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
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.