In his May 7 column, Richard Davis sets up a scene in which he wishes to address the local city council. Before he can speak, however, he claims, "I have to agree to participate in a Buddhist ritual or perhaps a Muslim prayer " Here is a classic example of misrepresenting a position you wish to attack. The Supreme Court said nothing to suggest one had to agree to participate. If I were the citizen I probably would have been only an interested observer. Davis, having stated erroneously the decision, goes on to argue against it. Note that he doesn't say "in my opinion the Court erred." He makes an ex-cathedra style statement (they did err), which would imply that he is wiser than, and therefore entitled to correct the ruling of, our highest court.
John A. Davison
- Jay Evensen: On Second Thought: The 1 percent...
- My view: hippies, 2 Hell's Angels, one...
- Radon, the unrecognized killer
- H. David Burton: Calling on local leaders to...
- Is it time for our first woman president?
- Drew Clark: Why Utah's thriving technology...
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Iowa caucus...
- Government works best when it's not on autopilot
- My view: Get insurance out of health care 51
- Is it time for our first woman president? 41
- Dan Liljenquist: What we learned from... 20
- Letter: Hillary and FOIA 18
- Letter: No labels in 2016? 17
- Letter: Leave public land alone 14
- Arthur Cyr: US presidential politics... 13
- In our opinion: The lesson of... 13