Contrary to the assertions in "Blaine Game," Washington's so-called "Blaine" amendment does not burden Joshua Davey's religious activity or expression (editorial, Dec. 2). He is free to pursue his calling as a minister.  The amendment simply prevents taxpayers from being compelled to support religious instruction against their religious conscience and beliefs, and the state from being placed in the problematic position of determining the quality of religious instruction. 

The editorial's narrow focus on the 19^th century anti-Catholic origins of state "Blaine" amendments, which is not at issue in Locke v. Davey, completely overlooks the profound significance of the Supreme Court's pending decision on the future of church-state separation in this country. The case contemplates the critical issue of whether a state has the right to provide for stricter separation of church and state than the U.S. Constitution.

Based on a desire to protect the religious freedom and conscience of all its citizens, Washington chose to provide greater protection against establishment of a state religion than the First Amendment. This decision should not be disturbed.  If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Davey, the decision could require Washington and a majority of other states to support and become entangled in a broad range of religious activity violating the religious conscience of many citizens and threatening noble principles of separation of church and state.