Turning right on red debated: Too dangerous, or time saver?

The right to not turn right on red

Re: “Right turn on red? U.S. cities discussing whether to ban it,” Nov. 5 news story

I’m glad to see a growing movement to outlaw right turns on red. While the practice seems harmless to some, there are real dangers. Dedicated right turn lanes are the worst when there is often no lane, or a very short one, to turn into so that drivers find themselves suddenly entering traffic. There are almost weekly accidents at one of these turn lanes near my home.

Another potential danger is the difficulty in gauging oncoming traffic before making a free right turn. Often I find myself hesitant to turn due to poor visibility of oncoming traffic only to have someone behind me start honking impatiently. More than once I have inadvisably made a turn in response, only to regret it. Many drivers consider that right turn their due when it is really simply an allowance predicated on safe conditions.

In a context where more drivers are prone to road rage and inconsiderate driving practices, the right turn on red is an entitlement that no longer makes sense.

Frances Rossi, Denver

Can anyone explain why making a right turn on red is more dangerous than making a right turn at a stop sign?

Ken Staroscik, Firestone

No tax dollars to religious entities

Re: “How many times must the courts instruct Colorado to respect Christians’ First Amendment rights?” Nov. 5 commentary

I am responding to Krista Kafter’s comment: “Critics complain that they must subsidize faith-based schools with their tax dollars. They are all too happy to make religious taxpayers subsidize schools that are anything but neutral on controversial topics.”

Baloney sausage. I taught 28 years in public education, 14 in rural Brush and 14 in front-range Aurora. In all that time I knew ONE teacher who crossed the line on controversial topics. She was a Christian and, after two years, thankfully realized she didn’t like teaching if she couldn’t spread the word as she saw fit.

Colorado voters turned down vouchers two times at the polls, and the state Supreme Court rejected a third, but the politicians who think they know education so much better than us went ahead with them anyway with the new preschool program.

Not one penny of my tax dollars should go to brainwashing children with religion. That’s what churches are for. You have all the freedom there you need. You want to support it, you do it.

Janis M. Houston, Thornton

What are Christians’ First Amendment rights and how are they different than non-Christians’ rights? The short answer is there should be no difference. Any business should be able to hire people who are able to support the mission of the organization and work with other employees. If there are areas where a fit is not possible, either party should be able to decline further participation.

But does it stop there? Denying services based on other factors gets muddy. For private businesses that are not open to the public, there seems to be a way to smooth that denial now (Right of Admission Reserved). But for publicly funded programs, discriminating against a child based on the circumstances of the parents seems wrong. Does a religious organization run the risk of hiding behind a pulpit while using their “Bible” to beat people into submission?

And what is that discrimination based on? A “Biblical” passage? Does it stand alone or are there other passages that would argue the other way? I find it hard to accept there are “Christian” organizations that say “Love God, Love Neighbor” and then resort to identifying the neighbors they don’t love. Just how close to persecution are we coming to?

Arthur David Hubbard, Dacono

Denying people a candidate

Re: “Is Donald Trump ineligible to be president? Depends on how you define ‘insurrection’,” Nov. 5 editorial

Sunday’s opinion page had an interesting piece on the definition of insurrection and whether or not our dear former president engaged in it. Apparently, he is accused of trying to subvert the will of the people. Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t; I don’t know and really don’t care.

On the other hand, we have three or four individuals who are actively trying to deny millions of registered voters in the state of Colorado the opportunity to vote for the candidate of their choice.

I’m not a big Donald Trump fan, but I see a far bigger threat to the democratic process from a few self-righteous, self-appointed individuals who would use the legal system to deny others the right to vote for the candidate of their choice than that posed by the candidate himself.

Neal Donaldson, Castle Rock

Zionism and the progressive movement

Re: “The left has left me behind,” Nov. 5 commentary

No, Stefanie, it is you who has left the left behind.

It doesn’t matter if one is “progressive” or Democrat or even Jewish; I am certain that the Zionist movement has had many supporters over the past 125 years who were/are none of those.

