To the editor:

Why do you include blatantly prejudicial letters such as the one objecting to the Employment Resource Center [May 28] by Kelly Kleiman [June 18]? If there was a known case of someone being subjected to preaching, that might be criticized, but to object to funding a public service, be it a hospital, a home for the mentally retarded, or an employment facility, seems to reek of prejudice.

Incidentally, why doesn’t the second half of the First Amendment get equal billing with the first half: “Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise [of religion] thereof”?

Lucya Prince

River Forest