opposed toleration John Adams later contributed to the building of Catholic churches, and so did George Washington. Thomas Jefferson said his proudest achievement was not the presidency or the writing the declaration of Inde pendence but draf ting the virg in ia Statute of Relig ious Freedom. He stated the vision of the first Americans and the First Amendment very clearly: The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time. The separation of church and state can sometimes be frustrating for women and men of religious faith. They may be tempted to misuse government in order to impose a value which they cannot persuade others to accept. But once we succumb to that temptation, we step onto a slippery slope where everyone s freedom is at risk. Those who favor censorship should recall that one of the first books ever burned was the first English translation of the Bible. As President Eisenhower arned in 1953, Don' t join the book burners. the right to say ideas, the right to record them, and the right to have them accessible to others is unquestioned --or this isnt America. And if that right is denied at some future day the torch can be turned against any other book or any other belief. Let us never forget: Todays Moral Majority could become tomorrows persecuted minority The danger is as great now as when the founders of the nation first saw it. In 1789, their fear was of factional strife among dozens of denominations. Today there are hundreds--and perhaps even thousands of faiths--and millions of Americans wh are outside a ny fold plura lism obvio usly does not and cannot mean that all of them are right but it does mean that there are areas where government cannot and should not decide what it is wrong to believe, to think, to read and to do. As Professor Larry Tribe, one of the nations leading constitutional scholars has written Law in a non-theocratic state cannot measure religious truth, nor can the state impose it The real transgression occurs when relig ion wants government to tell citizens how to live uniquely personal parts of their lives. The failure of prohibition proves the futility of such an attempt when a majority or even a substantial minority happens to disagree. Some questions may be inherently individual ones, or people may be sharply div ided about whether they are. In such cases, like Prohibition and abortion, the proper role of religion is to appeal to the conscience of the individual, not the coercive power of the state But there are other questions which are inherently public in nature, which we must decide together as a nation and where relig ion and religious values can and should speak to our common conscience. The issue of nuclear war is a compelling example It is a moral issue; it will be decided by government, not by each indiv idual; and to ve a ffect to the moral values of their creed, people of faith must speak directly about public po licy. The Ca tho lic bishops and the reverend Billy graham have every right to sta nd for the nuclear freeze and Dr. Falwell has every right to stand against itopposed toleration, John Adams later contributed to the building of Catholic churches, and so did George Washington. Thomas Jef ferson said his proudest achievement was not the presidency, or the writing the Declaration of Independence, but draf ting the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom. He stated the vision of the first Americans and the First Amendment very clearly: “The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time.” The separation of church and state can sometimes be f rustrating for women and men of religious faith. They may be tempted to misuse government in order to impose a value which they cannot persuade others to accept. But once we succumb to that temptation, we step onto a slippery slope where everyone’s f reedom is at risk. Those who favor censorship should recall that one of the first books ever burned was the first English translation of the Bible. As President Eisenhower warned in 1953, “Don’t join the book burners...the right to say ideas, the right to record them, and the right to have them accessible to others is unquestioned -- or this isn’t America.” And if that right is denied, at some future day the torch can be turned against any other book or any other belief . Let us never forget: Today’s Moral Majority could become tomorrow’s persecuted minority. The danger is as great now as when the founders of the nation first saw it. In 1789, their fear was of factional strife among dozens of denominations. Today there are hundreds -- and perhaps even thousands of faiths -- and millions of Americans who are outside any fold. Pluralism obviously does not and cannot mean that all of them are right; but it does mean that there are areas where government cannot and should not decide what it is wrong to believe, to think, to read, and to do. As Professor Larry Tribe, one of the nation’s leading constitutional scholars has written, “Law in a non-theocratic state cannot measure religious truth, nor can the state impose it." The real transgression occurs when religion wants government to tell citizens how to live uniquely personal parts of their lives. The failure of Prohibition proves the futility of such an attempt when a majority or even a substantial minority happens to disagree. Some questions may be inherently individual ones, or people may be sharply divided about whether they are. In such cases, like Prohibition and abortion, the proper role of religion is to appeal to the conscience of the individual, not the coercive power of the state. But there are other questions which are inherently public in nature, which we must decide together as a nation, and where religion and religious values can and should speak to our common conscience. The issue of nuclear war is a compelling example. It is a moral issue; it will be decided by government, not by each individual; and to give any effect to the moral values of their creed, people of faith must speak directly about public policy. The Catholic bishops and the Reverend Billy Graham have every right to stand for the nuclear freeze, and Dr. Falwell has every right to stand against it