Crosses at Camp Pendleton; challenges in Ohio for Obama; wolves back in California

Cross to bear?

Re “Dispute spotlights fallen Marines,” Jan. 3

In one of his last of many comments on the relationship between church and state, James Madison, principal author of the 1st Amendment, wrote, “It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points.”

It is my hope that the present dispute over the cross at Camp Pendleton will be recognized as one of those “unessential points,” and that the state will not interfere with the efforts of Marines to honor their comrades as they see fit.

Nick McNaughton

Los Angeles

Your article implies that removing a cross from government ground dishonors the memory of courageous, dedicated, patriotic warriors. Nothing could be further from the truth.

These men deserve all the honors their friends, family and fellow Marines choose to bestow, but Marines of other faiths or no faith at all also serve at Camp Pendleton. Heroes who share other beliefs or none at all have fallen in Iraq and Afghanistan. A religious symbol for them is inappropriate.

The idea that crosses carry no religious meaning if “only” seen from Camp Pendleton is ridiculous, not to mention demeaning to the beliefs of other

Marines.

Honor the fallen heroes by mounting their pictures or their names. Better yet, honor them with the globe, eagle and anchor symbol of the Marine Corps.

Mike Farrell

Studio City

After seeing a picture in The Times in November of the $80,000 “church” for pagans built at the U.S. Air Force Academy, you have to wonder why no protest was made against that as an issue of separation of state and church. But erecting a cross in memory of fallen Marines in a secluded area at no taxpayer expense draws a backlash?

When you see a cross along a road on state property, do you not reflect on the likelihood that someone lost a loved one at this site instead of it possibly violating the separation of church and state?

Lawrence Nowak

Torrance

Obama’s efforts aren’t rewarded

Re “Ohio’s working class reflects a challenge confronting Obama,” Jan. 3

How does this country stand a chance when a large portion of the electorate can believe things like the falsehood that President Obama is responsible for the bailouts? Or that they don’t like taxes even though they are paying historically low rates, and they don’t make the connection between deficits and low taxes?

Obama is not responsible for the wars that fueled much of the deficit, but he is still getting the blame. The actions he has taken to help solve our problems have been thwarted by Congress, where the Republicans’ agenda is to make Obama a one-term president, the needs of the American people be damned.

So some voters think the solution in to put back in office the same party that got us in this hole? Where are they getting these brilliant ideas?

Sonny Shear

Glendale

In 2008, Obama lost white working-class voters in Ohio by 10 percentage points. The axiom that voters vote their values was certainly in play then.

Despite the Republican blitzkrieg on the middle class and unions, far too many of them still hold on to the same beliefs.

Melissa Verdugo

Rancho Palos Verdes

Thomas doubter

Re “The recusal question,” Editorial, Jan. 3

In discussing rules on recusal, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said that his fellow Supreme Court justices are “jurists of exceptional integrity and experience.... I know that they each give careful consideration to any recusal questions that arise in the course of their judicial duties.”

Justice Clarence Thomas neglected to disclose the hundreds of thousands of dollars his wife was paid by a far-right organization.

Roberts doesn’t think Congress should dictate ethics rules for the Supreme Court. I’ve got news for Roberts: The United States is a democracy, not a monarchy.

Steven Asimow

Glendale

Have some class

Re “Small legal cases can pay big,” Jan. 2

In focusing on a handful of class-action cases decreed to be petty, the article failed to tell the more important story of how class actions have benefited our nation. Cases construed as frivolous are the exception.

Class actions have been at the forefront of positive change since the days of racial desegregation. Last year, a team of lawyers in Northern California used a class-action lawsuit to successfully confront a major nursing home chain that was undercutting legal staffing levels. That case prompted nursing homes nationwide to re-

examine their obligation to our seniors.

Oil and insurance companies may rue a system that allows citizens to collectively challenge them, but America would not be the great nation it is today without the stalwart plaintiffs and lawyers who fight for what is right.

Niall McCarthy

Burlingame

The writer is president of Consumer Attorneys of California.

Welcome, wolves

Re “The wolf at the door,” Editorial, Jan. 2

California needs to right an environmental injustice — the extirpation of wolves and grizzly bears — and allow one of these magnificent species (the wolf) to come back, since it is unlikely we will ever see the grizzly bear here again.

True, the human population has increased significantly, but mostly people live in Southern California and the Bay Area. It is doubtful wolves will venture there. More likely the wolf will return to the uninhabited or lightly populated areas of far Northern California.

Californians coexist with mountain lions, bobcats, coyotes and black bears; it is time to welcome the glorious wolf home.

Amy Wolfberg

Los Angeles

Little reform

Re “ ‘Super PACs’ show power,” Jan. 1

The article repeats the claim that recent increases in campaign spending threaten to “reverse more than a century of efforts to curb the influence of big money on politics.”

Even if that were true, what have we gotten in exchange for our century-long experiment with campaign finance “reform”? More special-interest legislation, record-setting federal budgets and record low congressional approval ratings.

“Reform” has failed because it treats a symptom (“too much” money in politics) without treating the disease (too much power in government). After 100 years, it’s time to abandon the dangerous belief that campaign finance regulations will permit us to have a government of unlimited power with no corruption.

The only way to truly reduce influence-seeking is to restore principled constitutional limits on government power — the original good government reform, and the only one proved to work.

Paul Sherman

Arlington, Va.

The author is an attorney at the Institute for Justice, which litigates campaign finance cases nationwide.

Part of parade

Re “Another postcard Rose Parade,” Jan. 3

I heard a Rose Parade spectator say that the Occupy march should not have been permitted at an event about families. This movement is in fact all about families.

I helped carry a sign about healthcare for all. I was between a pediatrician and an emergency room doctor. There were also families, teachers, nurses, students, peace officers, people of means and those without. We were of all ages and ethnicities.

We were primarily people without fear of being labeled “fringe” because we know we are representing the hopes and future of our country.

Tilda De Wolfe

Monterey Park