Re: Defiant Ala. judge removed from court, Nov. 14.
Congratulations to the special ethics panel of the state of Alabama for removing Chief Justice Roy Moore from office. By a unanimous vote, this panel of his peers has declared that this man is not above the law and cannot use the power of his government position to promote his religious views. But even as he lost his position, Moore proclaimed that his crusade "to acknowledge God" will continue.
Moore and other such leaders energize their troops by claiming that they are victims. They paint a picture of a society hostile to religion that persecutes believers. All the facts refute this picture. Today the United States is one of the most religious nations in the world. More than 90 percent of Americans believe in God, some 170-million identify themselves as Christians and the nation boasts 350,000 congregations of every description and belief. Over 68,000 seminary students prepare for religious leadership. The airwaves are filled with religion. Tax exemptions assist most congregations and clergy. Millions in government money flow annually to faith-based organizations for good works in the community.
Where is this hostility toward religion? On the contrary, our historic tradition is to welcome all points of view. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of conscience to everyone and - to further ensure religious liberty - government power is never to be used to promote a religious point of view. It is this latter limitation that Roy Moore adamantly refuses to accept.
Moore is almost the caricature of the religious fanatic who skillfully manipulates the power of religion to deliberately create religious division, foster tumult and turn neighbor against neighbor. But for all its comic aspects, this demagogue is dangerous indeed, and a deadly challenge to the historic principle of separation of church and state which has saved our nation from religious strife and conflict. Now that his peers have removed him from office, may the voters of Alabama be wary of his continuing sinister presence.
-- The Rev. Dr. Harry B. Parrott Jr., chairman, South Pinellas Chapter, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, St. Petersburg
Justice didn't violate Constitution
Re: Defiant Ala. justice removed from court.
Though I am a Christian, I am definitely not in synch with much of the agenda of the religious right, which I often regard as a fanatical attempt to usurp democratic government and erect a theocracy. However, upon reflection, I am not convinced that the removal of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, because of his refusal to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the courthouse, is legally or constitutionally justified. Being a "card-carrying" member of the American Civil Liberties Union myself, I understand the need to protect fundamental American liberties, but I am often at odds with those who shape their interpretation of the Constitution on the basis of animus toward personal faith.
The First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I can think of nothing in this amendment that sanctions the prohibition of the use of biblical references on or near public buildings. The point, as I understand it, was to protect the rights of members of minority religious sects or denominations from the persecution that might result from an officially sanctioned national church. Also on the minds of the framers were Europe's bloody history of religious warfare and the corruption of both church and state brought about by the organic linkage of the two in most European states, including England.
The moral authority of law as articulated in the Ten Commandments of Exodus 20 has long been recognized as one of the foundations of Anglo-American legal philosophy. Posting the Decalogue in a court is nothing more than a symbolic tribute to the ideal of the rule of law and is not advancing the establishment of any particular religious institution. I can't see that Chief Justice Moore has done anything unconstitutional.
-- John Feeney, St. Petersburg
A religionist run amok
I am glad that former Alabama Justice Roy S. Moore is off the bench. The special ethics panel that dragged him kicking and screaming from his exalted position did so because Moore repeatedly defied several federal court orders to remove the 21/2-ton Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court building. The ethics panel cited Moore's refusal as defiantly placing himself above the law.
Any judge who places the Christian Bible above the foundation of civil laws on which this country was founded is suspect. How can such a person be relied on to treat people of other religions, or no religion, fairly and justly?
His slavish belief in the ordination of his position smacks of the evangelical belief that if you ain't one of them, you're going to hell, for sure.
Judge Roy S. Moore is a living example of a fundamental religionist run amok. I'm surprised President Bush has not nominated him for the U.S. Supreme Court.
-- Norman A. Peterson, Clearwater
Moore's removal is a shame
Re: Judge Roy Moore's removal.
Whatever is our country coming to! Judge Roy Moore was removed from office by an ethics committee for disobeying an order to remove the Ten Commandments monument from the courthouse.
What a shame. The Ten Commandments are simply a good set of rules to live by. At least, our founding fathers thought they were.
