Opinion: Legal profession, litigious society are unforgivable

The tragic deaths of Cindy and Chelsea Murakami were horrible. I remember hearing about the accident, seeing the story on the TV news and reading about it in the St. Petersburg Times. My heart, and I'm sure the hearts of all of our community, went out to Bruce Murakami and his family.

In the July 25 article, I was pleasantly surprised to read about the turnaround by Mr. Murakami, and heartened to see the remorse of the driver of the car that caused the deaths, Justin Cabezas. Certainly, the future work of Mr. Cabezas and Mr. Murakami in educating our youth about the horrors of street racing may well save many lives. But I was stunned to read the final few paragraphs of the article, in which you quote Joe Rouselle, an attorney representing Murakami in a suit against Dollar Rent-A-Car, which rented the car to Cabezas.

How sick is our litigious society in which we forgive someone who kills our families (and presumably has no assets to win in wrongful death lawsuit), and proceed with litigation against a rental car company for doing nothing but renting a car (and presumably has deeper pockets and better insurance).

Maybe this article exemplifies the hate in our society for the legal profession; it certainly helps solidify it for me.
-- Larry Feinman, Largo

Forgiveness is the way

Re: "I forgive him," July 25.

How truly amazing and inspiring -- what a phenomenal human being is Bruce Murakami. With this one act, he taught more than any minister, rabbi, professor, or psychology guru could begin to instill. He is not talk, he is action in the most miraculous way.

Thank you, Mr. Murakami, for showing us the way.
-- Terri E. Benincasa, Oldsmar

The ultimate Christian act

Re: "I forgive him."

A worthy front-page story. This is the ultimate Christian act that so many of us strive for but never reach in our own lives, perhaps equivalent to "laying down a life for a friend."
-- Bill Ackerman, Homosassa

Vivid and moving writing

Re: My brother's new keeper, July 21.

There have been many well-written stories in the Sunday Journal, but I find myself having to read some of them over several times to determine what message the writer is trying to convey.

But this was not so when Aly Colon took me into the story titled My brother's new keeper. Right from the start I was in the car with the family taking Carlos to the Porterville State Hospital for developmentally disabled children and adults. Before we even arrived, I knew him and the background of the family quite well.

I am always intrigued when a writer can come up with a description that paints a picture so vividly that it stays with the reader long after he has put down his paper. Aly describes their arrival at the home in this way:

"Laughter, cries, yells mingle in the cool air of a unit filled with other children. Some stand against the wall, arms hanging limply by their sides. Others amble confidently through the unit, waving at staff and friends. A few reach out to me. They pat me on the head, or caress my arm. I wave to them and smile."

And then this unforgettable picture:

"The bodies and faces seem slightly out of kilter. It's as if a fun house mirror suddenly released its images and they began walking about."

The pathos of those words will remain with me a long time, as will the moment when they kiss and hug Carlos as they are leaving; then, looking back, wonder if his outstretched arms are "waving goodbye or bidding us to return."

It is good for the soul to feel emotion -- to be moved to laughter or to tears -- and when someone can bring us to that point, then he truly is a writer to be admired and thanked.
-- Violet Milne McIntyre, Dunedin

Sizing up the First Amendment

Re: Founders didn't mean to banish God, letter, July 21.

I'm always troubled when a letter writer attempts to construe "our founding fathers' ideas" -- usually to make them conform to his or her own.

According to this letter writer, "from reading the congressional records written during that time, it would be crystal clear that... They had absolutely no intention for God to be stripped from government."

In Lee vs. Weisman, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1992, Justice David Souter, in his concurring opinion, did just what the letter writer purported to do. And he came up with a totally opposite view. He minutely examined the proceedings of a joint conference committee of the Senate and the House that ultimately came up with the language of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Justice Souter points out that the conference committee rejected proposed language that would simply have prohibited establishing a national religion, or would have required all sects or religions to have been treated equally. He stated: "The framers... instead extended their prohibition to state support for "religion' in general."

In support of his reading of the congressional debates, Justice Souter points out that, in Torcaso vs. Watkins, 367 U.S. 448 (1961), "we struck down a provision of the Maryland Constitution requiring public officials to declare a "belief in the existence of God.' " He refers to several other decisions of the Supreme Court, such as Epperson vs. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968). At Page 104 of that case, we find the clear statement: "The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion."

And Justice Souter concludes, "Such is the settled law." He was joined in his concurring opinion by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and John Paul Stevens.

There is another history lesson for your letter writer. Thomas Jefferson's reference to the First Amendment as creating "a wall of separation between church and state" was used as an authority in the courts long before "the mid-20th century." In Reynolds vs. United States, 94 U.S. 145, at Page 164, decided in 1878, the highest court in the land held that "Jefferson's use of the term "wall of separation between church and state' may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment...
-- Sidney M. Goetz, founder and president, Thomas Jefferson Societies, U.S.A. Inc., Gulfport

A secular document

The letter writer who worries that we are banishing God (Founders didn't mean to banish God, letter, July 21) must feel heartened by reading the account of Justice Antonin Scalia's Chicago address (Scalia's reverence for religious and state authority, July 21). One of the nine members of one of the most influential bodies in the country is actually quoted as speaking disparagingly of "... this tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government... " In other words, our founding fathers and other thinkers at the time of our country's beginning were all wrong in thinking that government is by consent of the people -- and by the people.

Just recently the writer Martin Amis made a telling statement: "On any longer view, man is only fitfully committed to the rational -- to thinking, seeing, learning, knowing. Believing is what he's really proud of." How apt this is!

How many politicians proudly assert that they are believers? That, yes, they have been "born again" into the realm of belief! How loudly they declaim our country is "under God"! Do we ever hear a leader say he is going to govern by "rationality"?

The letter writer says correctly that the Constitution does not prohibit a "belief in monotheism." But neither does it mention any kind of theism -- "mono" or not. He apparently cannot (or does not wish to) concede that it is a secular document, the foundation for a secular government.

Those of us who are freethinkers do not wish to deprive anyone of his or her beliefs. We simply say, please don't thrust your beliefs at us and demand that we share them -- or at least pretend that we do!
-- Abigail Ann Martin, Brandon

A walking cure for obesity

In Mary Jo Melone's July 9 column (Gates close their streets even to the school bus), she was citing the laments of parents of Hawthorne Estates gated development. The "problem" was that their children had to walk "long distances" to board the school bus. If my memory serves me correctly, just several weeks ago, we were lamenting the increasing trend of obesity in our young children. Those parents who missed those findings should know that walking is a great way to burn excess calories -- much better than complaining about a little walk to the school bus. Perhaps the parents could accompany them for security reasons and reap the health benefits of a "long distance" walk.
-- N. Nickles, Beverly Hills

A deal is a deal

Re: Fee for one call that finds lost will: $350,000, July 25.

Puh-leeze! What is all the fuss about? A man agrees to find a will for 25 percent of the recovered money. Did he do what he said he would do? Yes, he did. Should David Brite pay him that 25 percent? Yes, he should. A deal is a deal.

Brite would have none of the inheritance if it weren't for Ed Jagger and his firm. Now he has more than a million dollars -- after paying Jagger. This sounds like nothing more than pure greed on Brite's part.

And, by the way, if all it took was a simple phone call, why didn't Brite pick up the phone himself?
-- Catherine Davis, Palm Harbor

Inspiration on tap

Re: Passion on tap, July 26.

I want to thank you for publishing this article. This story about Marge Friel was very moving and inspirational to me. I am 38 years old and my "if only . . ." has always been to take tap lessons. My parents were never the encouraging kind, so as a kid, I never got the chance. I still catch a Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers movie when they're on. I just love to watch them move. I don't have the dream of being onstage, I just want to learn to tap and will probably just dance in the kitchen for my husband!

I've always felt it was too late to start lessons now that I'm older, but this article has definitely changed my mind. Marge has given me the motivation and courage to find a local tap class or even start with an instructional video. I am so amazed at her determination and will, even though she was scared to death in this competition. I'm sure she will succeed in getting what she's always wanted. I know I will. Thank you again.
-- Joanna Cristalli, St. Petersburg

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 fax to (727) 893-8675 or by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com (no attachments, please).

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