Enquirer Editorial: Ten Commandments
On the issue of erecting a monument of the Ten Commandments on a public school the Enquirer is correct to support the court ruling requiring their removal. They are however wrong in their contention:

There is nothing wrong with exposing children to the moral truths embodied in the Ten Commandments. Teachers are free to explain the moral underpinnings of the commandments and how they influenced the development of our laws and society, just as they free to explain the principles and historical contributions of other religions. But public schools must not show deference to one religion over another, and that is exactly what the stone markers in Adams County were meant to do.

There is something wrong with teachers trying to explain morals to children. Whose morals are you going to choose? I do not want my future children taught that the first four commandments are "moral." The remaining six are in most incarnations good rules to live by, the "Golden Rule" being a better one, and are covered to varying degrees in criminal and civil law. The problem is that how do you teach these rules? Do you teach a kid that killing is wrong, and then ignore the death penalty?

Religion should not be taught in schools beyond the scope of the cultural impact it played in various societies and nations over time. This is useful in understanding history, social studies, and other similar disciplines. One can't study European History for example without understanding the influence of the Roman Catholic Church or the various reasons for war, which often had a conflict of religions element to it. That does not mean the teacher advocates the "morals" taught by a particular religion.

This editorial is a crafty one on a PR basis. The board took the valid legal and logical position of the court ruling, but did not want to come across as "anti-Christian" that stance is perceived to have by fanatics. They therefore chose to raise the issue of a pantheistic type approach to religion in school, which is in my opinion still unconstitutional. A pantheistic approach from a Christian perspective all to often is really a monotheistic approach, where monotheistic religions are acknowledged, while polytheistic and non-religious perspectives are ignored. If not monotheistic, then an institutional religious perspective is the bias, where individual religious beliefs or other minor religions are ignored or viewed as "nutty." The nearly never ending string of possible set of religious beliefs, not to mention the lack of religious beliefs, makes teaching their principals difficult, except in specific historical contexts. Keep moral lessons in the home and/or place of worship. Let teachers stick to the secular world.

Answers for Rob Bernard About WMD
Rob had a few questions for those who are concerned about the US not finding WMD in Iraq yet. I'll leap to a conclusion this might have been a rebuttal to my questions from Thursday. I'll take a stab:

1. Would you concede that Iraq had WMD before Gulf War I?

Obviously yes.:

2. Would you concede that a large number of these weapons were unaccounted for when the inspectors left in '98?

Unaccounted based on UN inspectors, yes. Whether this was true or not, this was the paper accounting.

3. What do you suggest Iraq did with those weapons? Do you really think Iraq destroyed them and just decided not to show us just to be petulant?

These are the possibilities:

1. Iraq overstated its WMD program before 1991, therefore the 1998 accounting was overstated.


2. The accounting of WMD materials in 1998 was wrong, for reasons other than listed in #1.


3. Iraq destroyed its WMD at some point. Could have been anytime after 1998 right up to now.


4. Iraq transferred its WMD to another country or terrorist group.


5. The WMD were looted in the chaos following the fall of the Regime and could be anywhere.


6. The WMD are still hidden somewhere in Iraq.

Rob’s questions confirm the problem of revisionism that has gripped the Bush Administration and its supporters. Bush made the claim that Iraq possessed WMD. He claimed that his administration had clear and certain evidence that Iraq possessed these weapons. Possession of WMD was the tantamount threat to the USA, US interests, and US allies that was made as the basis for going to war. What is becoming more clear is that the only evidence Bush had was circumstantial, at best.

Current efforts at find WMD in Iraq support two conclusions. One is that the US did not have any firm knowledge of where the WMD were located. Also, the low priority of the search indicates that now the unguarded existence of those weapons must not be a threat, because no actual weapons currently exist. This is where the lie/exaggeration/manipulation arises. Bush used the imminent threat of WMD as the focal point for going to war. We were under a threat, and had to defend ourselves. He claimed such, but it is clear now that were we not under such a threat. We may find some WMD, and we will surely find evidence of a WMD Program. Having a program is not an imminent threat to the US. If it were we would have declared war on half a dozen other unfriendly nations. Bush could have just used bad judgment, which will be his defense. The CIA will undoubtedly be the scapegoat, but may end up being Brutus in the end. Bush may have relied on faith-based intelligence. This possible lapse in judgment is a factor and action that a President should not shirk from. He should take it beg forgiveness. He should suffer the defeat at the next election. If Bush did knowingly put forth this threat of WMD without any reliable support, then I have to wonder if anyone can say lying about the reasons for going to war is not an impeachable offense, but lying about a blowjob is. Bush still might get lucky. He might find a bunker full of chemical weapons that could have been used on the US military. If he does, then everyone, including me will have cake on their face. Short of that type of find, I will personally remain angry. I trusted that Bush would not lie about WMD. I assumed Iraq still had a significant cache left. If Bush or anyone in his administration knew before hand that this was not the case, Nixon will begin to look like a light weight.

A crime beyond words
Well, Peter found a few words to use for his column. Is this fire and brimstone week at the Church of Bronson? Peter's false leap in this column is right from the CCV's fascist in chief, Phil Burress. Peter claims pornography causes or leads to "kiddie porn." This is totally unsubstantiated, and completely false. Peter brings out this old and trite propaganda:

Porn peddlers who get filthy rich on it often get away with the myth that "it's a victimless crime."

Peter, "kiddie porn" is horrible. Those are messing with it should be locked up for a long time. Those producing it should be locked up for good. Using the victims of kiddie porn as your tools in your puritanical crusade against pornography is sickening to me. Peter, if you want to attack the scum who abuse children, I will applaud you. If you want to exploit those children's victim hood for an unrelated cause, I condemn your callousness, as well as your closed minded moralizing. If you can't find the words, Peter, I think you should refrain from writing.

Unguarded WMD?
If there are still weapons of mass destruction or the components needed for making them lying around in a bunker someone isn't that rather dangerous? Couldn't someone just walk away with them? Maybe they already have. Isn't that sort of a problem? Isn't that our worst nightmare? Could Hamas have chemical weapons as I type? Hasn't the war increased the danger of WMD? Well, not if Saddam has destroyed them, and not if they were mostly all destroyed by the inspectors in 1998 and before. But WMD are really meaningless, right??? We don't have to fear any terrorists getting hold of them now. We don't need every qualified inspector from around the world to help comb the country as fast as possible, thus preventing anyone stealing the WMD. Those are not fears we should have. We should just sit back, relax, and wait for the dividends to role in.

Imax Theater at Levee closes
Is the Newport Levee not strong enough for big attractions? Is it just a nice mall? I have yet to set foot in the place. All reports are that it is a wonderful place to go, but how much is now empty there? Will the ShadowBox Cabaret be able to survive?

Animal linked to monkeypox went to Edgewood school
If there wasn't any panic before, I bet there is now. I hope the pediatricians are willing to work overtime this weekend.

Dog Day Afternoon
A reader sends a request via email.

I am writing to you in hopes to gain more exposure in helping out a local
dog who needs a good home. She is eight years old, so the local rescue places will not consider her as a candidate; apparently in the dog world she is considered a senior! Her owner passed away last month and the owner's son and I are now taking care of her, though it's a challenge. We live in a small apartment with two cats and two kids, and the dog is not adapting well to the environment.....

A dog needs a good home. Here is another site on the pooch down on its luck. Email the current caretaker here.