Preserving Free Speech

To the editors:

Susannah B. Tobin presents an interesting view of religion (Opinion, Feb. 4). She would like us to believe church leaders should play no role in the formation of public policy. In fact, she is even willing to turn against the recent commutation of the death penalty for Darrell Mease because it was given in response to a call from the world's most prominent religious leader, Pope John Paul II.

Tobin maintains that our society should discount religious belief in favor of "legal argument or moral reversal." I presume that since the death penalty is legal in the state of Missouri, Tobin does not mean that the governor should have invoked a law as justification for the commuation of Mease's sentence. Instead, I can only assume that she meant that the death penalty should be repealed in Missouri. As long as the First Amendment exists, I suggest that any point of view (even religious) could be used in such a "legal argument"--a debate.

Next comes Tobin's invocation of "moral reversal." I suppose Tobin is arguing that religion should play no role in morality for those who are religious (still a majority of the population, especially in middle America). The implications of such an argument are so absurd they need not be addressed.

The fact is that religious viewpoints have as much right to be expressed and believed as any other. Otherwise the First Amendment would be meaningless. Since we live in a republic, if such views gain majority status through their expression, I can hardly imagine that they could not shape the formation of public policy.

Tobin's column is not about separating religion from state recognition. That has already been accomplished. It is about silencing religious viewpoints in our political discourse because she disagrees with their stance on abortion, homosexuality and feminist liberation--even if it means a few more immoral executions of inmates on death row. In other words, I don't like some of the messenger's religious beliefs, so let's ignore the validity of the message. I can't imagine what this philosophy would have done for a religious leader named Martin Luther King Jr. in the 1960's. CHRISTOPHER G. ROBERTS '01   Feb. 4, 1998