To the editor:

Mr. Burkhart’s rejoinder (Public Forum, May 5) to my letter regarding the Supreme Court’s decision in the Mojave cross case as counter to the separation of church and state is a curious mix of persecution fantasies (“Christianity is oppressed” and “this letter … would be considered hate speech.”) and bizarre legal opinion (“lower courts began striking down religious activities and expressions which had been constitutional for 150 years.”). Striking down state-sponsored religious activities started in 1776 with the ending of some state-sponsored religions.

The Supreme Court holds the Constitution to be the law of supreme obligation but historically has exercised judicial review with great restraint. Lower court rulings (some based on the Lemon test requiring laws to be religiously neutral, the principal effect neither advancing nor inhibiting religion and laws must not excessively entangle government with religion) have mostly been left standing. Justices normally are cautious reviewing the First and 14th amendment restrictions on government action on religion. Exceptions are made in some cases such as licentious religious practice (polygamy and child brides) or repugnant activities (poisonous snake handling). That some issue was not decided on for 150 years does not make it “constitutional” by default.

Burkhart’s false either/or (includes everything not Christian or excludes Christianity) is an unfounded assertion. The Constitution guarantees the private exercise of his religion. What Burkhart is wishing for is an Aristotelian caesaropapism in new vestments. I would direct him to Luther’s admonition instead, “Whoever wants to learn and become wise in secular government, let him read the heathen books and writings.”