Opinion: Separation of church and state; it's that simple

It's amazing that even after 200 years, a syndicated columnist like Raspberry still doesn't get the "separation of church and state." But since he's willing to ask, I'll try to answer.

The framers were not against religion. Instead, they believed in the dangers of any government-sanctioned expression thereof. And to ensure against the potential evils of that outcome, there has evolved the importance of a clear demarcation between private prayer and any suggestion of state-authorized worship. History is replete with the human suffering that results when that dynamic balance is lost.

Raspberry's thinking is much like that of those who lament the constitutional protections on which our criminal law is based. The framers did not approve of crime; they were concerned with protecting the innocent despite the occasional freeing of the guilty. Even justice has its price.

While on the subject of injecting religion into political discourse, it should be pointed out to Sen. Joe Lieberman, who is quoted on the same page saying there is no contradiction between freedom "of" religion and freedom "from" religion. That is a distinction without a difference. Clearly any concept of true religious freedom has to include both.

And now it's my turn to ask for explanations: Does the practice of invoking the Almighty actually work in winning football games? Is it really a praying contest? Does the team that prays better win, or do they just hit harder -- or does God help them hit harder?
-- Phillips M. Evans, Largo

Times is like a broken clock

Re: Explain again why we shut religion out, by William Raspberry, Sept. 5.

For all my complaints about your insensitivity and other shortcomings, it behooves me to recall that even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

William Raspberry's thoughts on the subject are filled with exceptional insight. Congratulations to him and to your newspaper for its "broken clock."

Keep it up!
-- Jeffrey M. Letter, Pinellas Park

Let's not be oppressors

A good many people in this country possess a sense of fairness and justice by virtue of our history as a democratic society and, for many of us, our religious beliefs. Our founding fathers gave us the Bill of Rights and Constitution to protect us from oppression by our own government. We are indeed a very fortunate people. However, this protection that we enjoy and many of us take for granted apparently does not apply to our own government's policies toward other countries and their citizens.

What would we, the people of the United States, think of a large and powerful nation dictating policies to a much smaller and weaker country? And then, after being rebuffed, attempt to gain control of that country by assassination of their leadership? When those efforts failed, the large and powerful nation then attempts to inflict economic damage upon that small country by trying to prevent all trade with it, resulting in serious suffering and hardship on its people?

Year after year the strangling of the smaller country continues, seemingly without an ounce of pity from the majority of the people of the larger country.

Shouldn't the peace-loving people of the United States be outraged by this?

The sad truth is that we are, through our government, oppressors of our close neighbor -- Cuba. Our government justifies this hypocritical policy by pointing out that Cuba is a totalitarian, Communist-led country that oppresses its own people. Yet, we seem to bend over backward hoping to improve and foster relations with (Communist) China. We are now opening diplomatic contacts with North Korea and Vietnam.

Not so long ago, these countries were bitter enemies of the United States. These three countries have not changed their style of government, yet we are warming our economic and diplomatic relations with them. Why does our government keep making life miserable for the poor people of Cuba, a country just 90 miles from our own shores, while extending the hand of peace, trade and friendship to countries on the other side of the world? The answer can only be political expediency. Haven't we allowed our blindness and apathy to obstruct our hearts? The Cold War is over. Fidel Castro isn't a threat anymore. We must wake up and demand that our government stop this unfair treatment of our neighbor. Lift the embargo! Allow trade and free travel between our countries. Forty years of embargo and oppression are enough. Let's give the Cuban people a chance to live. They have endured our unjust treatment long enough.
-- John Genaro, Clearwater

