Q: Recent court decisions on the Pledge of Allegiance and school vouchers have renewed the nation's long debate over the separation of church and state. Do you regard this principle as an important one? And what does it mean to you?

The principle of separation of church and state is important to me, as are all the freedoms guaranteed to us by our Constitution.

This principle means that, in questions of religious belief, the government must remain neutral, indeed silent, and may neither hold, express nor support any religious opinion.

The Founding Fathers, regardless of their own personal religious beliefs, saw the wisdom of guaranteeing the absolute freedom of religion to all Americans.

There is no generic American religion, and therefore no generic American God. In the United States, God is personal, not national.

Removing "under God" from the pledge would emphasize that point.

Each adherent to any religion must realize, and should celebrate, the fact that the clause in the Constitution that prevents the government from favoring or establishing his or her particular religion also prevents the government from suppressing or outlawing it.

Jeffrey D. Mueller

Eldersburg

What is all this furor over the separation of church and state? The principle is important, but in this country they are separate.

We don't have a controlling, all-powerful church, because we fought for and have freedom of religion. We can choose our religion or choose not to practice a religion. That is what the framers of the Constitution wanted, and they would be proud of their accomplishment.

But the framers of our Constitution didn't mean for us to be unable to say "God."

Yet a few atheists are seeking to silence the freedom of speech of others.

These atheists have pressed us to be silent about our God - to allow no prayers in public meetings and no prayers or Bible readings in schools and to take God out of our Pledge of Allegiance. Their legal maneuvers have forced those in government who respect the law to do things the majority objects to. This is not right.

Our government has been too passive on this matter. Let's put our foot down and say: "We don't care if you don't believe in God, you're free to disbelieve. But we do believe in God and we believe the word of God as written in the Holy Bible is one of the foundations of our existence as a nation.

"We will not let atheists destroy that."

Robert L. Shite

Perry Hall

Our Founding Fathers would be horrified if they knew that their efforts to create a new nation with the freedom to worship God would be distorted by the press they sought to protect under the First Amendment.

The phrase "separation of church and state" was intended to prevent government from establishing one religion as the only means of worshipping our creator, as occurred in many European countries. It was never intended to deny the existence of our creator.

It would behoove America to reaffirm the beliefs of our Founding Fathers and state for all to hear and see that we are "one nation under God" as a way of acknowledging the power and presence of God.

John G. Lacey Jr.

Ellicott City

No one else can know my relationship with God. That is a personal, sacred connection that must be kept between God and me.

In this country, we are guaranteed that privacy - without any interference or influence by the state.

Some people, however, must doubt the strength of their relationships with God. They display their fervor publicly, so at least others will think them religious.

They have that right. They do not have the right to inflict their beliefs on me. They do not have the right to bully me. They do not have the right to use my money as a tithe for their religion.

Public funds and public venues must be kept secular.

No public authority should be allowed jurisdiction over my connection with God.

Brenda R. Cutter

White Hall

I strongly believe that the principle of separation of church and state is one of the most important issues facing our society now.

Undermining that principle could destroy the structure of our democracy and divide our nation on the basis of religion, as, sadly, is happening in other nations around the world.

Henry H. Eidman

Timonium

Here in America we have a true separation of church and state. But that does not mean we have to forsake religion or a belief in God.

The idea of removing God from the Pledge of Allegiance and perhaps from "God Bless America" and taking "In God We Trust" off our money is nothing more than a tyranny of the minority.

As a democracy, we have a responsibility to ensure against acts of the majority that impinge against the freedoms and the general welfare of the minority, when such acts are truly detrimental to the minority. But that is not the situation in this instance.

What most of us are saying now is that we believe in God - in whatever manner we choose - although we do not force those who do not believe to change or create consequences for them if they refuse to say the pledge because the word "God" is in it.

But the majority is entitled to certain things, and having God in the pledge is one that we choose.

John Miller

Timonium

The separation of church and state, which the First Amendment supports, is the keystone of our religious liberty. Each person's freedom of religion depends on his or her freedom from other people's religion.

By prohibiting the government from establishing a religion, we prevent Protestants from oppressing Catholics and Christians from imposing their beliefs on Jews and Muslims. We prevent monotheists from forcing Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists and others to live under their God.

And, yes, we even prevent believers of any type from using public forums to impose their belief on nonbelievers. This includes not forcing children to silently listen to a loyalty pledge with religious overtones every morning at school.

Strict separation of church and state prevents our nation from becoming another nation like the one Afghanistan was under the Taliban.

Carl Aron

Baltimore

More than 200 years ago, men such as Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Ben Franklin and John Hancock carefully crafted a list of fundamental principles upon which the United States was founded.

One of the first areas to which these principles applied was the relationship of church and state. The decision to ensure the separation of the two was formalized in the Constitution's First Amendment.

