It's a good thing I was there when Judge Robert Bork met with a group of clergy at a Brookings Institution dinner for religious leaders in September 1985, because if I had nothing but The Post's account of that evening {front page, July 28}, I would draw entirely wrong conclusions about Judge Bork's views on church-and- state issues.

The Post's reporter was not pres-at the meeting. I was. As a rabbi with a strong commitment to the separation of church and state, I would have been greatly alarmed if Judge Bork had expressed any tendency to move away from our constitutional guarantee of religious freedom and equality. I heard nothing of the sort.

In fact, the judge showed great sensitivity to the ambiguities and dilemmas of the First Amendment. During an extraordinarily long exchange with the assembled clergy, Judge Bork was cautious, yet candid and open-minded. He threw back at us as many questions as he answered -- a Socratic approach I found most stimulating.

I do not recall the judge's ever stating how he would vote on matters such as prayer in public schools. Rather, I gained the impression that Judge Bork favors a pragmatic approach to the most controversial church-and-state issues, with all sides developing more flexibility. He sees a need to pull back from the growing polarization on these issues, which is highly damaging to the country and to religious bodies. He also sees a need to give some public recognition to the role of religion in our history and national life, short of promoting one or the other religious dogma or ritual under state auspices -- a policy that is now advocated even by the staunchly liberal People for the American Way.

JOSHUA O. HABERMAN Washington The Post is to be commended for what appears to be a surprisingly evenhanded series of articles on Judge Bork by Dale Russakoff and Al Kamen {July 26, 27, 28}.

I now understand better why there has been such rabid opposition to Judge Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court. The judge has apparently committed at least two cardinal sins: he kept an open mind as he grew older and matured, and he "converted" from liberalism/socialism/leftism to a philosophy reflected by the pragmatic old cliche': if you're not a socialist at 20, you don't have a heart; if you're still a socialist at 30 (or 40), you don't have a brain.

Judge Bork also apparently believes that if a law or the Constitution doesn't allow, or disallow, an action, then a judge should not give or take away. I find that hard to argue with. But then I have tried to keep my mind from closing.