But let us be clear. You are not stating a fact with your headline contention. Many “progressives” and a majority of Democrats are not supporting ???? and your statement that “the left” looks upon Zionism as evil” is both mendacious and fatuous.

Regardless, the Zionist movement, begun in the late 1890s, is, effectively, no different than what the U.S. government did, repeatedly, in displacing a large number of Native American tribes from their ancient homelands in the deep South and East to lands foreign to them in the Far West, using the same methods of violence as Israel and its terrorists, the Irgun, Stern Gang, etc. and justifying with exaggerations and lies about them being violent savages, which of course, Hamas at least has shown to be. You have made it clear that nothing else matters much to you compared to your belief in Zionism and, yes, your ethnicity/religion.

This is the U.S., where your free speech rights should still be recognized, but no more or less than anyone else’s.

Timothy Flynn, Denver

Stefanie Clarke’s opinion piece on how many American Jews feel abandoned by the progressive left could not be more spot on! She clearly and very reasonably articulates exactly how so many Jews outside of Israel feel right now. One of my daughter’s friends, who identifies with far-left learning ideologies, was at our home last weekend repeating the same thoughtless (and inaccurate) sentiments about Israel being guilty of genocide, apartheid, and colonialization that Clarke referenced. It is worth stressing again that multiple things can be true at once! We can and do feel great pain about what innocent Palestinian civilians are going through and, at the same time, recognize that we must protect and defend Israel’s right to exist. Israel must exist, or Jews will eventually cease to exist. The anti-Zionist movement’s claim of Israeli genocide of Palestinians is exactly like Trump accusing his political opponents of being corrupt!

Matt Schreier, Littleton

Thank you, Stefanie Clarke, for your heartfelt opinion about the awful position you are in regarding the left’s stance on the Hamas attack on Israel and the latter’s need to defend itself. I sympathize with both sides of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. I deplore the Hamas attack on Israel and Hamas as an Islamic terrorist entity.

I also deplore the ultra-orthodox Israelis who continue to build settlements in the West Bank and harass and kill Palestinians who have a right to a piece of that territory and that they seem to have the blessing of the government to continue to do so.

Until the extremists on both sides give way to acknowledging and accommodating each other’s rights to exist in this ancient, tortured strip of real estate, the situation will only get worse. Compromise is the only way forward.

Jeannie Dunham, Denver

Thankful for imam, rabbi collaboration

Re: “Denver imam and rabbi make plea for peace, bridge building,” Nov. 1 commentary

Blessings and gratitude to Imam Muhammad A. Kolila and Rabbi Joseph R. Black. Your words resonate, for are not all people entitled to our own presumption of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Bob Raynolds, Longmont

Rep. Boebert? Not a fan

Re: ” ‘Either they love her or hate her’,” Nov. 5 news story

They hate her.

Waking to a front-page story that focused on our groping Rep. Lauren Boebert was hard to stomach. She’s a punk who was elected primarily because her district slept through the first election and positioned an inexperienced candidate against her in the second.

One hopes they won’t be fooled again and she can pack up her guns and reckless public behavior and become a “Where Is She Now?” character in 20 years, long after I’m gone.

Craig Marshall Smith, Highlands Ranch

Hunting with hounds isn’t hunting

Re: “Delicate balance,” Nov. 5 commentary

I am a lifelong hunter and have been fortunate to have harvested many game animals, mostly deer and elk. I found Seth Brandsetter’s attempt to defend mountain lion hunting with hounds to be absolutely ridiculous. This practice is not hunting at all — it is actually just shooting. The hounds chase the mountain lion until it climbs into a tree. Then the “hunter” shows up and shoots the mountain lion. Wow, what a challenge; such excitement! All that fieldcraft, stalking and true hunting skills employed here.

Let’s be honest, Mr. Brandsetter, this is nothing more than trophy hunting, plain and simple, and your attempt to portray this exercise as hunting is an insult to real hunters.

Furthermore, your characterization that mountain lion meat is “among the best available of Colorado’s game species” is news to me. It is well known among actual hunters that the meat from herbivore species like deer and elk is far superior and more desirable than the meat from carnivores like mountain lions.

John A. Cleveland, Littleton

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *