LETTERS: DEATH PENALTY NOT CHURCH-STATE ISSUE

To the editor:

Now the death penalty has become a hot topic since Gov. Mel Carnahan decided to commute the sentence of the death-row inmate following a direct appeal by Pope John Paul II. I can understand that those who support the death penalty are upset, because I used to support the death penalty. Im not bothered that some people are upset by the pope's request or the governor's decision. But I am greatly disturbed at some of the flawed logic from which their disagreements are voiced.

The chorus of "What about the separation of church and state?" shows that people do not understand the meaning of that clause. The separation of church and state does not mean that the two cannot communicate between one another. The pope's request does not violate the separation of church and state, nor does the governor's decision to agree to that appeal.

The intent of separation of church and state was simply to prevent our society from becoming a theocracy (such as Iran, where the religious order is the government), or from having a state-sponsored church (for instance the Church of England). The intent of this clause was the maintenance of freedom, not the restraint of religion.

If there is to be such a thing as complete and total separation, why do churches need tax-exempt status? Shouldn't churches be able to operate without any regard to local, state and federal laws if they are totally separate? If there is total separation of church and state, churches should not have to comply with building and zoning codes, payroll taxes for lay employees or the Americans with Disabilities Act. But that is not the case, and churches must comply with many ordinances and laws because they are not exempt from the laws of the land. And so religion, and the religious, cannot be expected to remain silent on issues of faith as they impact public policy.

If men and women of faith did not express their beliefs and work for peace and justice in the world, what kind of nation would we be.

The pope made an appeal based on the belief that because God gives life, man should not take it away under any circumstance other than direct self-defense. He is not suggesting that people who commit violence should not be punished. Their crimes and the victims are not ignored, and criminals should be punished. Society does have a right to protect itself from those who prey on others, and criminals who commit heinous crimes should be punished vigorously. But the victims are not any less hurt or dead if the state kills the criminal. The question is really not centered on the criminal as much as it is ourselves as a society.

If we are to be a people who respect life, then we must be universal and consistent in the application of that respect. For example, if someone is opposed to abortion because it takes a life, then it is also wrong to kill abortionists. That would violate the universal application of respect for life. It is interesting that the militant pro-choice crowd believes it's OK to kill a baby in the womb, but they howl with outrage about the dangers of the religious right when an abortionist is killed. That is a selective application of respect for life.

This is what the pope is calling us to examine. If we believe human life is sacred, then all human life is sacred from conception to natural death no matter the condition, health or virtue of that life. Are we a people who respect life, or will we be dominated by a culture of death.

In closing, you can disagree with the governors personal and political decision. You can disagree with the popes theology. But to posit that the decision to commute the criminals death sentence was a violation of church and state is misguided and wrongheaded. There was no religious authority writing the law of the state, or any politician controlling a church's beliefs and practices. This was simply a frail, 78-year-old man asking the governor to not kill.

MICHAEL SIMMONS

Cape Girardeau