disrupted.

A strong proponent of liberty of conscience, Leland objected: "Government should protect every man in thinking, and speaking freely, and that one does not abuse another... all should be equally free, Jews Turks, Pagans and Christians" (p. 118 in Writings of Elder John Leland). Supporting the Virginia State Constitution provision, he opposed any religious test to hold public office: "If a man merits the confidence of his neighbors in Virginia - let him worship one God, twenty Gods, or no God - be he Jew, Turk, Pagan, or Infidel, he is eligible to any office in the state" (p. 106).

Leland wrote in 1790: "The notion of a Christian commonwealth should be exploded forever.... (p. 107). His source for the liberty of conscience doctrine with church and state separation was his understanding of the Bible, i.e., that the state is created by human beings, and the church is created by God, not by the state: "...if all the souls in a government were saints of God, should they be formed into a society by law, that society could be not a Gospel Church, but a creature of the state" (p. 107). Leland's view could be known as faith-based liberty of conscience, which cannot exist without separation of church and state.

Additionally, while many preachers at the time of Leland and long after were supporting slavery based on the Bible, in 1791 Leland held that slavery "is a violent deprivation of the rights of nature, inconsistent with republican government, destructive of every humane and benevolent passion of the soul and subversive to that liberty absolutely necessary to ennoble the human mind" (p. 174). He pled for "the blessing of freedom" (emphasis in original) upon the blacks.

Those who are today saying that founders of the country intended a Christian nation and therefore did not intend separation of church and state advocate a revisionist history and are ignoring champions of liberty of conscience like the Baptist minister, John Leland.

-Eugene May, Ph.D.

Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.

Mullah Tim

Reading February's article about Tim LaHaye ("Left Behind: Author Tim LaHaye Wants Church-State Separation Left Behind") was as interesting as it was worrisome. What came to mind was his uncanny similarity in many respects to the Taliban, and I will think of him as Mullah Tim from now on.

-Herbert Popper

Ardmore, Pa.

Vouchers: Time For A 'Tea Party'?

Regarding the matter of proposed use of governmental funds to provide financial support for religious schools: perhaps it's time we began to think in terms of the Boston Tea Party. The citizens of our early colonies rose up to physically take action against taxes they thought were unjust.

Perhaps we need to let those in control of this issue know there are many of us - the majority in fact - who would consider taking action if such a policy was established as the norm. One such action could be the refusal to pay any income taxes at all. Churches already are privileged with a tax-exempt status, and there are many of us who are angered by their greed.

-Truman Keahey

Colorado City, Colo.

A Double Standard View of Women

I was appalled by the event disclosed in Ellen Goodman's commentary (November Church & State). At a meeting of a group of educators who were discussing how to go about teaching students in the aftermath of Sept. 11, a Muslim man spoke about his sorrows and worries about the distorted images of Islam. When he was approached afterward by a female teacher who reached out her hand to shake his, he looked at her and said, "My religion doesn't allow me to shake a woman's hand."

His religion obviously does not think it will contaminate him to use a woman's body for his own pleasure. It just does not allow him to take her hand. Imagine the contamination that must cause!

-Carolyn Landry

St. Charles, Mo.

Church & State welcomes letters to the editor. Although not all correspondence can be published, readers' opinions are appreciated. The editorial staff reserves the right to edit all letters for brevity and clarity.