Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

In Hamline University's attempt to avoid what some students may have called religious intolerance or discrimination (and in President Fayneese Miller's overwrought follow-up statement), they wandered into territory that they definitely don't want to be exploring — taking stances on which religions and religious practices are more valuable, true or worthy of enforcement than others.

To in effect prohibit depictions of the prophet "out of respect for Muslim students" is akin to prohibiting the consumption of meat on Fridays during the season of Lent out of respect for Christian students. For one thing, not all Christians subscribe to those beliefs or practices, and by instituting such a policy they favor one flavor of Christianity (Catholicism) over others. Beliefs on depictions of the prophet differ between Sunni and Shiite adherents of Islam — by enacting such a prohibition in accordance with Sunni belief, what kind of statement is Hamline making about their Shiite counterparts?

By assuming that depictions of the prophet are sacrilegious to all Muslims, Hamline undermined the very reason the image was displayed in the first place: to show that variation and nuance exist within communities, and that treating cultures as monoliths is not reflective of reality — which is exactly the kind of liberal value you'd want to instill in your students at a self-professed liberal arts college, and one for which the professor in question was punished for attempting to teach.

Marcus Peterson, Minneapolis

Regarding William Nicholson's opinion piece ("Minn. doctors: Limit harm from legal pot") in the Jan. 10 paper: I don't recall the Minnesota Medical Association lobbying to raise the legal age for alcohol or cigarette use to 25 because brains aren't mature until then. In fact, every potential harm he mentions applies to those other recreational drugs 10 times as much, with the added bonus of death from lung cancer and drunken driving. To the extent some will divert their use of these more harmful substances to THC in the face of legalization, there may actually be harm reduction in the form of fewer deaths. I urge the MMA to rethink how to frame its position on pot legalization in a more balanced way.

Timothy R. Church, St. Paul

•••

The state of Minnesota is pursuing full legalization of adult-use cannabis with bipartisan support.

This bill severely hampers local control of local governments like Stillwater ("Who will regulate new pot industry?" Jan. 12). The bill restricts zoning and offers limited local control or oversight, though the burden of enforcement will fall heavily on Minnesota cities.

A common talking point is that cannabis is as safe (or safer) than alcohol. Then treat it that way. When a liquor store sells its product to minors, Stillwater enforces the law, and Stillwater has the responsibility to pull the license if the shop owner does not take their duty seriously. I'm concerned that the Office of Cannabis Management won't have the capacity to respond to issues as swiftly we can. Cities are excellent at licensing liquor and tobacco and are well-equipped to license cannabis.

The proposal hampers our ability to have thoughtful zoning around where cannabis can be sold. Like liquor, it's not wise to put the store very close to an elementary school. What works for one city may not work for others. Thoughtful zoning is best done by the leaders of that city.

Finally, the legislation must recognize that this will fall to local law enforcement to enforce and ensure that a portion of the revenue from cannabis go toward reimbursing local governments for that cost.

Wisdom dictates that it's important for city governments to have some degree of control over cannabis to ensure that the law is implemented in a way that is safe and beneficial for their communities.

Larry Odebrecht, Stillwater

The writer is a Stillwater City Council member.

The Star Tribune Editorial Board is correct to be concerned about political mischief around the federal government's debt ceiling during this time of media showmanship and posturing ("Debt ceiling looms as McCarthy test," editorial, Jan. 10). The existence of a debt limit, not the amount of the limit, is the true issue.

The debt limit law is redundant, and that enables the shenanigans. The government has other laws determining how much it will receive in revenue: its tax laws. Every time it passes spending legislation, it decides how much it will spend in the context of its tax revenue. If it decides to spend more than it has legislated in revenue, it has determined a debt ceiling or an addition to an already-existing debt. If it has incurred a debt, then it is legally bound to service that debt.

When the Treasury approaches the statutory debt limit, then that's when the political mischief begins; some members of Congress — or a president — threaten to prevent an increase in the limit, thereby threatening to force the Treasury to default. Yet the Treasury is required by law to raise taxes according to the tax laws and to make expenditures according to the spending laws and to pay its debts.

The solution offered by those opposed to an increase in the debt ceiling is always a reduction in spending, typically by "shutting down the government," i.e., by preventing the Treasury from paying for the programs already enacted into law such as operating the national parks or distributing Social Security checks. Never do they suggest the obvious but equivalent alternative of increasing tax revenue. Never do they announce that the Treasury ought to default. Opposition to raising the debt limit is a backhanded route to defund programs already enacted into law.

The best solution to our recurring debt crises is to repeal the century-old debt ceiling law, and I call upon the members of Congress to begin that process.

Andrew Larkin, St. Cloud

The writer is a retired economics professor.

While I am all for helping students with hunger, after a good look at the numbers involved in the article "DFL tackles second priority: free student lunch" (Jan. 12), I believe there must be a better way. Hunger Solutions states that 1 in 6 students face food insecurity, and of those, 25% live in a household that doesn't qualify for free or reduced lunch (meaning the other 75% already do). Therefore, the goal seems to be to help around 1 in 24 students, or about 4%. Why are we taxpayers supposed to feed the vast majority who do not need help? At an annual cost estimated to be $180 million, that comes out to roughly $1 million per school day. Could that money not be better focused to help the smaller number that needs it? The idea that we have a surplus and must spend it in such ways is not frugal at all.

Our family has been on both sides of lunch costs. We used to get free lunches for our three children and eventually got to the point where we pay for their meals. We do not need the lunches paid for by the government, and I believe that applies to the majority of families with students. Giving free lunches is just giving the family a handout. There was plenty of money handed out during COVID; Minnesota doesn't need to be doing more of that. Focus on the actual, smaller problem — those on the fringe — like the bill sponsor Rep. Sydney Jordan stated she wanted to do, and not just throw money around to all.

Chris Bradshaw, Columbus

It is certainly alarming that part of the roof of the University of Minnesota's Northrop auditorium collapsed Wednesday night ("Northrop closed by roof's collapse," Jan. 12), but it is also ironic that the collapse forced the cancellation of Physics Force, a program that "brings together a group of high school teachers and U professors to perform science demonstrations." Seems that the roof collapse was an excellent physics demonstration.

D.C. Smith, Minneapolis