Burke Gilman trail

Safety is a real

concern for some

I am writing in response to the excellent coverage The Enterprise has given in the past few months regarding the Burke Gilman Trail. It is important that readers know the rules and regulations of the Burke Gilman. Recently, enforcement of these rules and regulations have been stepped up, because of complaints and incidents involving high speed bicyclists, ignoring signs. The Burke Gilman is a multi use trail. Despite bicyclists complaints regarding the “rhyme and reason” to the sign placement, bicyclists need to understand that they were established for the safety of all users, including those who must cross the trail from their driveways every day. With the increased bicyclists on the Burke Gilman, many users have complained of rude, belligerent, behavior as well as incidents involving property damage and serious injuries from those cyclists who decide to exceed the speed limit and ignore established signs.

There are many persons, myself included, who have reason to feel unsafe on the Burke Gilman as a pedestrian, and even bicyclist. I want to register my sincere dedication to do whatever I can to decrease unsafe conditions and behavior on the trail, so that all users can enjoy it as intended.

MARY JANE GOSS

Lake Forest Park City Council

Election

Voter apathy a disappointment

The most disappointing part about last week’s election in Shoreline wasn’t about who “won” and who “lost.” In both races, we have clear differences between the remaining candidates. The real disappointment from the election is that the true winner was apathy. This is despite “motor voter” and the convenience of absentee ballots. It’s unbelievable that 22,500 registered voters, more people than live in Kenmore, didn’t care enough to vote. That’s an astonishing 71%! Chances are, none of them is reading this letter either. This in a city that’s only 12 square miles where it’s not difficult to talk to/reach these candidates.

Why don’t people care enough to vote? I can tell you with absolute certainty that the trio of incumbents Gustafson, Grossman, and Ransom will produce different results than the challenger triumvirate of Ryu, Fimia, and Way. The former will likely continue many of the same directions and policies that exist today, while the latter will likely make many significant changes. If all three of the latter were to be elected, they would, together with Councilmember Chang, take the majority in these non-partisan-but on some issues partisan-offices. I would expect to see different policies on the Aurora Corridor project, the City Hall, and even who’s City Manager.

How can we get most people interested in the political process? Televise the candidate’s forums and have streaming video of such on the city’s television channel and website? Have a video voter’s guide like Seattle had? Have more than one “all candidates” forum in locations throughout the city? Have voting via the Internet? Yes, those would all be helpful, but I have an idea that we’d still have only a marginal impact. Having an incentive or a penalty would seem to be the solution. But it’s not viable. That people would vote against!

BRIAN DOENNEBRINK

Shoreline

Freedom of religion

Constitution makes

no exceptions

In a letter printed in the Sept. 12 edition of The Enterprise concerning the relationship between the U.S. Constitution and religion, Nick Schultz states, “The founders obviously weren’t, and couldn’t be against the Christian religion because they, and the rest of the people, were virtually all members to one degree or another.”

Why then, didn’t they say so in the Constitution? In addition to being members of mainline Protestant denominations, the framers of the Constitution were also male and white. They had no compunction about defending their dominance by restricting the franchise to males, despite Abagail Adams’ plea to her husband. After a brief but active debate, they asserted their race by continuing the horrors of African slavery.

They also could have included a statement to the effect that “The United States is a Christian nation but no particular branch will be recognized as an official state religion.” They didn’t. They recognized that, in all matters relating to government, they could not place Christianity in a protected status without placing all other religions in that same status.

Over the next 130 years, the United States amended its Constitution to end slavery and extend the vote to women. There has been no serious consideration given to amending the Constitution in order to recognize Christianity as the official religion or to provide it with any special status. That is a good thing.

By the way, I would hesitate to quote Franklin Roosevelt in any argument concerning the meaning of the Constitution. The Supreme Court found his programs unconstitutional so often, that he tried to change the composition of the Court.

FRANCIS J. LYNCH

Edmonds

The religious right ‘revises’ Constitution

Nick Schultz would have us believe that the Constitution requires separation of church and state, not religion and state. Those who disagree with his opinion are condemned as “anti-religion Marxist Constitutional revisionists.”

Mr. Schultz should go back and read the First Amendment again. It says very plainly, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” In fact, it is Mr. Schultz and his ilk who are the revisionists. They want government support of their religious beliefs, plain and simple. We see it all the time: government money doled out to religious organizations, and the posting of the Ten Commandments in public buildings.

The Constitution specifically spells out the oath of office required of the President-elect, and it does not include the phrase “so help me God.” But the Constitution doesn’t matter to George Bush, only the Bible. The Constitution does not require the hand on the Bible. It does not even require an oath. Under the Constitution, the President-elect has the choice of “I do solemnly swear” or “I do solemnly affirm.”

The religious right is obsessed with the paranoia that non-believers are second class citizens at best and traitors at worst.

FRANK STEIGER

Edmonds

The courts can’t endorse a religion

Mr. Schultz is correct in his assertion that the First Amendment protects an individual’s right to worship without fear of government meddling. He’s also right that the founders were predominantly “Christian,” although the various sects had serious questions about the validity of the other’s beliefs. Many colonists had come to the American continent to escape persecution, only to find it as popular here as in the places they had fled. Given these tensions, and the injustices that caused them, the founders tried to ensure that government didn’t favor one brand of Christianity over another.

The idea of not favoring a particular religion has evolved in the same way that the idea of equality has evolved. At the forming of our nation slave ownership was common, and women were subservient, and neither slave nor woman was allowed to vote. Today we see equality a bit more clearly. And today “religion” means more than just the various flavors of Christianity. We have largely recognized that all faiths that comprise our society are part of “we.”

Presumably what’s bothering Mr. Schultz is that a two-ton monument to Christianity was removed from a Southern courthouse. This is a good opportunity to think about the founder’s intent. To endorse one particular religion in a state courthouse is wrong and can only serve to make members of other religions uncertain about the treatment they can expect there.

R. CUPLIN

Brier