Almost 200 years later, "self-evident truths" are reduced to partially self-evident truths, sometimes self-evident truths or, most popular of all, self-evident truths in need of alteration.

And where better to start this modification than within the public schools?

In one case, the modification was merely the insertion of two words - "under God" - in the seemingly innocuous Pledge of Allegiance (1954).

In the other case, the voucher system (2002) promises a change in the relation of church and state in the hope of improving the fortunes of the educationally deprived.

Both changes are clearly beneficial to certain religions or certain economic classes. But neither change is beneficial to the principle of each person being created equal; rather, the changes once again prove that some are more equal than others.

So what are we left with? With Founding Fathers whose names are remembered and principles lost.

John Pisarra

Clarksville

Our country was founded as a Christian nation.

The Constitution's clauses on religion were simply intended to keep the U.S. government from setting up one Christian sect as the national religion, while giving the states latitude to require their leaders to be Christian.

And yet there are many today who try to use a portion of the Bill of Rights, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," to limit the role of religion in public life. But they are pleased to forget the clause that follows - "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - which, for a true Christian, means trying to convince others of their need for Christ.

The Constitution was meant to keep the government out of church, but it has been twisted the other way.

I wish that those who want a government devoid of religious influence would go reside in places such as the former Soviet Union and see if they prefer the results of that ideology.

Wade Coley

Parkville

Over the years, I have observed that the more committed people are to their religion, the more narrow-minded they are on a wide range of issues. And history clearly documents that every imaginable horror committed by mankind has been done in the name of God.

We need look no further than our own backyard to see that God-fearing, church-going members of the Ku Klux Klan have committed unimaginable horrors upon their fellow man.

If there were evidence that injecting God into our daily lives in public buildings, schools, hospitals, public meeting places and so forth made for a more compassionate, loving, sensible or just plain civil individual, I would say, "Right on." However, there is absolutely no evidence that this is the case.

People should worship on their own time and turf. Public places are for everyone.

If we are to be a nation that tolerates many beliefs, including those of non-worshipers, there is no place for religion in the commonweal.

Carole Simon

Baltimore

I was a 12-year-old public school student when the Pledge of Allegiance was changed to include the words "under God."

Although I continued to recite it every morning along with my classmates, I wondered why this change was necessary.

I strongly believe that religion is a private matter and should remain in one's home or the religious institution of that person's choice.

This would also ensure that anyone who chooses not to believe in God can still feel free to give their full support and loyalty to this country via a national pledge of allegiance.

Myra Husk

Bishopville

The separation of church and state is vital to our democracy.

And more important than inserting words into our Pledge of Allegiance is a life of integrity and moral commitment on the part of every citizen - one that reflects his or her personal beliefs.

Some of those who react so vehemently to the idea of removing "under God" from the pledge would do better to first look at their own record of integrity and moral action.

The Rev. Al Buls

Baltimore

How can one judge rule that having the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, while another approves vouchers for private schools?

Apparently our government doesn't have a clue what to do about the public schools, and thinks throwing money at parents to enable children to attend private schools will fix the problem.

But I have news for you - it won't. As a parent of a private school student, I know our schools work because of parental involvement. We work hard to meet the demands of this costly choice, which in turn makes us cherish our decision.

There is no doubt in my mind that if the government closes the gap between church and state the way it is now doing, even while contradicting itself, the wonderful private school system we have now in Maryland will be history.

Then where will our children go?

Darlene L. McKinney

Baltimore

This country was colonized by groups of God-loving, God-fearing people. They were a motley crew of people with different religions, but they were basically all peace-loving people who asked only to be allowed their freedom to honor their God as they saw fit.

They asked only that the government not meddle in their religious convictions or legislate their religious life.

As a country of God-loving people, we have not suppressed the freedom of atheists and agnostics in any way. They are just as free as we God-loving people are.

But they have no right to declare supremacy over God-loving groups because of the so-called separation of church and state. That is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

If the name "God" on our money or in the Pledge of Allegiance is offensive in any way to atheists and agnostics and they don't feel comfortable in a God-loving country, no one is shackling them to stay here.

They are free to leave this country whenever they please.

Kathleen M. Pugh

Ellicott City

Much like the pronouncement made by Patrick Henry, I proclaim, with equal fervor: "Give me liberty with my God, in life and in death."

Thomas M. Bailey

Baltimore

John Adams stated in the Treaty of Tripoli, "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." Neither are the lives of millions of Americans, a fact the theocrats ignore.

They also ignore the irreparable harm done when, through a school voucher system, public tax dollars are picked from the pocket of public education and used to fill the already bulging coffers of parochial schools.

Church-state separation is part of the structure of this sometimes great country. To destabilize it invites disaster.

