Need LGBTQ education, not censorship
Bravo on the Jan. 1 Herald-Tribune editorial, “It’s Time to End Harmful Anti-LGBTQ Rhetoric.”
Opinion:End anti-LGBTQ rhetoric across Florida
Florida is walking dangerously close to the Dark Ages when it comes to LGBTQ propaganda. People fear what they don’t understand. So, we need more education, not censorship.
Governor Ron DeSantis abuses the power of Florida’s governorship in several areas in which he is inexperienced and/or ignorant. Let teachers teach. Let doctors, doctor. Let parents of each category do what they believe is in the best interest of their children.
More:How to send a letter to the editor
Resist fear-mongering about things that are not yet well understood.Karle Murdock, Sarasota
Acceptance, not encouragement
Opinion editor Roger Brown, in his Jan. 1 editorial, exhorts us to end “anti-LGBTQ” rhetoric while detailing, among other things, Gov. Ron DeSantis’ drag queen investigations (“It’s time to end harmful anti-LGBTQ rhetoric “). .
I believe Brown misses the difference between “acceptance” and “encouragement.” This fine line of demarcation is at the heart of many criticisms of the “LGBTQ movement.”
Perhaps more specifically, the concern relates to encouraging youth to accept their “sexual orientation” at an extremely vulnerable and confusing time in their personal development.
One does not necessarily harbor ill feelings towards the community, as it is self-described as being concerned about the direction of certain individuals, society in general and school systems in particular, to encourage our students to ‘ to move in a direction of gender selection. at a time in their lives when they are least able to make lifelong decisions.
This extends to the point where even identifying someone by gender is considered an “attack”.
Thus, much of the evil is the product of a perception that acceptance is not sufficient, and encouragement, even at a young age, is the only acceptable path.
Lee Hoffman, Lakewood Ranch
Sarasota faces public art dilemma
The new roundabout at US 41 and Gulfstream Avenue needs a major sculpture in the middle. The John Henry “Complexus” sculpture, now on the Sarasota Art Museum lawn at the old high school, needs to come back.
More:Unconditional surrender and complexus to move
Sarasota has a reputation as an arts and cultural hub — but it now faces a public art dilemma. Funds for sculpture come from construction budgets. With new construction, the Public Art Committee has funds for art.
But where will it end? How many new buildings can developers build? Will public space disappear? Will the personality of the town change?
In addition, funds from the Public Art Committee must be increased. We used to spend $150,000 for sculpture; now we’re at $175,000 – which is still less than what important, world-class sculpture can cost.
For example, the Boaz Vaadia sculpture at Ringling Boulevard and Gulf Street cost $200,000 a few years ago, and substantial works can cost $250,000 or more.
Sarasota must keep up with universal standards. To attract the tourists and residents we seek, Sarasota must offer a product worthy of our reputation.
We want people to come for the art as well as the beaches.
If developers want to continue building, they need to produce the funds for art. Otherwise, what do we get for all those extra apartments and hotel rooms?
Jeffrey Weisman, Sarasota
Weisman served as chair and vice chair of the Public Art Committee during both of his three-year terms.
Americans born with the right to self-defense
Guest columnist Richard Alba mistakenly cited Justice Antonin Scalia, in District of Columbia v. Heller, credited with establishing “for the first time an individual right to gun ownership” (“Our conservative Supreme Court rulings on guns harm survivors,” Dec. 28).
The right of self-defense (with weapons, how else) needs no permission from the Supreme Court or the Second Amendment. In Heller, Justice Scalia affirmed that it is a “pre-existing, inherent” right that we acquire just by being born.
The federal courts, including the Supreme Court, tell us that the local police—government— have no legal obligation to us as individuals to protect us from harm by others. If no one must protect us from personal threat, why should the government have a veto on how we protect ourselves by any means necessary?
Justice Scalia recognized that the right to protect ourselves included confronting government tyranny, and the Second Amendment recognized that it would require citizens to bear arms in a militia; for that a single shot musket or even a multishot Glock will not do.
Germany, Cuba and Venezuela disarmed their citizens before taking away their freedom. The English tried and failed to disarm the colonists, who then won their freedom.
The second amendment doesn’t want us to put our lives or our liberty at risk. Neither should we.
John A. Lanzetta, Sarasota
