I just read the letters in the Feb. 16 issue of the Cupertino Courier.

I am just astounded that some guy from Stevens Creek Elementary School could file a lawsuit against the Cupertino Union School District, and that a couple of disgruntled former school board candidates could create such a firestorm in this school district.

Is there anyone out there that has any sense left?

I think a lot of us are embarrassed to call ourselves residents of Cupertino.

Jim Carlisle

Cupertino

We should base civil law
on morality, not religion

It is stated that morality should be included in the creation of civil law. That we as a nation, need a moral foundation in order to have stability and respect for others.

I agree, as long as the moral principles have a secular foundation that all aspects of society--the religious and the nonreligious--can agree on.

Public policy shouldn't have an arbitrary, purely religious reason to it but one that deals with moral principles that do not require an appeal to God/religion.

We can all agree that a person shouldn't be murdered, raped, attacked, etc. because such things violate the very humanity that each possess, that each person is born with.

If this humanity is a product of God or evolutionary processes, it doesn't matter; the fact is that this humanity is inherent in all, a part of our very human nature.

I urge that those who take a position on an issue--be they atheists or theists, and no matter if it is about abortion, the death penalty, homosexuality--be able to logically state the reasons why they support that position, without an appeal to a deity. Appeals to God unfortunately often make for lazy thinking.

All should be able to state the reasons for their position. If a position can't be defended without a justification, then the moral position seems to lack any true/rational basis.

As a nonreligious person, I am not opposed to laws/rules that ensure a respect for others, as the Golden Rule states, a rule that is prevalent in many cultures.

To not create a public policy based on a secular justification puts men/women under the basis of a religious code that they do not believe in.

This would be as bad as forcing Christians to live under Islamic law, without a justification given why Islamic law is correct other than just saying Allah says so.

Secularism is not in opposition to religion; it is the acknowledgement that not all agree on religion or a religion, so we must agree on a common denominator for public policy that is based on reducing harm in society and furthering human happiness.

Tricia Smart

Cupertino

Increased cost of a permit
cannot be due to inflation

In response to Broderick Perkins' Feb. 23 column about the need for building permits, I would like to explain why I regret that I recently obtained one.

In 1991 I obtained a permit for two skylights that I personally installed in my house.

I valued the project at $500 and the permit cost $15.50. In January of this year, I again applied for a permit for a simple doorway that I opened between two rooms and that I valued at $200.

I figured that given the 14 years' time difference, inflation and the fact that it was a smaller project, the permit might cost $50 or maybe even as much as $100. You can imagine my shock when I was told it would cost $274--more than a 17-fold increase over the 1991 rate.

There is no conceivable way an increase like that can be attributed to inflation or the higher cost of running the building department.

I know the city is hurting for income, but $274 for a piece of paper and a couple of five-minute visits from an inspector seems a heavy burden to place on a homeowner willing to play by the rules and get a permit.

I pay enough taxes as it is without having to pay outrageous fees like that.

Peter Letchworth

Cupertino

Day laborer story was
tasteless, one-sided

I am writing in response to the Feb. 16 Courier article "Day workers are vexing problem at Home Depot" concerning the issue of day laborers in search for jobs in front of our local Cupertino Home Depot.

As Officer Bill Mason stated in the article, these day laborers "are a pretty good bunch of guys just trying to find work." I am appalled that such an article was posted in the Courier, for the text is sensational and ridiculous. It's obvious that the Cupertino Courier had nothing better to write about.

I have read better articles in our local high school newspapers. My family shops at Home Depot on a regular basis, and we have never encountered any mischievous behavior.

I find that the complaints come from people who are uncomfortable with Hispanic day laborers and those who are less fortunate than themselves.

In terms of stealing and destroying personal property, is there evidence of these incidents or is it strictly hearsay?

I find this article to be leaning toward a racist point of view.

I hope that in the future you find more interesting and constructive material to be published in our local newspaper. Articles such as these reflect poorly on our community.

Unfortunately, the Courier chose a tasteless story to publish. This article is completely one-sided, for it dismisses the real issue of the day laborers.

I am sorry to see that such a story was printed in the Courier, which we find to be a respectable local paper. I hope that in the future, your reporters will do a better job in finding credible stories.

Daniel Uribes

Cupertino