Applauding MARTA route for expansion
Thank you MARTA for agreeing to honor the original planned route for an extension north, along Georgia 400 (“MARTA maps route extension to Alpharetta,” News, March 6). The east side alternate route recently proposed by MARTA was resisted for two reasons: it would destroy east-side schools and neighborhoods. it did not follow the original plan to cross Georgia 400 from the North Springs station as evidenced by the elevated platform — elevated for transition across the highway once the expansion is started.
SHARON HOBBY, SANDY SPRINGS
History shows RFRA protects us all
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is causing considerable angst as evidenced by Michael Bowers’ op-ed (“Our License To Discriminate Bills,” Opinion, March 6). He claims RFRA would create a religious exception “putting hoods back on the Klu Klux Klan.” Focusing on the word “restore” should allay Mr. Bowers’ fears. Until 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court had applied a “ compelling state interest” test to determine if a law improperly infringed on the free exercise of religion. In 1990, the court lessened the standard holding that neutrally and generally applicable laws can be applied to suppress religious practices. In 1993, a bipartisan Congress overwhelmingly restored the historical compelling state interest test with RFRA. In 1997, the court held RFRA did not apply to state law. States now seek to restore the compelling state interest test to protect religious liberty for its citizens. RFRA does not dictate specific results; it restores and codifies the standard of review in all free exercise of religion cases. The hoods are not going back on because of RFRA. Strong protection of religious liberty protects us all, not just one special interest group.
JACK N. SIBLEY, ATLANTA, PARTNER, HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP
Netanyahu’s damage has been done
Watching the head of state of a foreign nation attack a sitting President at a joint session of Congress was not just precedent-setting—it has never happened before in American history — it was appalling. And dangerously short-sighted. Americans now must choose between Israel and our president. Does Israel want that kind of open debate? No telling what might come bubbling up. It should not come as a surprise if some Americans side with our president; after all, he did win twice, and by a margin of millions. Even if Netanyahu is right, permanent damage has been done. But is Netanyahu right? Thirteen years ago the man warned about the end of the world if we didn’t invade Iraq. And we know how that worked out.
GENE GRIESSMAN, ATLANTA
