Letters to the Editor

Don't hinder the faithful in political debate

Re: Prevent religious electioneering, editorial, April 22.

I disagree with the Times' opposition to the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act. Currently, a faith community that informs its members about how elected officials vote on specific legislation (such as via a "scorecard") faces losing its tax-exempt status, i.e., its recognition as a religious institution. While this is rather selectively enforced, it is a reality that misunderstands the nature of religious belief and misstates the role of the First Amendment. This act will rectify that injustice.

If I claim to be a Jew, or Christian, or follower of Allah, it will (or should) affect everything I do, including how I live out my citizenship in a participatory democracy like ours. If I want to live out my faith well, I need information, not only about what political issues my faith holds dear, but also about what current and future elected leaders believe in regard to those issues and how they have voted. If my faith's issues are not those favored by the media, and I cannot get that information from my faith community, I face an uphill battle in trying to be a good citizen.

If we wonder why citizens aren't more involved in their self-government, perhaps a piece of the answer is this attempt to isolate believers from the public discussion, or at least get them to check their beliefs at the door. To exclude religious believers as believers impoverishes the public discussion and denies the deeper reality by which many of us live.

It also underestimates the ability of religious believers to make judgments on their own. The scandal facing the Catholic Church, horrible as it is, has shown that Catholics, like most believers, are able to separate the actions and words of their leaders from the truths of their faith. The current rules seem to imply that religious institutions, if political, would crank out automatons who parrot the will of their leaders. That is insulting, to say the least. The First Amendment was written to protect the diversity of religious beliefs, not inoculate society from any religious infection.

Finally, consider that the Times finds it repugnant that a church could use tax-exempt donations for political advocacy. That's a little ironic, given that the Times (and other media) benefit from selling political advertising that is also exempt from taxation.
Jeff Johnson, St. Petersburg

A restriction on speech

Re: Prevent religious electioneering, April 22.

The intention of separating government and religion is not to prevent churches from influencing government; it is to prevent government from enforcing religion. If one objects to hearing a minister endorsing political candidates or doesn't agree with a political agenda, he is free to go to another church. Government has the power of force behind its agendas. Separation of church and state prevents a reigning political body from deciding on an "official" religion and declaring that you participate in that church or you go to jail

Our ways and means of free political expression are becoming more and more limited. To ban churches from endorsing candidates is one more step down the path of restricted speech.
Yvonne Schick, Belleair

Not all churches treated equally

Re: Prevent religious electioneering.

Perhaps -- just perhaps -- the legislation mentioned in the Times editorial, the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act, was born of the inequities that have been tolerated in churches.

It is sad to even have to characterize churches as either "black" or "white," for the Bible tells us that God is Spirit, hence colorless.

However, an upstate New York church was threatened with loss of tax-exempt status because its pastor made negative remarks about then-President Bill Clinton. This church was considered of the "white type." Yet for decades, churches of the "black type" have paraded any number of political candidates into the pulpit, with nary a cause for concern. It seems to me to be very disrespectful to God Almighty when any worship center is used for anything but that.

Would that any clergy were be free to express general principles of the particular faith espoused without having any candidate stomping in person or alluded to by name. And would that the hours of 10 a.m. to noon on Sundays were not the most segregated hours of the week in America.
Kenn Sidorewich, Oldsmar

Following the money

Re: Prevent religious electioneering, April 22.

I agree that Rep. Walter Jones' Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act is an exceptionally bad idea. But not because I fear the "disproportionate influence religious institutions would have within the political process." Quite the opposite. I fear the disproportionate influence political institutions would have within the religious process

Consider an example. A wealthy patron has $10,000. He can pay tax on that amount, at a marginal rate of 28 percent, giving $2,800 to the government, and the remaining $7,200 to his favorite politician. Or he can give it to his favorite religious/political institution, and deduct the entire amount from his taxes. The favorite religious/political institution then passes $9,000 to the favorite politician, skimming 10 percent as a fee for laundering the money through a tax-exempt entity. The wealthy patron has disposed of the same amount of money either way, but the politician has seen his share of the money go up 25 percent, while the religious/political institution gets $1,000 for doing a little bookkeeping.

