LETTERS.

Gov. James And U.S. History

Your article on Alabama Gov. Fob James' assertion that his state can disregard the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings if state officials believe those rulings to be unconstitutional ("People & Events," June Church & State) is a shocking, disgraceful and disgusting statement for a chief law enforcement officer of a state to make.

As a retired New York City high school social studies teacher with over 30 years in the classroom, I wonder if

Gov. James lives in the same country that I do. Does he realize that the Constitution specifically stresses that it is "the supreme law of the land"?

Gov. James ought to know -- I'm quite sure that he does! -- that the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts interpret the Constitution. In 1803 in the Marbury v. Madison case, Chief Justice John Marshall, this country's greatest chief justice, stated quite plainly that it "was the duty of the judicial department ... to say what the law is." Marshall was a conservative and a Federalist; he was not a radical like Gov. James who wants to dismantle the Constitution.

Marshall had ample precedent. I refer to No. 78 of The Federalist written by three of our Founding Fathers: Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison. (No. 78 was attributed to Hamilton, who was very conservative and almost a quasi-monarchist.)

Hamilton stated in part in No. 78: "... The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act preceding from the legislative body ...; or in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents ..." (Italics added.)

Pseudo-conservatives like Gov. James and the Religious Right are giving the philosophy of conservatism a bad rap. Gov. James would have failed my American history class with his views that can be described as "historical fiction." We who cherish "the wall of separation between church and state" -- this country's gift to western civilization -- must be forever vigilant.

Jefferson's "wall" has kept this country free of religious strife for over 200 years. Gov. James and his pseudo-conservative allies want to end it; if they ever get the power to do it, the United States of America will start down the religious wars road that is tearing apart Bosnia, the Middle East, Iraq, India and Iran.

--Louis A. Carrubba Staten Island, New York 

Jerry Falwell In Denial 

Rob Boston's experience with Jerry Falwell on a recent TV show ("People and Events," June Church & State) brought to mind an experience I had with Jerry several years ago. On a Sacramento TV show, Falwell denied making a radical statement about the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches (UFMCC), a Christian denomination whose membership is predominantly gay and lesbian.

On his Old Time Gospel Hour broadcast Falwell had referred to the UFMCC as "brute beasts ... appealing to the baser lusts of the flesh ... that would one day be utterly annihilated and there would be a celebration in heaven."

I confronted Jerry, who was my schoolmate at Baptist Bible College in Springfield, Mo., on the Sacramento program, and he vehemently denied making such a statement. When I told him I had a tape of him making the statement, Falwell challenged me to produce the tape observing, "I say this on live television: if you produce that tape I'll give you $5,000."

The next week I took the tape to the TV station so they could verify I had quoted him correctly. I wrote to Falwell telling him where he could find the quote on the Old Time Gospel Hour tapes.

Falwell's attorney wrote back arguing I had not quoted Falwell accurately and that he would not be sending the $5,000. I was forced to sue Jerry for breach of oral contract to collect the $5,000. Of course, I won a judgment against him.

It's too bad Falwell didn't make Rob such an offer. I know he would have had fun collecting the money.

I invite Church & State readers to visit my web site where I have posted many of the legal documents concerning the case: www.rthoughtsrfree.org/ tocsin/tocsin.htm

Click on news articles and enjoy.

--Jerry Sloan Sacramento, California

Which Ten Commandments?

When I read about disputes over the posting of the Ten Commandments ("People & Events," June Church & State) I wonder why there is no mention of one major problem: There are different versions of the Ten Commandments. Protestants use one list, Roman Catholics use another, and of course, there are more than ten "commandments" in the relevant biblical passages in Exodus 20:1-17 and 34:10-26.

I think it is important to point out these little matters of fact to help put the Ten Commandments and their inappropriate public display in proper perspective.

--William H. Young Auberry, California

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