Dear Amarillo Globe-Republican,

You certainly have your fundie undies in a knot over some "Michael Newdow wanna-be." There must be some measure of legitimacy to Thomas Van Orden's claim that the 10 Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol violates the separation of church and state, otherwise you wouldn't bother commenting on it. It is correct to point out that the monument doesn't prevent Van Orden from avoiding the practice of any religion, but there's more to the issue than that. If it is ok to display the 10 Commandments in some fashion on government property, then it should also be acceptable to put up Buddhist koans, Hindu sutras, quotes from the Koran, etc. What if a group of Texas athiests desired a monument of some kind to their (dis)beliefs? "We are a Christian nation!", the fundies would howl. If those minority groups were denied, and they probably would be, then that indeed would be a government endorsement of not just the concept of religion, but of a particular religious faith. That is the real problem here and you tried to avoid it in your carefully worded argument: "After all, if Texas has been endorsing religion for more than four decades, there should be no shortage of victims of this state-sponsored religious oppression." Some acknowledgement of religion in general isn't the problem, it is the free pass given to Christians simply because they are the majority that make the rules.

Ironically, Globe-Republican Guest Bigot Virgil Van KKKamp's recent mocking of the San Francisco school board illustrates what would happen if we did indeed try to accomodate all belief systems. It would be difficult if not impossible. Is it an all or none situation? What would a strict interpretation of the Constitution have to say about it? You needn't worry, Globe-Republican. The Supremes will undoutedly find a way to rid themselves of Van Orden without actually tackling separation of church and state just as they did with Newdow.

blogarillo