To the editor:
This letter is a response to the Dec. 9 article regarding the motion to remove prayer from public meetings in Limestone. It was very encouraging to hear select people, as well as the local citizenry, express dissent to the motion. My first reaction to that article was highly suspicious that, with the exception of the newly elected selectman, any prior objection to opening town meetings with a brief prayer for guidance was absent. That selectman cited a Maine Municipal Association legal staff’s recommendation to replace prayer with a moment of silence. Was this recommendation a result of solicitation or was it born of some particular pending complaint? Beyond the motivation or foundation from which this has created a conflict for the town council, it appears to be just another postmodern drawback that interferes with common sense resolutions, and more often begs for additional unwarranted attention.
The many arguments regarding issues surrounding separation of church and state tend to be interpretations of design that are dependent on political or religious affiliation, cultural world view, and perhaps some other “jump on the bandwagon” idea. It is neglectful to ignore the fact that the First Amendment is quite imprecise. The phrase separation of church and state is not literally present in the Constitution. The term wall of separation was used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptists to assure them of freedom from state interference when they expressed concern about protecting their minority denomination. That coined phrase was not Jefferson’s original idea, but was borrowed from Roger Williams, a Baptist minister.
The First Amendment’s ‘establishment clause’ says that” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. This did not corroborate that religious expression must be kept out of the public arena. The intent of this separation was to maintain religious liberty for all and the realization that government cannot make believers out of the people since the human conscience is beyond government control. The debate we have today has a focus on separation, with tunnel vision that discards the eminent underlying issue pertaining to the terms religious freedom and establishment.
I would bid that the Limestone town council, in asking the Lord for guidance prior to session deliberations, is passionately distant from establishing or making contract with any particular religion. Sadly, religious liberty today comes with a connotation of tolerance; a favor that can be withdrawn or become objectionable. There are radicals on both sides of this issue. It has come down to freedom from rather than freedom for religion, as more and more interest groups fabricate offenses to religious expression, and the courts rule in favor of irreligion over religion. Limestone, I stand with you on your ground. If you must say your prayer before you call your meeting to order, be assured that He still hears you.
Farmville, Va.