Anna Ravegum

Baltimore

The recent court decision on the Pledge of Allegiance illustrates, with great clarity, the current tendency of many courts to misconstrue "freedom of religion" as "freedom from religion" in an effort to enforce the "separation of church and state."

This misconstruction effectively gives atheists the right to the only religious freedom enforced by the courts.

But nothing could be further from the intention of the Founding Fathers.

And anyone citing the pledge is free to eliminate the word "God" from it, if that word offends him or her.

Franklin S. Tyng

Bel Air

The Founding Fathers firmly believed that government and religion were not compatible partners.

The Constitution does not mention God. However, fearing the "tyranny of the majority," they wrote in the First Amendment that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Why were the Founders so concerned about the separation of church and state?

They knew that when government and religion are wed, democracy is tinged with theocracy, and they were well aware of the implications: Puritans in colonial America had established theocratic rule in some New England colonies, barring other religions and imprisoning "heretics." This culminated in the "witch trials" of the late 17th century.

"Under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance under pressure from the Catholic Church during the 1950s because of the "red scare" that had hysterically gripped America and led to another era of "witch trials."

Further encroachment on the First Amendment was made when the Supreme Court recently handed down a decision in support of school vouchers, which in many instances use tax dollars to support religious education.

The Founding Fathers must be rolling over in their graves.

Arthur Laupus

Columbia

The common-sense thinking that our Founding Fathers used to write and ratify our Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the same thinking that created the principle of separating religion and government in America. It was social engineering's finest hour.

And, you know what? It was grounded in faith in God.

However, the common-sense thinking of those times, which was grounded in religious faith and trust in God's influence over our fledgling country, is absent today. If Americans are not careful, a mutated form of social engineering will undermine our way of life.

This mutated way of thinking takes the principle of separation and then reduces the role and importance of God in our country and elevates the role and importance of government and its influence over us.

This backward thinking created the education mess we now have.

It created thousands of permanent government bureaucracies. It created the environment for social engineers to remove prayer from our schools. It opened our borders to anyone who wanted to enter, without regard to the cost or effect on our social fabric, political institutions or the personal safety of our citizens.

We're in a time when Americans and the world most need the grounded, common-sense thinking of our Founding Fathers, which includes faith in God (whichever God you believe in) and God's role in our daily lives and in the way we conduct our government.

The majority can no longer afford to watch as our values are minimized by a minority bent on political correctness and on elevating the few at the expense of the many.

Michael A. Dilks

Baltimore

For more than 200 years, the separation of church and state has been a crucial principle in our country's government. However, the phrase "one nation under God" excludes all tribal and regional gods and goddesses. It implies one source or center for citizens who may affiliate with various faiths or religions.

Currently, Hindus, Taoists and unaffiliated believers and nonbelievers are becoming American citizens.

"Church and state" is not their concern. But personal devotion to Yahweh, Krishna or Allah does not disqualify them from "the land of the free."

Robert Y. O'Brien

Severna Park

Separation of church and state is an important debate because religion is a private matter and the government establishing one faith for all Americans would violate the principle of religious freedom.

However, taking the words "under God" out of our Pledge of Allegiance would also violate the principles on which our country was established.

There is a difference between separation of church and state and separation of God and state. Acknowledgment and respect for a higher spiritual authority and the Creator of the universe is a part of our American heritage and culture and one of the principles for which this nation stands.

Our forefathers used it as a moral guideline for American democracy. And at one time, it distinguished us from communist nations.

Those who do not believe in this American "under God" concept have the freedom to believe or not believe and still live peacefully in a free country such as ours.

But they do not have the right to change our Founding Fathers' principles or the spiritual character of our history by denying the spiritual aspect of our American values.

Barbara Ann Bloom

Owings Mills

The opening words of the preamble to our Constitution, "We the people," beg the question, "Who are 'we'"?

At the time the Constitution was written by those forward-thinking, radical forefathers of ours, "we" were Christians, mostly Protestants.

But more than 200 years later, "we" are Christians as well as Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, agnostics and people with many other affiliations.

Therefore, when we talk about part of the First Amendment and the common interpretation of it as enforcing the "separation of church and state," the question arises: From which church is the state to keep separate?

In my opinion, it is an all-or-nothing proposition.

The First Amendment was a safety-valve incorporated into the Constitution to preserve religious liberty and prevent oppression.

"We" are entitled to protection from religious intolerance and persecution. The First Amendment draws that line in the sand, even though the political tides sometimes threaten to erode it.

But the Constitution of the United States is resilient. It is a working document designed to grow along with a burgeoning nation-in-progress, not to constrain it within a moment in history.

"We the people" or "We the "insert religion here"?

I'll stick with the people.

Stephanie King

Baltimore