Letters: Reject lawsuit targeting Islamic culture

Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.

Reject lawsuit targeting Islamic culture

Re: “Palo Alto school district sued over mosque field trip visit” (Page B3, Aug. 25).

The headline on Stephanie Lam’s article reads , “Why Palo Alto parents sued school district over mosque field trip.” You might expect Community Members for Religious Neutrality in Public Schools to be concerned with religious indoctrination. But look at their complaints: girls were provided with hijabs; students met other students who studied Islam; students were “exposed” to the idea that Islam was aligned with social justice; students were “exposed” to the civil rights nonprofit Council on American-Islamic Relations. It’s clear the complaint is not about the Islamic religion; it’s about Islamic culture.

The Community Members suit is not about indoctrination; it’s about islamophobia, a racist ideology that has been encouraged by both Democrats and Republicans and has been used to justify and normalize U.S. policy from the invasion of Iraq to the genocide in Gaza and the war against Iran. The Community Members’ toxic suit must be rejected.

Michael Lyon
Berkeley

State must support new shoreline park

Every generation gets only a handful of opportunities to shape what it leaves behind. For the East Bay, transforming Golden Gate Fields into public parkland is one of them.

The 162-acre property is the missing link in McLaughlin Eastshore State Park and a rare chance to ensure that one of the Bay’s last remaining stretches of waterfront belongs to the public, not private development.

The state has proposed $125 million from Proposition 4, the Climate Bond, toward its acquisition. This is exactly the kind of investment voters approved: protecting our shoreline, restoring habitat, expanding public access and preparing communities for climate change.

Once waterfront land is lost to private development, it is almost never returned to the public. We urge the governor and Legislature to keep this funding in the budget and help complete a vision that generations of East Bay residents have fought for.

Tom Bates and Loni Hancock
Berkeley

Court decision on voting by mail is clearly political

Re: “Court backs Trump order” (Page A1, Aug. 25).

In spite of courts throughout the United States concluding that fraud played no role whatsoever in the outcome of the 2020 election, the conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, with the lowest approval rating in history, 67% disapprove (even 42% of Republicans disapprove), is now buying into Donald Trump’s entirely unfounded claims of fraud.

How else to explain the court’s recent decision to allow the executive order on mail-in voting, the sole purpose of which is to prevent fraud from impacting elections, a fraud which courts have found does not exist, to move forward. Of course, the obvious real purpose of the order is to disenfranchise millions of registered, lawful voters who disapprove of the current administration, a result the court seems content to allow.

Chief Justice Roberts adamantly asserts there are no Republican or Democratic judges. This decision is yet one more that proves otherwise.

Kevin Cody
San Jose

Did Americans vote for $40T in debt?

Re: “U.S. debt reaches $40T as borrowing binge persists” (Page A1, Aug. 20).

Our country is now $40 trillion in debt. That’s $40,000,000,000,000. That has doubled from the $20 trillion range in the last 10 years (including COVID costs). Annual interest on that exceeds $1 trillion ($1,000,000,000,000). Let’s all think seriously about the hows and whys of this increased debt. Who is benefiting?

How is this $40T debt being repaid? By borrowing more? By printing money? By our taxpayer dollars? Not at all?

In the meantime, let’s not even get started on the increased cost of living that we all are facing (gas, groceries, insurance, medical, etc.).

Is this what we want? Where is it heading?

Jim Hensler
Point Richmond