After reading the Nov. 20 story on the front page of The Birmingham
News regarding the scalding and abuse of 2-year-old Victoria Monette, I
was nauseated.
I would like to commend state Department of Human Resources
Commissioner Bill Fuller's immediate response to this child, but something
is missing in this story. Fuller said it appeared that St. Clair County
DHR had properly handled Victoria's case. Fuller also said authorities
plan to be very involved in the criminal prosecution in this case.
It seems to me that all of this attention is good and necessary, but if
DHR had made the right decisions regarding Victoria's safety in the first
place, this tragic event would have never happened.
Victoria's mother lost custody of her daughter twice - first for an
unexplained broken arm and again for a broken leg. The fatal mistake was
allowing unsupervised visits with the mother in spite of the broken bones
and the fact that the mother's boyfriend was a sex offender. How stupid
can one get?
In order to save children's lives, it is imperative for DHR to make
intelligent decisions to protect the child. Punishing the predators for
the murders or abuse is too late for the child. Wake up, DHR!
Carol Phillips
Leeds
Jackson belongs in Massachusetts:
I think if Michael Jackson escapes this pedophilia rap, he should move
to Massachusetts and, in time, just marry a child and settle down.
Armond "Si" Simmons
Pell City
Pryor paves way to same-sex unions:
How can Attorney General Bill Pryor claim that Alabama will not
recognize homosexual marriage?
He has just succeeded in throwing out the basis for our marriage laws
when he refused to stand behind former Chief Justice Roy Moore to
recognize God's commandments. The Ten Commandments are the very foundation
of marriage and our marriage laws. The U.S. Supreme Court has already
ruled in favor of sodomy, so now the federal courts are wide open to rule
that homosexual marriages are to be legal. Alabama laws will give way to
these federal court decisions - if we do, as Pryor succeeded in doing,
throw out the Ten Commandments.
Betty A. Bostwick
Mountain Brook
Commandments don't need Moore:
As a Baptist for 52 years and a daily Bible reader, I believe anyone is
very childish to leave the impression we can't read the Ten Commandments
all we want to. We can read the Ten Commandments and acknowledge God until
we turn blue in the face, if we want to.
Christians should be much more concerned that a large percentage of
people don't come close to living all of God's commandments than to be
concerned about what Roy Moore does.
As a daily Bible reader, I know I don't live all of God's commandments,
which means I'm not perfect.
Cress Joiner
Talladega
Putting context in religious debate:
There has been much displeasure lately over the removal of religious
content from public displays, buildings or text. Those who object to the
removal fear the infringement of religious expression. Those who support
the removal wish for public property not to become the province of a
single religious viewpoint.
The following questions, I think, put the controversy over the removal
of religious content from public domains into important context:
1.) Before 2001, the Alabama Supreme Court had no two-ton block with
the Ten Commandments engraved on it. Was that wrong?
2.) Before 1954, the Pledge of Allegiance did not have the phrase
"under God." Was there something wrong with the original pledge?
3.) Before 1956, our national motto was not "In God we trust," but
rather "E pluribus unum," which is Latin for "Out of the many, one." Was
there something wrong with that?
4.) Neither the American flag, nor our national anthem (the first verse
of The Star-Spangled Banner), nor the U.S. Constitution mentions God. Is
that wrong?
5.) Finally, many other government objects do not mention God,
including postage stamps, public mailboxes and federal income tax forms.
There is no outcry. So why object when government properties that were
originally secular, but later acquired religious content, are asked to be
returned to their original secular conditions?
Victor Mark
Crestwood
Truth about courts eludes Scarritt:
Editor Tom Scarritt wrote in his Nov. 16 column that the federal courts
have a "right and a duty" to rule on whether the citizens of Alabama may
enjoy the fruit of their vote - that is, to elect a chief justice of their
Alabama Supreme Court who will, as he campaigned, install the Ten
Commandments in the Supreme Court building.
Scarritt is so wrong. The Founders never established a judicial tyranny
that would have unlimited jurisdiction. Our U.S. Constitution was
carefully crafted to limit federal power, leaving the states and the
people with a great deal of autonomy. The 10th Amendment is explicit on
that point.
Scarritt would have been a loyalist to King George during our war of
independence.
Bob Ekstrom
Pleasant Grove
A vitriolic attack by any other name:
I was impressed by a recent letter, but not enough to look up
"Schutzstaffel." I could do some name-calling like that letter, but
anybody who would use "Schutzstaffel" in a letter to the editor has
already said a lot more about himself than The Birmingham News would allow
anyone else to say.
I am an FDR, LBJ, JFK, HHH liberal Democrat, so I watch and listen to
what my guys say - and no one has said, "I hate Bush so vote for me." But
the nasty right, always helpful, is willing to say what it wants to hear
and give you credit.
I do not know if a thesaurus would explain why it is "spewing vitriolic
attacks" to point out the obvious failures and snafus of a man who is
doing his best to undo the ability of working-class Americans to pursue
happiness and wealth. Remember how we were promised a level playing field
and compassionate conservatism? Good intentions. But like the
manifestations of Christian love, they take a lot of work and some money,
and so will remain just good intentions.
And I know the letter writer cannot explain why a president who lost
the popular vote (by quite a bit if you count Ralph Nader's votes) should
expect bipartisan cooperation when he tries to put people on the fringes
of the right in charge of a country with a moderate soul. But a man who
calls you two-faced, incompetent and radical in the same sentence in which
he complains about your unwillingness to be bipartisan already knows
everything he needs to know.
SEARCH
.gif){kind=small}
