Letters.

Constitutional Divide Over the many years I have read National Review I have only occasionally differed with your editorial judgments, never with your journalistic integrity. Until now.

Your editorial paragraph on the Religious Liberty Protection Act ("The Week," Sept. 27) grossly distorts the issues and motives of its supporters.

You contend that RLPA supporters want something more than historic legislative accommodation for religious liberty; and you say that RLPA would allow judges to decide that "an individual's autonomy trumps the political judgments of state and localities."

Precisely the reverse is the case. RLPA supporters want only the legislative accommodation that was historically provided, whereby the government had to show a compelling state interest before it could restrict religious liberty. It was the Supreme Court, I would remind you, in Smith v. Employment Division (1990), that eliminated this historic test. To restore this standard, Congress, in 1993, virtually unanimously passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

But in Boerne v. Flores (1997), the Court struck down RFRA, a case of clear judicial overreach, nullifying the people's right of self-determination and unleashing a series of religious-liberty abuses.

In Greenville, South Carolina, for example, officials banned home Bible-study groups, but not Tupperware parties. In Los Angeles, the city council decided a synagogue would disrupt a residential neighborhood, but granted a zoning variance to a gay bar. In Douglas County, Colorado, officials have tried to limit churches' hours of operation.

It was to remedy this--to protect the people's right of self-determination, and to restore the historic standard for First Amendment protection--that RLPA was passed overwhelmingly in the House. The most vigorous dissent came not from conservatives but from liberals who wrongly attempted to equate gay rights with First Amendment religious liberty.

By reinstating the "compelling state interest" test, RLPA reaffirms the historic protection granted to First Amendment rights of religious exercise against arbitrary government officials and judges. This is the precise opposite of the arguments you make in your editorial. I hope you will set the record straight.

Charles W. Colson Chairman, Prison Fellowship Ministries Washington, D.C.

The Eds.: For most of our history, legislatures have been able to work out religious accommodations piecemeal, without interference from courts. So, for instance, laws prohibiting alcohol often made exceptions for religious ceremonies. Only in 1963 did the Warren Court discover a right, enforceable in court, to such accommodations. For the next 27 years, judges were able to exempt individuals and groups from laws whenever they found the states' interest in applying those laws uncompelling.

This is the "historic test" Mr. Colson lauds, and that the Rehnquist Court rightly repudiated in 1990. Attempts to restore it may not be unconstitutional--we thought that in Boerne the Court was wrong to strike down RFRA, and said so (see "Supreme Faith," July 28, 1997)--but they are misguided. The Greenville and Los Angeles examples would be better treated as equal-protection cases.

Finally, let us dispel any doubt on one point: We never meant to impugn the motives of Charles Colson or any of his fellows. We just think they're incorrect in this instance.

The Merit of McCain Richard Lowry delivered a fine report from the campaign trail on Sen. John McCain ("The Allure of John McCain," Sept. 27). However, I'm still perplexed: Why are conservatives and the more moderate GOP establishment so quick to dismiss the senator's candidacy? It's as though Republicans are willing, if not eager, to repeat their most destructive mistake of 1996: failing to nominate a candidate who offers anything distinguishable from his Democratic counterpart.

Some blame Sen. Robert J. Dole's failure in 1996 on his playing the war-hero card. But it was really his lack of charisma and inability to relate to voters that led to his undoing. McCain has what Dole lacked. As we near the post-Clinton era, the public-relations-challenged GOP would be wise to start taking note.

Domenick J. Cosentino Conshohocken, Pa.