Violence, theocracy & the monument
Published: Tuesday, January 8, 2013, 8:56 p.m.
Updated: Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Military veteran Dennis Lurvey's letter “Church & state are separate” (Dec. 11) regarding the Ten Commandments monument rightly cites the U.S. Supreme Court case Lemon v. Kurtzman. The monument clearly fails the “Lemon” test. Additionally, the 1980 Supreme Court case Stone v. Graham specifically ruled against the Ten Commandments being displayed at government schools.
That the New Kensington-Arnold School Board would squander taxpayer money to fight long-settled theocratic battles is a complete dereliction of its duty as a steward of taxpayer funds.
Jack Juris' letter “No anonymity in lawsuit” (Dec. 16) decries a judge allowing some of the plaintiffs in the anti-monument lawsuit to remain unnamed. Given the statements made by some of the VND's letter writers on this issue, this request by parents for anonymity is not a detriment to their children. Rather, it's a necessary precaution in a community filled with would-be theocrats with an Inquisition mindset.
Finally, Dana Risa Dinsmore's letter “Leave us alone” (Jan. 6) is reminiscent of the untamed Christianity of the Dark Ages. She writes of unleashing violence on those who oppose the monument via her “110-pound Doberman.” This threat, coupled with others who called for monument opponents to be banished from the community, reinforces that these individuals don't want religious freedom but an outright theocracy with physical harm befalling those who dare oppose them.
Amesh A. Adalja
- Judicial ‘favor’-itism?
- Faithful fan at 92
- Leave library tax alone
- Should be recognized
- Wrong on boxing
- Emulate Old Dominion
- Really dragging us down III
- Which ‘enemies’?
- Pens’ bad days
- Really dragging us down I
- Really dragging us down II
You must be signed in to add comments
To comment, click the Sign in or sign up at the very top of this page.