Radical Islamic terrorism has hit again. More death and destruction, lives and families shattered forever. This time in Brussels, the world capital for Europe.

If ever there were a good time to be vigilant while in public, it is now. It is clear that the government of no nation can protect you 100 percent, 24/7.

If ever there were a good time to be in the moment while in public, with your head up, your smartphone in your pocket, and the earbuds or headphones put away, it is now.

If ever there were a good time for more courageous citizens to step up — like Alek Skarlatos, Spencer Stone and Anthony Sadler, the Americans who took down a terrorist on a Paris-bound train in 2015 — it is now.

If ever there were a good time for leaders of the world's most powerful nations to complement the usual talking points — "we condemn this cowardly act," "our thoughts and prayers," "we stand in solidarity" — with a meaningful anti-terror action plan, it is now.

Neil F. Anderson, Richfield

• • •

The first news on an otherwise wonderful Tuesday morning was of nilistic acts of terrorism — yet again, on this particular day in Belgium.

Let's quit our tired collaboration with whatever are the goals du jour of terrorists — probably including paralyzing fear the world over. We're guilty by collaboration — we are accomplices by providing it worldwide coverage.

This Holy Week the Christian church commemorates the death of one who completely refused — unto death — to sanction the terror by which he became victim. He forgave. We're largely incapable of such heroism. Yet while we remain in love with sensational news, perhaps we can try diminishing our unwitting contribution to the perpetuation of terrorism by treating it with the least news mention possible.

John Bipes, Mankato
VETERANS

The right care is complicated, and the VA does it well

Feeling in a good spot to respond to Al Zdon's March 22 commentary "Don't vilify the VA on treatment for PTSD," I can only echo his comment to be careful. The Minneapolis VA has done stellar work for some vets suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.

As a Vietnam veteran and recipient of VA care, I can only attest to the timely efforts there. There is no blanket cure. The care is as highly individual as it gets. The mental health clinic at the Minneapolis VA has offered credible care for those who would use it and benefit from it. Some vets are counseling-resistant — cognitive treatment is an arbitrary thing. In no way does the facility deserve to be subject to a cheap shot. VA personnel from my experience have been professional, caring, personally vested in their job performance and doing the best they can with the given resources they have.

The same is true of VA orthopedics and prosthetics, which have been leading edge in patching people up for eons. If Veteran's Resilience Project (the subject of the article to which Zdon was responding) wants to bad-mouth someone, start with Congress.

The VA fights annually for the budget it gets. The American Legion and Disabled American Veterans are forefront in helping. I am a member of both.

Douglas Johnsrud, Minnetonka
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

Article on court case informed, except in these two ways

I read with appreciation the March 22 commentary by Douglas Laycock regarding the Supreme Court case of Zubik vs. Burwell, which did a nice job of laying out this case involving religious entities' objections to providing birth control. However, I must respectfully point out two things that he got wrong.

First, in discussing religious organizations' objections to providing emergency contraception, Laycock asserts that they "plausibly" view it as "sometimes causing very early abortions." There is no "plausibly" about this view: It is just wrong. Emergency contraception works by delaying ovulation or directly inhibiting fertilization, or, more rarely, preventing implantation of a fertilized egg. This prevents pregnancy entirely, and if there is no pregnancy, there is no abortion.

Second, he incorrectly states that religious liberty is "already unpopular on the left." As a devout liberal Methodist and a progressive Democrat who values freedom of conscience, I am offended by this claim. The left in this country believes that no one has the right to impose religious views on others. The right asserts that employees should be subject to the religious whims of their employers. Now, tell me again which side opposes religious liberty?

Linnea Sommer, St. Louis Park
REAL ID

Take advantage of this effort to address another issue, too

Now that the Minnesota Senate has voted to study the impact of implementing Real ID ("Senate approves first step toward Real ID solution," March 22), it is the perfect time for lawmakers to also take up the issue of providing driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants. The Real ID act has a provision that allows states to do this as long as the license issued is clearly marked as not being for federal identification purposes.

There are almost 100,000 undocumented immigrants who have made our great state their home, and many of them drive. By issuing driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants, we will all be safer. It ensures that they know our driving laws and can demonstrate the safe operation of a vehicle, and it allows them to get car insurance. Law enforcement officers will be able to process minor traffic accidents and violations in a more timely manner so they can attend to more serious matters.

Last year, there were bipartisan bills before both the House (HF 97) and the Senate (SF 224) to allow undocumented immigrants to obtain driver's licenses, with the governor, religious leaders, business coalitions, law enforcement agencies and general public testimony showing overwhelming support for these bills. Since we need to change our driver's licensing standards to comply with Real ID anyway, now is the perfect time to make our roads safer by ensuring that all drivers can access a license.

Crystal Barrera, St. Paul
SCHOOL BUDGETS

Tax laws lead to inequity; the state must address this

Dear Gov. Mark Dayton and legislative leaders:

We need your help to change the current inequitable school tax laws. Currently, some of the lowest school tax rates are in our wealthiest communities, while some of the highest tax rates are in our higher-poverty communities that need the most support. This is inequitable and harming opportunities for some of our neediest students.

Why? Because residents in communities that lack significant commercial and industrial development to expand the tax base pay two to three times more than some of their neighboring communities just to generate the same dollars for their schools. What this means is fewer teachers, electives and opportunities for districts in communities where voters can't afford to support their schools because they would pay double or triple the taxes compared with neighboring communities.

Five of the six largest school districts in the metro and many other districts across the metro area are negatively impacted by the current inequitable school tax law. All kids deserve equity in education.

This letter was signed by the following members of the South St. Paul school board: Ann Counihan, Wendy Felton, Lauri Flatley, Kristie Hood, Chris Walker, Amy Williams and Sarah Winslow-Brewer.