In “Freedom of Conscience” (Perspective, December), Thomas Fleming states that Thomas Jefferson’s “‘Wall of Separation’ existed only in his mind.”  This phrase, of course, was included in Jefferson’s 1802 letter to a group of Baptists from Danbury, Connecticut, as Dr. Fleming has pointed out in previous Perspectives.  Rather than implying exclusionary intent, the “Wall of Separation” was designed to reassure the Danbury Baptists that their religious freedoms would be observed and preserved in our new republic.  The First Amendment simply proscribes the federal government from establishing a national religion, but the myth that the Wall is included in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights gained currency in 1947 with the handing down of the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Everson v. Board of Education.  Writing for the majority, FDR appointee Hugo Black incorrectly wrote that the “First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state.”  As might Dr. Fleming, I would challenge anyone to find its mention therein.  However, as one infamous totalitarian opined, when one tells a lie often enough, it begins to engender belief.

Since that date, the “Wall of Separation” has become a mantra for leftist groups such as the ACLU, and, as our overweening federal government ever increases its grip on more facets of our lives, it threatens to deprive us of a growing number of such elemental religious freedoms as the wearing of a cross in the workplace.

This tired canard should be exposed for what it is: specious license to intimidate and threaten many into giving up what may rightfully be some of their religious freedoms.  However, with certain advocacy groups winning repeated court cases in favor of these rights, and now that the Federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a majority opinion, has referred to the “Wall” as “extra-constitutional,” perhaps the light has finally penetrated from beneath the bushel.

        —Gary Gillespie
Williamston, MI

On Irish Complaints

I would like to commend Roger McGrath for his fine piece on “The Fighting Irish” (Sins of Omission).  I have only one very minor objection.  In the last sentence of the article, Dr. McGrath suggests that perhaps it is the Irish-Americans who should complain about their lack of mention in Ken Burns’ World War II documentary, The War.  As Dr. McGrath so eloquently demonstrated in his article, however, we Irish-Americans do not complain; we act.

        —Kieley Jackson
North Hollywood, CA