Re: Terry Paulson’s May 30 essay, “Bitter battle over judges”:

Once more, The Star has served us with a piece of Paulson’s political pap. This time, Paulson centers on “activist” judges, wanting us to believe that reactivist judges — those who would turn back the clock — have a less activist agenda in setting aside precedent and reinterpreting written law.

Then, while admitting that Christ advocated strict secularism, he supports self-appointed Christians whose belief of Christ does not translate to belief in Christ — to do as Christ would. It brings into question the basis for calling themselves Christian. Are they perhaps anti-Christian?

Paulson once more states that freedom “of” religion does not equate to freedom “from” religion. Of course it doesn’t. Religion is based on faith, on a belief system centered on an unprovable core. In that sense, atheism is as much a belief system as theism or polytheism, as much a religion as any other. However, my freedom of religion has to insure your freedom of yours, if different from mine. Thus that level of freedom “from” religion, of the protection of individual choice, must exist.

Actually, one can take the Bible seriously without taking it literally. If you take it seriously, particularly the teachings of Christ, then believing “in” him means behaving as he would.

At the top of his agenda we find individual choice — thus, the separation of church and state, to insure that the choice remains an individual one.

Conservatism coupled with precedent gave us slavery, along with the Dred Scott decision. Paulson may not appreciate the activists who got us off that path — those who learned from history and decided not to repeat it — but I, for one, don’t care for his conservative activists. Their understanding of the Constitution differs from mine, particularly in the area of individual freedom and equal rights for all.
In his book, “The Dinner,” Paulson counters his liberal companion’s emphasis on voting for a person with voting for a party. The one promotes diversity. The other does not.

Conservatives have a party line. Liberals have an individual choice. I’ll accept that — along with activist judges who promote individual freedom and hold people accountable for their actions.

— Lynn H. Maxson, Simi Valley