God and the Ballot Box

(3 of 5)

Then, turning briefly to the question of church and state, Reagan voiced sentiments that would please any civil libertarian: "The unique thing about America is a wall in our Constitution separating church and state. It guarantees there will never be a state religion in this land, but at the same time it makes sure that every single American is free to choose and practice his or her religious beliefs or to choose no religion at all. Their rights shall not be questioned or violated by the state." There was no reference to the school-prayer amendment, nor did Reagan once mention Walter Mondale.

It was quite a contrast to the speech that ignited the debate, which Reagan had given at a prayer breakfast for 17,000 evangelical ministers in Dallas on the day after the Republican Convention. There Reagan had seemed to challenge the motivesand even the religious faith−of opponents of his school-prayer amendment. As he put it, "Those who are attacking religion claim they are doing it in the name of tolerance, freedom and open-minded-ness. Question: Isn't the real truth that they are intolerant of religion? They refuse to tolerate its importance in our lives."

That speech was in keeping with Reagan's longstanding courtship of the well-organized Christian Fundamentalists and Moral Majority types. On every major issue, including school prayer and abortion, Reagan has sided with these groups and shown a willingness to use Government authority to impose sectarian views on the population at large.

Coming as it did on the heels of Laxalt's letter and the appearance at the Republican Convention of the Rev. Jerry Falwell, founder of the Moral Majority, the prayer-breakfast speech stirred an outburst of anti-Reagan sentiment from editorial writers and columnists, including both conservatives and liberals. Anxious to undo the damage last week, Reagan at first sought an oft-used political refuge, claiming that his talk in Dallas had been poorly reported. When journalists asked him about the fuss over his religious remarks, he offered an aw-shucks reponse: "Well, I was only talking about it because I was speaking at a prayer breakfast, and then what I said was greatly distorted ..." But he declined to argue the case in detail. When asked how the distortion had occurred, he replied: "I guess it just lost something in translation."