MAILBAG - Dec. 29, 2006

Informed by visits to local churches

I’ve noticed that for our small town, up to 19 houses of worship have been listed in the “Where To Worship” section of the Laguna Beach Coastline Pilot. As a non-church attendee, I was curious about what it may be that attracts people to attend church, so I invested my time these past 16 weekends attending services at 18 of the 19 houses that still met.

Do they differ? Let me count the many ways. They differed in: house size; architecture; ornamentation; congregation size; attendance; formality; receptiveness; music (very big in some); how they handled the kiddies; service leader(s); dogma; rituals; and scriptures. As for the latter, several different scriptures were used. In the 13 Christian houses alone, at least seven different versions of a bible that is professed to be inerrant and immutable were used, plus two less ancient texts.

This left me to ponder which one, if any one, is right. Or, maybe in a new or a dozen new houses of worship, there will be the right one.

In addition to the many anthropogenic differences observed, there were also seen differences in the area of spirituality.

In the more theo-centric houses, spirituality seemed to flow out and up from the faithful as evidenced by constant words spoken and sung adoring and praising the deity.

In the more humanistic houses, the spirituality seemed to flow in the opposite direction, down and into the faithful. One seemed to bolster the faith; the other, people. Which of the two creates a world worth living in remains to be seen.

Despite many earnest attempts to save me from my foolishness (and a horrible perpetual fate), I remain church unaffiliated.

Somehow faith in things natural has served me and those with whom I relate very well for many trips around the sun. But don’t accept my subjective opinion; broaden your own perspective and replicate such visits for yourself. It’s there for all (and God) to see.

You’ll find it very interesting, informative and enlightening. You might even get an insight as to how indivisible this one nation under God really is.

Reservations are not necessary, as many unoccupied pews/chairs were observed. And, oh yes, if you decide to go, take along some cash.

NIKO THERIS

Laguna Beach

Wrong slant on Harman’s position

I cannot believe the slant your article put on Sen. [Tom] Harman’s position on day labor sites.

I talked with him at length prior to his election, and he assured me he is totally against every aspect of illegal immigrants. I believe his position is similar to my own, which is that there is basically nothing wrong with day labor sites as long as they are not operated with taxpayer money and serve only legal citizens.

The Laguna Beach site does no checking at all of the workers’ legal status, and even though the Huntington Beach day labor site does a little checking, there is absolutely no valid reason why the sites cannot do a real confirmation of the legal status of the workers.

The Feds have a system for checking on Social Security numbers to match with names, etc.

The day labor site operators’ excuse that it is the employer’s job to check is nonsense, since any idiot knows that greedy employers of workers at day labor sites or street corners don’t care at all about protecting America, only about increasing their profits.

Day labor sites are employment agencies and should be subject to all the legal business requirements, taxes, permits, etc., that apply to all legitimate businesses.

If they can’t or won’t check and confirm the legal status of the workers, then they should be immediately shut down.

DAVE CONNELL

Laguna Beach

Labor sites must check documents

Should the Laguna Beach day labor site be required to verify the immigration status of workers or should employers do so?

Both the entity and the employer. It’s illegal to harbor and illegal to employ illegal immigrants.

CHRISTOPHER TOY

Laguna Beach

City should guarantee eligibility

[Regarding the Question of the Week on whether employers or day labor sites should verify workers are eligible for employment:]

Both are responsible, but since the city of Laguna Beach has been so insistent on providing the unneeded “service,” the legality of the labor being offered should be their responsibility, as should guaranteeing the quality of the work of the men and women hired by American citizens at the site.

As far as I’m concerned, taking into account the many legitimate labor providers, both private and government-sponsored, there should not be a day labor center on any of the streets of the United States of America. The concept is absurd and most definitely sends an invitation for further blindness to our immigration laws.

By the time Laguna Beach and other such cities actually “get it,” it will be too late. At a rate of 12,000 to 15,000 illegal immigrant border crossers every day, we will soon be outnumbered.

Add to those figures the reproduction rate of the intruders, factor in birthright citizenship bestowed upon them through our Constitution’s antiquated 14th Amendment, then watch the tears flow from the greedy self-serving fools who continue to allow this travesty against American sovereignty!

PENNY MAGNOTTO

Perris

Both must verify workers

Should the Laguna Beach Day Labor Center be required to verify the immigration status of workers or should employers do so? Yes.

Employers are required by federal law (Department of Homeland Security Form I-9) to do so. However, since the city has established a “front of legitimacy,” purporting that all persons available for employment from the city’s day labor site are or should be eligible for employment, in the city, state and nation, then it is in the best interests, of good faith, good business and a happy society, that the city would pre-screen employees.

Employers assume all employees at the city-run site are “legal.” Employers assume all risks, whether they realize it or not.

GERRY NANCE

Fullerton

Absurd not to verify workers’ eligibility

Should the Laguna Beach Day Labor Center be required to verify the immigration status of workers or should employers do so?

Yes. It seems absurd that this status is not already being checked since the city sanctions the site and cities should uphold the law. It is illegal to work in this country if you are in this country unlawfully. I do think that employers should use the established temporary labor agencies and not open-air labor sites as they are ripe for abuse — the worker has no protection and is at the mercy of the corrupt employers.

ROBIN HVIDSTON

Upland