One of the things I hate about this state is the way we turn on our police at the drop of a hat. It almost seems like we are just looking for an excuse to insult, belittle, and condemn those swore to protect and serve us. These men and women routinely put their lives at risk to ensure the safety of our own, and this is the thanks we give them?

Now don’t get me wrong; I have had plenty of run-ins with the police that did not end favorably for me. I have been pulled over when I was not speeding, had parties I was attending broken up for no reason, and had more then a few policemen cop an attitude with me when I was trying to be civil.

But I am not really one to hold a grudge.

I am also not of the mindset that we, as a society, should be attacking our police at every turn.

Take, for example, the case of Devin Brown. If the name does not ring a bell, he was the 13-year-old kid who was shot and killed at the end of a police pursuit back in February when he backed the car he was driving toward LAPD officer Steve Garcia. As one would imagine, there was a huge public outcry after his death and many in the community wanted to see Garcia fired from the LAPD and criminally charged for Brown’s death.

Just last Tuesday, L.A. County District Attorney Steve Cooley announced that he would not file criminal charges against Officer Garcia largely because of the testimony by an eyewitness to the shooting. The eyewitness’s account largely supported Officer Garcia’s statements about what happened that night. Based on this evidence, and what the District Attorney’s office described as inconclusive evidence from the LAPD’s reenactment of the shooting, Mr. Cooley decided no criminal charges should be filed.

What was conclusive, according to the D.A.’s office, was that Officer Garcia was exposed and had a high risk of being hit by the vehicle driven by Devin Brown.

This does not mean that Garcia will not be disciplined by the LAPD. It only assures no criminal charges will be filed. Devin Brown’s family has already filed a wrongful-death civil suit against the LAPD despite the D.A.’s findings.

Many Los Angeles community leaders believe the District Attorney made the wrong decision. Tony Muhammad, head of the western states Nation of Islam, told the L.A. Times that Cooley’s decision would cause “more mistrust of the cops” and that LAPD Chief William Bratton “absolutely needs to fire Garcia.” Earl Hutchinson, a political commentator and South L.A. activist said that Cooley’s actions “…amounts to a tacit endorsement of police abuse, shootings and violence.”

I disagree profusely with these two men. I believe wholeheartedly that the reason people distrust the police is because of people like Tony Muhammad. People who take advantage of every chance they get to undermine the authority of our police departments and marginalize their efforts and accomplishments. People who paint the police as power hungry, abusive, and inhuman.

I am not saying there is never corruption in police departments. We all remember the LAPD Rampart scandal last year. But what I am saying is people like Tony Muhammad and Earl Hutchinson who constantly objectify and belittle the police are doing a great disservice to society.

The handful of cops who abuse the system are greatly outnumbered by good officers who live to uphold the law. But, as always, the bad eggs ruin it for everyone else. When people think of the LAPD, what comes to mind? Police brutality? Racism? Profiling? That sad truth is that all these and more are routinely brought to mind when people think about the LAPD. What usually is not is hardworking people, just like you and I, who risk their lives every day to uphold the law. People who chose to work in one of the most dangerous precincts in the country. People who have families and want the best for them. People who fear for their own lives just as you or I would.

Let me pose a question to you all: If it were around 4 am and you were on the streets of Los Angeles pursuing a fleeing vehicle that was driving erratically, and once that vehicle stopped and you got out of your car and that vehicle started backing towards you, what would you do? If you only had a split second to react, what would you do?

If it were me, I probably would have done the same thing Officer Garcia did.

I am not saying it was the right thing to do, but I am not saying it was the wrong thing to do either. It was a decision Officer Garcia had to make, and given the circumstances, I do not really see a viable alternative. It is tragic that Devin Brown was killed, but Officer Garcia was under extreme duress. We do not like to think of our police as regular people, but behind that badge, they are just like you and I. They have special training, of course, but what Officer Garcia did was a reaction.

