Letters to the Editors

Teaching respect is better than limiting religion

Re: Unwelcome prayers, editorial, Dec. 29.

I really cannot understand why prayer is so controversial. One random prayer does not promote religion. It usually recognizes a supreme being asking for a blessing and guidance for future endeavors.

Instead of condemning it, we should teach our students to respect all religions, even those who have no religion and even those who don't believe there is a god. We teach students to respect other cultures. By the same token, we should teach them to respect other religions or nonreligions.

When you restrict religious functions at the school level, you are discriminating against those who believe in God. Teach respect instead of restrictions. Restrictions breed negative emotions, not unity. Many of the first pilgrims gave up their country and came to the New World so they could worship freely.

Maybe a better solution would be to have each group give a short prayer or statement of what they believe guides their lives. This way, all will be represented.
-- Catherine Mandalinich, St. Petersburg

Avoid imposing religion

Re: Unwelcome prayers, Dec. 29.

The editorial is right on target regarding the decision of the Duval County School Board and its stand on prayer at graduation exercises. We are proud that our country stands for freedom, and we must never forget that this means freedom of thought, freedom of conviction.

We can argue for a long time about the religious beliefs of the founding fathers. What is really important is that they resolved that no one could impose his or her religion on anyone else by law. The government must keep its hands off all questions of faith. They had seen too much of state-supported, state-mandated religions in the past. (Are we not seeing the fruits of it now, in the Middle East?)

Contrary to what some eager believers say, this does not mean "kicking God out of the schools, out of the country." People are perfectly free to practice their religions openly on their own time, on their own property. (Remember, houses of worship -- all kinds of worship -- are not taxed.)

The Times is absolutely correct when it says of public school graduation exercises that "... participants are sure to presume that any prayer given is an approved part of the formal program." As to the matter of "free speech," the editorial writer wisely says, "A forum in which the only person who gets to speak is the one chosen by the majority is hardly a place for a free exchange of ideas."
-- Abigail Ann Martin, Brandon

Religion and politics, a problematic mix

Re: The wisdom of church-state separation, letter, Jan. 1.

The reverend doctor wrote five long paragraphs explaining the logic of this "scenario." I would like to condense his language to a few words.

First: There are two sides to every issue.

Second: On political issues, for the betterment of society, compromise works well.

Third: Religion has no room for compromising.

A religion is a belief. It is nice to have faith and to believe in something. Everyone should have faith in something. But keep it to yourself and everyone will get along.

The people of Afghanistan and surrounding areas are the products of the first tribes to inhabit this earth and are among the poorest. Why? Religion! Afghanistan will never advance as long as religion is involved in the political decisions.
-- Donald F. Kelly, St. Petersburg

They seem not so separate

Re: The wisdom of church-state separation.

I was happy to see the letter supporting the separation of church and state. I think the letter writer was a little optimistic in claiming that this country does not have an official religion, "either legal or de facto."

We include "under God" in our pledge of allegiance to the flag; we place the words "In God we trust" on our currency and our legislatures are opened with prayers, even though they may be "non-denominational."

Also, many local governments and, especially, school boards open with prayers to a Christian God. The courts are constantly beset with suits by factions trying to force some kind of school prayer. Our liquor laws reflect religious pressures, especially regarding Sunday sales.

Overall, though, it is healthy to hear from a man of the cloth, supporting the principle of separation.
-- M.H. Williams, Palm Harbor

Vilified by the establishment

Re: White supremacist billboard quickly jettisoned in Tampa, Dec. 18.

Would H. Roy Kaplan call Israel a "supremacist" country when it exercises its right of self-defense and selects who can move there and who is a true citizen? It would be difficult to explain all of an organization's goals on a billboard, but I would think that the National Alliance, which is vilified by the establishment, would welcome immigrants who contribute to our culture and who assimilate here.

The fact that there are some unstable people who would read a novel, fantasize about it and then commit a crime is no reason to blame the author. William Pierce merely wrote a novel in the tradition of 1984, Brave New World and The Journal of David Q. Little; yet he is accused of some sort of mind control over everyone who reads his works.

People like Roy Kaplan pretend to be concerned about the outcomes that their policies create, yet are alarmed when somebody takes the bull by the horns and organizes like-minded citizens. Leftists used to complain that they were tarred as "communist sympathizers" because they attended a meeting where there were a few Reds or they gave a few dollars to the wrong cause. Today, if you are a nationalist, believe in the scientific literature on racial differences, call for an America-first foreign policy and dare associate with like-minded individuals, you had better not have a "Nazi" among you, or you will be considered one, too.
-- Leonard Martino, Tampa

They can't take it

Re: Liberals lash out with hateful words, by Jeff Jacoby, Jan. 1.