Front-page priorities skewed

I read the Times every day. I just wanted to comment on the Aug. 30 issue. Your front page showed two ballplayers fighting over a game, and in the middle right-hand side you had under Nation & World, Rebels kidnap U.S. man. I was just thinking: Why would someone be more interested in a little bickering over baseball than an American man's life in the Philippines?Wes Hudson, Largo
--
Humiliation tactics not helpful
My daughter has learned of the new dress code in her freshman year at Dunedin High School and not in a manner I feel was appropriate.
On the first day of school, my daughter was told her shorts were too short (even though I had read the dress code and considered them appropriate). She was asked to put on an XX-large T-shirt with a spray-painted "X" on it. She declined the shirt and was told to call a parent for a change of clothes. She called me, I came to the school, and she changed her shorts. While I firmly support a dress code and expect my child to be in compliance, I do have a problem with the fact that she was literally yanked away from her friends before homeroom even began.
Since that time, I have picked her up from school every day. I sit and I watch. There are students with purple and green hair (distracting), miniskirts that actually show the panties underneath (distracting) and no bras at all with bikini top shirts. I will not even mention the bare backs or the bare stomachs.
I was always taught that what is good for one is good for all. Why are some of these students able to get away with it? You cannot condone one type of attire and then condemn another. Mortification was not necessarily the solution to a problem; a little counseling might have done more.
Lee Ann Weiler, Dunedin

Dunedin High school on right track

Thank you for your coverage of the first day of school at Dunedin High School, where my son attends. Hats off to Dunedin High officials for deciding that they would enforce the rules that are already on the books. I believe it true that if we simply enforce the rules already in place, our public schools will automatically be at least a level higher on the learning environment ladder.

Some writers to your column have been disturbed by the dress code emphasis and surprised that their children are in violation (translation: failure to read school rules). I think if you weigh the minor disadvantages of the dress code against the significant advantages in the areas of creating respect, discipline and the fostering of a better learning environment with fewer distractions (better preparing our students for college and career positions), then I believe the readers must agree that Dunedin High is setting the pace for the county in this category.

Better educational achievement comes down to parental involvement, and this is making a difference at Dunedin High. Parents are not only there to help monitor the dress code, they are there to reduce smoking in the restrooms (better health for our students) and to monitor the parking lots (safety for our students).

Kudos to Dunedin High, principal Milly "The Hammer" Reed, administration, faculty and parent volunteers.
-- James M. Hammond, Dunedin

Protected class with royal benefits

Ghost of George Orwell? Listen up! The hate crime legislation introduced by Sens. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and Gordon Smith, R-Ore., and already passed by the Senate, would have everyone but white males designated as a protected class. Racial minorities, handicapped, homosexuals and women, for instance, would all belong to a protected class. White males who commit crimes against any person in one of these groups could be punished doubly. But crimes committed by any member of the protected groups against anyone, including white males, would not face the added penalties.

This type of skewed thinking calls to mind the prerogatives of royalty shunned by our nation over 200 years ago. Back then, the prevailing wisdom held that a royal person was unable to commit crime against a mere citizen, but a mere citizen could commit a crime against royalty. In America, everyone is supposed to be equal before the law. Crimes should be adjudicated based on what was done, not why.

The House of Representatives has not yet considered this dangerous proposal. Every representative should be requested to reject it, or anything remotely similar should it be proposed.
-- Tom Edmondson, Nokomis

Article should have named names

Re: Judges cut bail of man now suspect in slaying, Sept. 7.

When news articles are released regarding the questionable actions of a judge on a case, I wish it would name the judge or judges responsible. How else can a citizen evaluate the competence of an elected official when we vote?
-- William Moore, Largo

A matter of saving lives

Once again, more children are hurt or lie dead because our state has no law against riding in the open bed of a pickup truck. I am referring to the tragedy that occurred over the Labor Day weekend, when a truck carrying four children in the bed was broadsided and all were thrown up to 50 feet onto the pavement. We preach safety for the kids yet do something so stupid its hard to comprehend.

Our state is one of many that makes it unlawful for people to ride in a car without a seat belt yet has the audacity to allow this. The hypocrisy here is mind-boggling. In my opinion, anyone caught with a child unrestrained in any vehicle should be subject to prosecution. An adult should have the common sense to know that accidents happen when you least expect them and should have the forethought not to put children in harm's way.

There is nothing in this life more precious than the life of a child. By simply thinking ahead to the possible consequences, these tragedies could be avoided. As parents and adults, it is our responsibility to take all necessary precautions to guard the children -- all the children, not just ours -- against any preventable action that may result in disaster. As citizens, we should pressure our representatives to correct this terrible lack of an appropriate law.
-- Joseph F. Bruckner, Holiday

Share your opinions

We invite readers to write to us. Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731.

They can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com or by fax to 893-8675.

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.
--

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page