We need to respect our police. They are an essential part of our society, but they are only as powerful as we make them. Mistakes will always be made because humans is are flawed creatures. We must do is recognize these mistakes when they happen and work to fix them. What we must not do is over dramatize the situation and start playing the blame game. That only leads to the fractionalizing and ultimate degradation of society.

Religion is a touchy subject for most people. People do not like to have their beliefs called into question, so the topic is usually avoided in polite conversation. Just bringing it up will earn you the ire of your friends, coworkers, classmates, or whomever may be within the distance of your voice. Sometimes even if a person holds the same beliefs you do, they may still be offended by the mere fact you are discussing them openly. This phenomenon is quite peculiar to me.

With nearly 170,000,000 adults in this country identifying themselves as religious in some way or another according to the 2000 census, and almost 160,000,000 of those people subscribing to some form of Christianity, it truly is curious that so many people find the topic of religion to be taboo.

Perhaps it is because religion is so sacred to so many. Maybe people fear exposing too much of themselves by discussing what they believe. Or people may just not want to shake the very foundation of their beings by calling into question their core beliefs. Whatever the reason, religion is usually off limits for debate.

That is, of course, unless the topic is separation of church and state. The mere thought of this issue produces images of the Ten Commandments adorning the lobby of a courthouse and the phrase “under God” in our pledge of allegiance.

Proponents of the separation of church and state point to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment which states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....” These 16 words have sparked the debate between the advocates and opponents of separation for the past few decades.

The debate erupted in 2000 when Michael Newdow, an avowed atheist, sued the Elk Grove Unified School District, along with the United States Congress, then President Bill Clinton, and the state of California, for forcing his daughter to listen and participate in the pledge of allegiance, which contained the phrase “under God.” Mr. Newdow claimed the inclusion of those two words constituted an endorsement of religion that, he said, violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The case went before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2002 where they ruled in favor of Mr. Newdow and removed “under God” from the pledge. However, the case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court where the court overturned the Appeals Court decision because they found that because Mr. Newdow was did not have custody of his daughter he could not file a suit on her behalf.

Consequently, another case was filed more recently in January of 2005 on behalf of three unnamed families against the use of “under God” in the pledge and a district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs citing the 2002 Appeals Court decision as precedent.

While I disagree with the notion that calling upon a non-denominational deity named “God” in the pledge of allegiance violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, I recognize that the separation of church and state is not enforced as much as it should be.

Much attention is paid to just one side of the argument, and that is that religion should not influence the operations of the state. However, what happens when the state tries to influence the operations of churches? Does that not constitute a violation of the separation of church and state?

Take, for example, the case of Michelle McCusker, a 26-year-old Catholic school teacher in New York. Ms. McCusker informed the administration of the school that she was pregnant and that she did not intend to marry the child’s father. A few days after breaking the news to school officials, Ms. McCusker was shocked to discover that she had been fired from her teaching position. According to the L.A. Times, “Officials said that she had signed a contract to uphold core teachings of the Catholic faith and that her behavior had violated that agreement.” The New York based Civil Liberties Union has filed a complaint against the archdiocese on McCusker’s behalf.

As a former Catholic school student, I know that teachers are not only there for the intellectual development of a child, but for their spiritual development as well. In that regard, I can see how the presence of an unwed, pregnant teacher could cast the teachings of the Catholic Church in doubt in the minds of some or all of the children at that school.

If this case is taken to court, who should win? Did the school discriminate against the woman because she was pregnant? Is the school justified in firing the woman because she violated the terms of her teaching agreement? Should the state even consider this case if it were to come before it?

I say no. If we are to live in a society that advocates the separation of church and state, we must respect the established laws and mandates of each. If a person signs an agreement to teach at a religious institution, whether they are a man or woman, they should be bound to the conditions of that agreement, and the state should not have a say in the matter. The NYCLU has no case. Michelle McCusker was rightfully fired.