Letters to the Editors

Court's ruling on school prayer is ridiculous

© St. Petersburg Times, published June 23, 2000

Re: Prayers given by students silenced, June 20.

Pretty soon, kids won't be able to say, "God bless you," when someone sneezes in class. The Supreme Court ruling that students cannot lead prayers in schools is ridiculous. The court insists that the Constitution demands separation of church and state. For heaven's sake, does the court really believe this praying is an insidious attempt by religion to take over our schools? Oh, please.

The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . ."

Objection, your honor. I don't see the relevance. All these kids wanted to do was pray and then play. The prosecution needs to lighten up.

It seems to me the Supreme Court justices are getting too regal for their robes. My God, sometimes they act as if they're Aristotelian philosophers in ancient Greece. This is a bunch of barristers, mere mortal lawyers, appointed by the president, who have had the "final say" on everything in our lives from possessing guns, aborting pregnancies, executing convicts and, now, praying in school. That frightens the daylights out of me.

Sometimes I wonder why we are trying to decide between Al Gore and George W. Bush for president. I fantasize we should elect the Supreme Court, and the justices could appoint the president! Think about it: Gore and Bush can promise us the moon, but more than 500 people in Congress will ultimately deliver or fail to deliver on that promise. Yet, if only five of nine justices say we cannot pray aloud in school, we can't. Court adjourned. Next case.
Jack Bray, Dunedin

Where is the sense in this ruling?

Re: Prayers given by students silenced.

Is there no end to the Supreme Court's rulings? We all know and realize that the justices have the power to do what they deem right, but what does that do to our freedom of speech? The folks in the locker rooms are allowed to pray and thank God for their health and ask him to be there in their upcoming game. But students can't thank God in front of the whole school for what he's done and ask for his continued help during whatever program they are participating in at the time. Where's the sensible reasoning in that? If it's good for a few, wouldn't the multitudes also benefit?

I think I'd prefer not to be one of those on the court who ruled against prayers for the main student body. I guess they have not read in the Bible where it states that if we fail to acknowledge God in this life, he will surely deny us when this earthly life is over.

It's amazing how many people cannot see "the writing on the wall," even when it hits them in the face every day in our newspapers. If they remember just a few years back, we never heard of children killing other children or children taking parents to court or parents disowning their own children. Also, in those years, God and church and daily prayer were a constant and sustaining part of our daily lives. Today, God is an outsider, and yet not one person in this world would be here if God had chosen for that person not to be born. So how can we, as part of his creation, deny that he exists and that we owe our very existence to him?

We can say thank you out loud to the friend or school principal or a teacher in front of hundreds of people, but we can't thank God out loud in front of that same audience.

Unbelievable.
-- Fran Glaros, Clearwater

Student-led prayers are inappropriate

Although I am of a conservative leaning -- or maybe because of it -- I must say I was delighted with the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision banning student-led prayer before high school football games in Texas. Those in the "righteous right" seem to forget that they are jamming their religious beliefs down other people's throats (something abhorrent to true conservatives). And, I'm sure that they'd shout bloody murder if a Muslim or Buddhist student were to lead the prayer.

There is just one thing that perplexes me. Why didn't the Supreme Court also ban the football games? Having lived in Texas several years ago, I can tell you from personal experience that high school football there is a religion in its own right.
-- Milt Johnston, Tampa

Move away from Indian stereotyping

Re: School mascots draw scrutiny, June 14.

The Pinellas County School Board has decided to study the idea of changing the school mascots that refer to Indian stereotypes. I applaud the board members for taking this small step.

Currently no other ethnic group is so stereotyped. Many people assume that they "honor" Indians by using a caricature, the "chop," a "war yell" and even continuing to use the word squaw (a derogatory term for female private parts) in our children's textbooks.

If people still cannot understand, can you imagine ever seeing a African-American caricature used as a school or major-league mascot? It would not be allowed. Yet people still defend keeping these mascots "in the name of tradition"! Just read the history books your child brings home and educate yourself on the inaccuracies regarding Indians. Ignorance exists everywhere for many cultures, but now that the School Board has taken this small step, let it be the begining of our true education.
-- Connie Going, St. Petersburg

More important battles to fight

Re: School mascots draw scrutiny.

Born in Oklahoma's Cherokee Strip of a Floridian mother and an Oklahoman father, I have been acutely aware of and involved in Native American issues all my life.