Let's carry this a little further. We could remove "In God We Trust" from our coinage. Let's just remove all references to God from everything. It seems as though they have been removed from our daily living anyway.
-- Mrs. Don Merritt Sr., Seminole
There's no need for raging
Re: Defiant Ala. justice removed from court.
Our founding fathers were adamant in creating a "new world" where freedom from religion was paramount. How does Alabama's chief justice, just removed, come by his remark, ". . . the battle to acknowledge God is about to rage across the country."
It seems to me that we are entitled to believe in God, any god, or no god, without having to rage about it.
-- Bea Donis, Palm Harbor
HARTline works hard to improve service
Your particularly scathing editorial Just along for the ride (Nov. 1) warrants clarification.
I'll address your willingness to pile on the "let's bash HARTline express" and, second, the misperception about why the transportation initiative failed at the hands of the County Commission.
First, HART (Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority) faces a key and major obstacle every day: We are woefully underfunded by any measure to serve the countywide need. The HART board and staff have worked diligently to improve service, provide for an efficient and effective system with these limited resources, and to position us for growth so it is ready when this county finally realizes it must have an effective and funded mass transit system. In fact, we have made essential movement toward improving service and building credibility, including:
We have focused our very limited resources on routes which can be successful, and have closely managed risk.
We have maximized state and federal grants to shore up our unfunded capital needs locally.
We have significantly improved and modernized the fleet with an aggressive new bus procurement program.
Route changes have been minimized to twice yearly to provide consistency and reliability for riders.
We have restored critical operating reserves from less than a week's reserve to a 30-day level critical to our financial stability (this is a hurricane state).
We have just completed the first major system route planning and efficiency analysis in 10 years, and will begin implementation of recommendations in fiscal '04.
Second, as one of the primary advocates of the transportation initiative I, too, was profoundly disappointed. However, it is patently unfair to lay its failure at the feet of any one agency or person. The HART board and its staff made a tremendous effort in just three days to respond to the difficult questions posed to it. Those darn details - shame on our board for wanting time to fully understand and program new monies rather than responding in a knee-jerk fashion to an oversimplified proposal. Close analysis of the ultimate failure will reflect it was actually a new and tangential issue - impact free zones - that highlighted the inability of our commission to compromise and agree on big picture initiatives, despite the yeoman's efforts by Chairman Scott.
Transportation policy by its nature is complex and expensive. Across the country, communities are struggling, as we do, with its facets and implications. Many efforts fail not once but two and three times along the way before achieving consensus and securing new funding. Those communities and initiatives that are successful resist the urge to point fingers, and resolve to pull together and live to fight another day.
-- Robert Abberger, vice chair, HART; chair, Transportation Initiative, Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce; Managing Director, Trammell Crow Co.
A disservice to the justice system
Re: The jury went out, and went too far, by Nancy Grace, Nov. 18.
Apparently Nancy Grace did not follow the Durst case or attempt to learn the facts of it. Grace, a former prosecutor and a TV "talking head," completely misses the point of the problem in this case: the prosecutor.
For some unfathomable reason, but probably political aspirations, the prosecutor chose to allow the jury to consider only one charge, murder. Without a witness to the alleged crime and with a defendant who admitted that he shot the victim, albeit in self-defense, the chance of a murder conviction was virtually nonexistent, unless the jury "went too far." While Robert Durst probably belongs in prison for a long time for something, justice was, in fact, served in this case because the prosecutor chose to overcharge the defendant and refused to allow lesser offenses such as manslaughter to be considered by the jury.
Grace's mention of the other cases in which Durst is suspect were included simply to cloud the issue. Grace's comments in attempting to cover for an inept prosecutor are a disservice to the justice system.
-- David Anhorn, attorney, St. Petersburg
Spooky news
Re: Ex-teacher could face prison for tying pupils, and Jury acquits heir who chopped up man, Nov. 12.
A prekindergarten teacher may get 30 years in prison for tying two children in their chairs, but a man can kill another man, chop his body in pieces, throw them in the river and be acquitted. It sure sounds spooky to me.
-- Cynthia Boadway, 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.