How many churches, when offered this money, will reject it? Once they become dependent on this income source, how many will be able to rebuff the "suggestions" of the wealthy patrons, who may not even be members of the church, to make changes to the theology or doctrine preached from the pulpit?

Congress has come up with some unbelievably stupid ideas in recent years. But the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act has to be the winner.
William Carroll, Gulfport

Beliefs too often get into legislation

Re: DeLay: "Only Christianity" has the answers, April 20.

Tom DeLay, House majority whip, was quick to respond after he was criticized for his lack of appreciation for pluralism in our nation with his statement that "only Christianity" has the answers. His sound-bite response reveals a duplicity as he says he respects others' rights to their own beliefs and practice of their religion. If that is the case, why do these fundamentalists keep trying to legislate their own beliefs into laws we must obey? Where is the respect for others' beliefs?

Combine that thought with the column on the same day, House is insulated from public's mood by Ronald Brownstein, and the red flag goes up. Perhaps the redistricting law should be changed so that the public selects private citizens in the state to redraw the district maps rather than leaving the job in the hands of the wolves in the sheepfold, those who want to establish their own kingdom. Change is good especially when it comes to entrenched politicians.
Nina S. Flanders, Clearwater

The answers come up short

Re: DeLay: "Only Christianity" has the answers.

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome back to the Dark Ages. Christianity has had centuries to provide the "answers." It has provided bloodshed, bigotry, power-mongering, discrimination, elitism, hypocrisy and an "us versus them" mentality. If those are the answers, then we need either new questions or better answers from somewhere else
Chris Behrens, Pinellas Park

Reaching out to a larger community

Re: Political correctness wins again, letter, April 22, responding to the April 12 story, Metropolitan Ministries drops religious quota.

I'm sorry the letter writer is upset, but if you want to be a "metropolitan" operation, and draw support (work, money) from the entire community, you'll have to be a bit diverse.

If you want to remain a sectarian, specialized service featuring Christian messages with your aid, you'll have to get your support from those who agree with those messages, and the few who ecumenically give to various charitable groups without caring about the specific label.

If you ask me to serve on your board or work in your kitchen and take part in offering your religious services I'll have to refuse to serve. I don't think that's really political correctness on my part.

I think Metropolitan Ministries got successful, grew, and wanted to grow more, and in reaching out to the entire community found that it had to respect the wishes of others not among their congregants or within their philosophies.
Max R. Loick, St. Petersburg

Bush is no environmentalist

Re: Bush, Gore bristle in Earth Day battle, April 23.

In an act of brazen political prevarication, George W. Bush recently declared himself an environmentalist. In the chill air of the Adirondacks, the president put aside all the destructive acts of his administration, which have wiped out enormous progress in environmental law, to brag about his love for clean air and water.

The energy industry is the clear gainer in Bush's march to polluters' paradise. The nation will be for a long time recovering from the degradation and indifference of Bush environmental policies.
Edward Rapp, Inverness

When dogs bite

Re: Getting back in the saddle, April 23.

I am incensed by people who let mean dogs run the neighborhoods unleashed. While walking or jogging through our Northeast Park Shores neighborhood, my wife and I have each been chased by aggressive dogs that are allowed by their owners to run loose, chase people and defecate in neighborhood yards

My wife was, while out jogging, recently bitten by an unleashed dog and would have been viciously mauled had it not been for a kind and helpful mail carrier who was nearby, heard her screams and ran to her rescue with a can of Mace.

Since that incident, here's what we've learned. Dogs have very sensitive ears. If a loud shout doesn't back them off, a well-placed 7-iron between the ears or between the hind legs usually does, and it seems to change their attitude, too!
Richard Carey, St. Petersburg

Keeping our spirits up

Re: N.Y. girls say "thanks" with prom dresses, April 23.

I was a St. Petersburg Times daily subscriber for 10 years, but I stopped due to the depressing and inane stories you ran. Some of them, in my opinion, were not worth the space

This week, I happened to pick up a copy and read with tears the story of Operation Prom Dress. Stories like this could make me a subscriber again.

Yes, the world is a dangerous, sometimes depressing place, but you, as journalists and editors, could do a better job of keeping our spirits up with stories about the good. It inspires all of us that it is really a beautiful world.
Susan Debord, Safety Harbor

Share your opinion

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 (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.

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

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