I have been to fall powwows hosted by the Seminole Tribe of Florida where a television was set up near the dance circle so that Seminole participants could monitor Florida State University's progress in the ongoing football game. Shouts of "We got a touchdown!" or "We're ahead!" always bring whoops of joy. According to them, FSU is their team, and they are proud to have the university bear their name. So who has a problem with it? The Oklahoma Seminoles, I'm told.

Betty Mae Jumper, director of communications for the Seminole Tribe of Florida, was in attendance at a writers' conference held at Eckerd College a few years ago. I asked her whether, in her opinion, Native American support groups should be expending energy and scant resources trying to change school mascots. She said no. I then asked where she thought we should direct our efforts. She said, "Save the Everglades!"

That's very difficult. It's much easier to squabble about mascots and delude yourselves that you're doing something important when, in fact, you are not.

The high alcoholism and suicide rates among Indians are caused not by trivia such as mascots but by gargantuan factors: by loss of country, sovereignty, livelihood, culture, language, religion, social structure; by lack of a hope-filled future; by federal government support of corrupt tribal leaders; by forced confinement to scraps of environmentally bankrupt land on which the white culture dumps its toxic waste. These factors are not mitigated by the passing of time, only by indigenous people's diligent efforts to restore what was lost.

Work on those factors; change them if you can!
-- Llyn French, St. Petersburg

Some smokers had no warnings

Re: Smokers don't deserve rewards, letter, June 15.

After reading this letter about smoking, I must agree with the writer, but only with 50 percent of what he believes.

What he did not think about was that smoking was the thing to do for many, many years -- before warnings were finally printed on the packs. By that time, people had the habit. We were also given free cigarettes in the military service. Thank God, I gave mine away.

Unfortunately, my wife started to smoke at age 16, before warnings were given 36 years later -- much too late. For this fraud, the government should sue. For those who had the warnings, it's their own fault.

People in my wife's situation should be well compensated. She has extremely bad emphysema. On June 10 I had to take her to the emergency room because she was not breathing. By the grace of God and excellent care, she is now off the critical list but will still have to be on oxygen.
-- Joseph Abramowitz, Dunnellon

Park would be good for dogs and people

On May 24, members of the Davis Islands Civic Association's board of directors voted among themselves to recommend to the Tampa City Council that the association is officially against a dog park on Davis Islands -- even though their "Park Preference Survey" wasn't scheduled to be due until June 1.

On June 13, they released the results of their survey, which they had mailed to every resident on Davis Islands, the results of which show that 73 percent of Davis Islands residents are in support of a designated fenced area for dogs on Davis Islands.

What gives?

I ask the members of the board of directors of the Davis Islands Civic Association who continue to oppose a dog park: "Do you really have at heart the interests of the residents who have elected you to represent them? Or are you simply using your positions on the board to vote for what will benefit your own personal interests?"

Through the association's very own survey, the residents of Davis Islands have spoken. After all, we do live in a democracy don't we?

We thank the members of the board of directors who have remained open-minded about the prospect of an off-leash recreation area, and we respectfully ask the rest of the board to please open your hearts and minds and recognize that a dog park will be a wonderful addition to the area for all of its residents. It is not only good for the dogs, it's good for the people. And the people say, "Yes."
-- Steven Ross, Friends of Davis Islands' Dogs, Tampa

Tree's treatment is telling

Re: Stunned neighbors see massive oak trimmed, June 16.

The wanton emasculation of the historic oak tree on Chapin Avenue should bring sadness to all Tampa residents. The disfigurement of this specimen tree, so important to the heritage, beauty and history of a whole neighborhood, speaks volumes about how slowly we are progressing in our appreciation of nature and the things that really give a community its vibrancy and spirit.

How can we call it progress as we grow more and more callous in regard to these types of issues? As citizens, we must continue to let our elected officials know that we expect them to do a better job in protecting our environment, which includes historical sites and products of nature. The protection of the quality of life for all Tampa residents should supersede the growth-at-any-cost philosophy that seems to permeate our political structure.
-- Paul W. Clark, Tampa

But will they have a home?

Re Tampa council vote can't spare old oak tree, June 16.

After having most of their oak tree destroyed, it looks as though Gary and Molly Smith can now build their dream house.

However, I doubt that they'll have one of the things that makes a house a home: good relations with their neighbors.
-- Rebecca Connelly, 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 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.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length.

© St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved.