Letters

I’ve considered Greg Bean’s columns as the Sentinel’s finest feature: entertaining, sensible, thought-provoking. That said, I must disagree with his position regarding the Marcus Borden situation (“Borden’s Lawsuit Grounded in the First Amendment,” Sentinel, Dec. 1).

Mr. Bean is not an expert on constitutional law or history, yet he makes judgments in both areas. And while a newspaper column is only an expression of personal beliefs and opinions, its voice is authoritative, and, in a sense, parental to readers. Therefore, on behalf of those who do not share his values and points of view, I offer this rebuttal.

Any prayer supervised by an authority figure in a nonreligious setting reflects the beliefs and/or attitude of that person. So when said authority figure kneels to pray, that in itself is an act of Christian observance. Muslims do not bend one knee to pray; Jews do not kneel to pray, nor do Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, et al. For that matter, we should include agnostics and atheists, who are also being insulted in these circumstances.

Let’s not be naive. Any young person present in the locker room who resists or objects will be singled out as being different, and, by implication, wrong by those sharing Mr. Borden’s belief. (Whether the coach participates or stands to one side is insignificant; his presence says it all.) Social pressure on any nonparticipant is considerable.

Mr. Borden, or anyone with similar authority, does not have a right, in a public-school setting, to freely exercise “his own constitutionally protected right to pray and speak to his own god,” in the company of others who may or may not share his beliefs or feelings about prayer. This isn’t a house of worship, it’s a high school locker room, which is precisely what the courts intended when they ruled that a person cannot “initiate or even participate” in some activity that compels others to do the same. In brief, he is forcing his beliefs on them.

Finally, the founding fathers of this country, which was indeed Christian in the 18th century, could not have foreseen that the constituency of our nation would be quite different in the 21st century. For current figures, simply consult any almanac’s listing of religious groups in the United States.

And please, don’t cite as definitive, defensible or admirable the “tradition of high school coaches across the nation.” Coaches shape their teams in terms of athletics, not religion. Thus, it seems to me, Mr. Bean is the one who is narrowing the interpretation of the First Amendment. And, as he wrote, interpretations can be wrong.

Louis Sabin

East Brunswick

Hats off to Milltown officer

I feel compelled to answer the letter to the editor (“Did Police Officer Display Fairness, Justice, Common Sense?”) in the Dec. 8 issue of the Sentinel from Judah Landa of East Brunswick, who whined about receiving a summons from the Milltown police for parking in a safety zone in front of Sleepy’s.

He states the huge parking lot was empty. So why was he in the safety zone? Can’t his wife walk a few feet to his car? Safety zones are there for emergency vehicles and as safe areas for customers entering and exiting the stores.

As far as his statement that he will not shop in Milltown anymore, I’ll more than make up for his loss, as I shop weekly in Acme, Target and Home Depot — not to mention Petco.

“Well done” to the issuing officer. Traffic laws were created for everyone, not just for those of us who obey the rules.

Walter Goldeski

East Brunswick

Land diversion is not a last resort, just a cheap way out

All of Middlesex County should reject the Monroe Township proposal to divert a 35-acre tract of county parkland. Monroe wants to build its high school in Thompson Park, a county-owned park that is encumbered by Green Acres.

It’s my understanding that for Green Acres requirements to be met and for this land diversion to be approved, one undisputable standard is that it cannot be done primarily for financial reasons. I don’t know how anyone could look at this as anything but a financial windfall for Monroe.

As evidence that the proposal is primarily for financial purposes, the most predominant advertisement regarding the bond issue was that it would save the taxpayers $24 million. Posters to that end were put up all over Monroe.

Even some of the “reviewed” sites that were rejected were discarded for financial reasons. Some sites were excluded because they had no water or sewer — that issue could still be overcome by spending the money to bring in the utilities. Remember, Monroe is only about 50 percent developed.

The land that is being proposed for the diversion is already preserved or is so defective as to render it not able to be developed. To merely change its name from Monroe Open Space to Thompson Park essentially adds no actual land for preservation anywhere, especially in Thompson Park.

The bond proposal with the land diversion has repeatedly been touted as a win-win situation. The only winners are the cheapskates who voted down the original bond. The kids who desperately need a new school are the losers, and they continue losing as long as this proposal is on the table.

During the Nov. 21 hearing held at Monroe Township High School, several people, including township official Joe Montanti, stated that other sites have been reviewed and rejected, making this proposal a last resort for Monroe. If that is factual, doesn’t this mean that if the proposal is turned down, as it should be, Monroe would not be able to build a high school? I think not. I think that once this boondoggle is struck down, the administration will be required to do its job and find an appropriate site for the school. This proposal is not a last resort — it’s nothing more than a cheap way out.

Proponents of the land diversion like to argue that the Monroe vote in favor of the bond was a mandate. If the proponents of this proposal are so driven by voter approval, shouldn’t there be a countywide referendum for this proposed gift to Monroe? After all, all county residents own the park. How many voters in Middlesex County who have no tax advantage in voting for a project that diminishes the usable portion of a county park would approve the project?

Robert J. McCloskey

Monroe

Re-elected officials remain committed to serving residents

We would like to express our gratitude to the residents of Monroe for re-electing us to the Township Council. It has been, and will continue to be, an honor and privilege to serve each and every one of you.

Monroe is truly a wonderful community in which to live and raise a family. As public servants, it is our responsibility to ensure the best quality of life for all of our residents. It is a responsibility we take very seriously, and we are humbled by the opportunity to continue serving the people.

As the new year approaches, we look forward to working very closely with all the members of our community. We remain fully committed to serving as advocates for the residents, the families and the children of Monroe.

We are sincerely grateful for your support and by working together with all of you, we can make Monroe an even better place to live.

Joanne Connolly

Hank Miller

Jerry Tamburro

members

Monroe Township Council

Fuzzy logic used in bid to reduce drug-free school zones

I don’t understand the rationale for introducing an Assembly bill that reduces the drug-free school zone from 1,000 feet to only 200 feet. Do you?

The reason given for the introduction of the bill is that “Almost all people convicted of violating drug laws in New Jersey school zones are minorities.” So what? If a person is guilty of selling dope, regardless of his or her ethnic or economic background, he or she is subject to the law. The fact that these people are being picked up is proof the law is working.

In my estimation, 200 feet makes it much easier for a dope dealer to reach schoolchildren. It’s only 5-7 houses away from the school boundary. I know that in New Brunswick there are soda shops that children frequent just beyond the 200-feet limit and at which they could, therefore, possibly be approached by dope dealers. I’m not familiar with other towns’ school locations with respect to distances from lunch shops and soda shops, but I bet there are many located just beyond the 200-feet area.

I think the proposed bill to reduce the school zone drug-free area is a dumb one, and I hope that people who agree will express their thoughts and write their respective Assembly members.

The present 1,000-feet zone is working and doesn’t need fixing. I don’t believe an apology or consideration is required for a minority group being picked up for dealing in dope.

Frank J. Coury

East Brunswick