•••
I need some clarification. Did the Supreme Court conservative majority just decide that any government official, including themselves, cannot take a bribe in hand before awarding a contract or a ruling but that it’s perfectly fine to take one after the contract or ruling has occurred? (”Part of anti-corruption law struck down,” June 27.) Does this mean a Supreme Court justice can decide in favor of someone who comes before him and, once accomplished, it’s OK to be rewarded with luxury gifts? Does this mean the Supreme Court, or my mayor, or my state representative, or my senator, can reward their friends as long as it’s a kickback, which is somehow different from a bribe? This appears to be the case, according to the Supreme Court’s minority vote against this ruling. But I just can’t believe that I’m reading it right.
I need further clarification. If this is truly the case, how did this story end up on page 6 and not on page 1?
Mary Alice Divine, White Bear Lake
RELIGION IN SCHOOLS
Substitution is no solution
A writer on June 23 weighs in on Louisiana’s decision to post the Ten Commandments in public schools while missing the point and asserting dangerous subtext. He suggests the Old Testament commandments are obsolete. According to his “fundamentalist” preacher father, the new law is simply “to love.” Substituting the language of one religious tradition for another, however, is no American solution. Besides, we can all list how a fundamentalist Christian might qualify who gets “love” and in what ways. The real issue is the state establishing any religion. No preacher, especially a fundamentalist one, should be writing on school walls. Leave schools to civic and inclusive values like equity, justice and community.
The writer then adds — whether intentionally or without awareness — something that smears the Jewish religion without directly naming it. Characterizing the religion as being “from the Bronze Age” and “rooted” in animal sacrifice, the subtext is clear: Judaism is barbaric. This is unfair and untrue. Is animal sacrifice more barbaric and obsolete than the human sacrifice he mentions, central to the Christian faith? Here’s how barbaric the New Testament story can sound: A virgin woman is chosen and then impregnated by an invisible mystery man. Her son ends up betrayed, tortured and sacrificed in a gruesome civic execution that he, too, didn’t choose. His body is then ritually, and literally in some Christian sects, eaten and his blood drunk. Ultimately, these good people are rewarded and people not following the new “law” are condemned to terrible and eternal torture. Sounds barbaric, doesn’t it? Any subtext is intended.
Thomas Carlson, Minneapolis