Opened the door

State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe is being portrayed in the media as a villain, but the question I have not heard asked is this: Why on earth was the House even considering the endorsement of a faith-based event in the first place ("Resolution Derailed by One Lawmaker's Anti-Muslim Remark," June 19)? That was the true violation of the separation of church and state, not Mr. Metcalfe's response.

The House broke down the wall and opened the door for Mr. Metcalfe to express his own religious views. What about the representatives who agreed with the proposal, because they believe that Islam is a legitimate and/or worthwhile religion? Where's the outrage toward them?

A positive statement about any one faith goes against separation just as much as a negative one does. If we truly believe in a strong division between religion and government, it doesn't just mean that elected officials can't say anything bad about a particular faith; it means they can't say anything nice, either.

If the House had been minding the business of government, then Mr. Metcalfe never would have had an opportunity or reason to express his personal views.

CATHY KOWALKOWSKI

Arnold