A number of thoughts crossed my mind while reading Robert McMillan's article, God Bless America? in your Sept. 12 edition. People are afraid of change. They will cling to any preconceived notion irrespective of the facts, make misstatements in support of their position and vilify their critics rather than make the effort to examine the merits of their opponents' arguments. McMillan's article is a typical example of such behavior. To deal honestly with the issues would admit that none of us has a copyright on the truth of any matter. It would acknowledge the possibility of fallibility - somehow diminishing in their eyes their own self-worth. And it would require confronting long-held prejudices, a very discomforting proposition.

McMillan's article is really a rant, a list of potential horrible hyberboles. Removing the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Supreme Court could lead to eliminating "God" from the presidential oath taking (notwithstanding that the traditional "so help me God" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution) and from witnesses' oaths in court, although as an attorney he should know that witnesses are frequently already sworn in on oaths and affirmations that do not refer to God or require a hand placed on the Bible. The national anthem may have to change, although the first stanza, the one customarily sung at public events, is devoid of any reference to a divinity. He states that God Bless America and similar songs may have to be abandoned even though no factual or legal basis is given for this conclusion.

McMillan drags the Declaration of Independence into the fray and states that the men who authored the Constitution "relied on God." Yes, the Declaration refers to "Nature's God." Yes, there is a supplication to divine Providence for the rectitude of the cause. But it is also true that Jefferson's God is a far cry from the God of the Bible, the one who, according to Exodus, delivered the Decalogue to the Children of Israel. He chooses to ignore that. The Constitution nowhere mentions God. And what exactly does it mean that Madison, Franklin Morris, Hamilton, et al, "relied on God?" This is rhetoric devoid of meaning. The Constitution was the fulfillment in almost literal terms of the Enlightenment's theoretical proposition that societies were created by means of social contracts. Here it was, a contract among sovereign people of equal standing organizing a new country, creating a government of limited powers and, in the words of the Declaration, deriving its just powers "from the consent of the governed" not from the grace of any godhead! And that brings us to the heart of the matter.

The government represents each of us. It doesn't get to choose which of its citizens it will protect or whose rights are worthy of protection and whose are not. We are all equal. It may not exercise powers that are not granted to it nor exercise those powers that are for non-governmental purposes. For example, educating children, protecting our lives and property, feeding the hungry and defending us against invasion represent legitimate purposes. Our governors can perform those duties without advocating for a belief in any god or elevating religion over humanistic beliefs. As a result, government may not intrude into this aspect of our lives. This concept of limited government is essential to preventing tyranny. The founders understood this. They were aware of the divisiveness that insistence on adherence to any particular set of religious values or to theistic religion in general can inflict on a population. They were witnesses to the potential abuse that government-sponsored religion could wreak. The anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment was a product of this experience and the wisdom gained from it. By placing a monument depicting the Ten Commandments in the court's rotunda to pay homage to his God, the chief judge of the Alabama Supreme Court violated each of these fundamental principles. That is why requiring the removal of the monument was an eminently correct decision.

Finally, rather than deal forthrightly with these arguments, McMillan engages in a gratuitous personal attack on anyone with the nerve to disagree with him. We are "ungrateful" and "tramp" on and "defame" the nation's heritage. Ungrateful to whom, I wonder. McMillan and his ilk are afraid of change. They lash out because deep down, they are unsure of the rightness of their cause. And, like Dr. Johnson's proverbial scoundrel whose last refuge is patriotism, McMillan's last refuge is disparaging the character of those with whom he disagrees.

Jack K. Feirman