Boo Hoo! Jeff Jacoby's column whining about some liberals using harsh word against conservatives broke my heart! After eight years of hearing Republicans and their media stooges blast the Democrats with nonstop fantasies of murder, conspiracies and trying to equate the term "liberal" with "communist," he seems to be surprised that the level of political discussion could have sunk so low.

Gee, I wonder how it got this way? It just proves that they can dish it out but sure can't take it!
-- Paul Wilsbach, Palm Harbor

People have a right to smoke-free air

Re: Naples scheme won't stamp out smoking, Jan. 1.

Elijah Gosier is absolutely right. Smokers do have as much right to smoke as others have not to smoke. However, as amusing and entertaining as his column was, he failed to mention one crucial issue related to smoking: second-hand smoke. What smokers choose to do to their own bodies is their business. However, when they inflict the dangers of their personal habits into the lungs of another person, their rights have to be seriously modified.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a person smoking in his own home (except for innocent children who may live in the same house), but smoking in restaurants, ball parks, buildings and at any event that involves the public, indisputably poses a threat to nonsmokers' health.

It's quite simple. Second-hand smoke is a carcinogen. It causes lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease (to name a few), kills and disables thousands of people every year and inflates health care costs for nonsmokers and smokers alike.

It's not the smoker that nonsmokers find objectionable. It's the smoke. I will not apologize for the "self-righteous, superior attitude" that Gosier claims nonsmokers have.

The bottom line is that people have a right to breath clean air. Smoking in public takes away this right. I applaud Naples for thinking about making this right a reality. Let's hope that Pinellas County and the rest of our state follow suit.
-- Kim Goldberg, Seminole

Persistent puffing

Re: Naples scheme won't stamp out smoking.

There was one point that Elijah Gosier made in this column with which I agree: Smokers have to decide to quit of their own accord.

But my favorite part of the column says most smokers would gladly comply with our reasonable requests not to smoke! Mr. Gosier, for many, many years I have tried to do just this. Even when asked politely to refrain, or step aside, "most smokers" just inhale deeply and blow smoke in my face. I assure you I am polite in my request, neither self-righteous nor superior, just a person with a disability trying to get some fresh air.

I'm fairly certain the Community Services Advisory Board of Naples will not pass the proposed resolution. I'm not sure they should. I think it's a shame that it will take an amendment to the Constitution to bring about much-needed change in the cigarette war. But I wholeheartedly support the SmokeFree for Health Campaign being promoted by the American Cancer Society and the American Lung Association, and urge others to do so. The vast majority of adult Americans do not smoke. It's time our rights to breathe were recognized.
-- Lynn Landseadel, R.N., Spring Hill

Reasons to quit smoking

Re: Naples scheme won't stamp out smoking.

Elijah Gosier's column about Naples' plan to make smoking illegal appears to be more of a look into the mind and heart of a man struggling mightily to stop smoking. He lists all the usual reasons he should quit, but says he doesn't want to hear it from anyone else, especially those, "arrogant" strangers and "self-righteous, superior" nonsmokers, who continually tell him what he already knows about the "noxious and unhealthy" habit.

I don't mean to be another arrogant stranger, and I hope I don't have a self-righteous, superior attitude. I do have, however, a sincere concern for a fellow human being who seems to want to quit and is trying to find a way to, as he says, commit himself to his own decision to quit. Perhaps he will permit me one suggestion, though he says that outside comments from strangers aren't welcome and do no good. (I'll take a chance, anyway.)

If he really is trying to quit, hopefully, he will focus exclusively, not on his personal difficulties, but rather, entirely on the excruciatingly painful effects
-- his suffering and probable early demise will have on his loved ones, friends and column readers. He must know that it would exact a terrible toll from his family and friends. His thousands of readers would also miss him a great deal.
John Farnham, St. Petersburg

Share your opinions

Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They also can be sent by fax to (727) 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.

For e-mail users: Letters can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com. E-mail messages must be text only and cannot include attachments. If you're using a word processing program to write the message, you must use its ''Save as'' function to save it as a text file, then import it into your e-mail program. Please include your return e-mail address, as well as your name, mailing address and phone number, in the text of the message.

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111

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