alt.education

Brian E. Clark wrote:
> In article <9e1nu3hrk01cdulmrfcvv8fja3478c1m8g@
> 4ax.com>, buckeye said...
>
>> Last Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of
>> Van Orden v. Perry. The plaintiff in the case is Thomas Van Orden, a
>> down and out lawyer who has time on his hands. The defendant is Rick
>> Perry, the very busy governor of Texas.
>
> [snip]
>
> Gee, given his characterizations of the people
> involved, I wonder whose side the author will take?
>
> It would be far more accurate to speak not of the
> "busy" governor of Texas but of the "lying" governor
> of Texas. (For that matter, in regards to the author
> of the article we should say the "lying Mister
> Thorne".) Both are, with full awareness of their
> duplicity, perpetuating the idea that support for the
> Ten Commandments display is not a religiously
> motivated action, designed not to honor the history of
> jurisprudence but to further entangle church and
> state.
>
> Again and again I find myself asking: why are the most
> shameless, perennial liars in this country the same
> people who claim a direct and exclusive connection to
> God? What is it about right-wing Christianity that so
> corrupts a person?
>

It's stunning how far politicos will go to shield religious display from
criticism.

Last December, I wrote a State Senator in Texas complaining about a
menorah display on Capitol grounds.

He replied that, although courts have found the menorah to be a
religious symbol, they found that it has meaning beyond religion - i.e.
the ten commandments were a foundation for our laws although they're
specifically religious. The menorah, therefore, in the courts' views is
acceptable for display on public property.

Absolutely sickening!

RCL